Detección no sospechada de catinonas y piperacinas en pacientes consumidores de metanfetamina y anfetamina atendidos en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios

• Isabel Gomila Muñiz ^[4] ; Elena Lendoiro ^[1] ; Ana de-Castro-Ríos ^[1] ; Miguel Ángel Elorza Guerrero ^[4] ; Jordi Puiguriguer Ferrando ^[4] ; Laura Sahuquillo Frias ^[2] ; Pilar Sanchís Cortés ^[3] ; Bernardino Barceló Martín ^[4]
  1. [1] Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

     Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

     Santiago de Compostela, España

     
  2. [2] Hospital Can Misses

     Hospital Can Misses

     Ibiza, España

     
  3. [3] Universitat de les Illes Balears

     Universitat de les Illes Balears

     Palma de Mallorca, España

     
  4. [4] Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de las Islas Baleares (IdISBa)

  Mostrar afiliaciones +
• Localización: Emergencias: Revista de la Sociedad Española de Medicina de Urgencias y Emergencias, ISSN 1137-6821, Vol. 34, Nº. 3 (Junio), 2022, págs. 174-180
• Idioma: español
• Títulos paralelos:
  • Detection of unsuspected cathinone and piperazine-type drugs in urine samples positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine collected in emergency departments
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen
  • español

    Objetivos. Determinar la incidencia de catinonas y piperazinas, no sospechadas y/o declaradas en consumidores de metanfetamina (MANF) y anfetamina (ANF) atendidos en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) y comparar los perfiles clínicos y toxicológicos.

    Método. Estudio retrospectivo de pacientes con intoxicación aguda por drogas recreativas con MANF y ANF confirmadas analíticamente atendidos en 3 SUH entre marzo de 2019 y diciembre de 2020. Se detectaron por HPLC-MS/MS las catinonas [metilona, fluorometcatinona, mecedrona, fluorometanfetamina, mefedrona, metilen-dioxipirovalerona (MDPV)] y las piperazinas sintéticas [meta-clorofenilpiperazina (mCPP), trifluorometilfenilpiperazina (TFMPP)].

    Resultados. Se incluyeron 39 pacientes: 24 (61,5%) en el grupo MANF y 15 (38,5%) en el ANF. En 11 (28,2%), se detectaron catinonas sintéticas (grupo CAT), 10 en el grupo MANF (8 mefedrona, 2 metilona) y 1 en el grupo ANF (1 mefedrona) (90,9% vs 9,1%; p = 0,028). Ninguno de los pacientes declaró consumo de catinonas. El número de drogas implicadas en la intoxicación fue superior en el grupo CAT (3,5 [1,13] vs 2,5 [1,40]; p = 0,036). El perfil clínico del grupo CAT fue: varón (90,9%), consumidor de MANF (90,9%) y usuario de chemsex (45,5%). El diagnóstico de VIH se asoció significativamente al grupo CAT (45,5% vs 10,7%; p = 0,028). Los pacientes del grupo CAT presentaron mayor ansiedad (72,7% vs 21,4%; p = 0,007). No se hallaron diferencias en su manejo clínico.

    Conclusiones. La detección de MANF debería considerarse un dato de sospecha de consumo de catinonas sintéticas, y en esos casos debería contemplarse la detección de nuevas sustancias psicoactivas de abuso.

  • English

    Objectives. To detect the presence of unsuspected and/or undeclared cathinone and piperazine-type designer drugs in methamphetamine (METH) and amphetamine users treated in emergency departments, and to compare clinical and toxicologic profiles.

    Method. Retrospective observational study of emergency department patients treated for confirmed acute intoxication by recreational drugs (METH and amphetamines) between March 2019 and December 2020. We ordered high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry to detect cathinones (methylone, fluoromethcathinone, mexedrone, fluoromethamphetamine, mephedrone, methylenedioxypyrovalerone) and synthetic piperazines (meta-chlorophenylpiperazine and trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine). Demographic, clinical, and toxicologic variables were analyzed with SPSS software (version 23).

    Results. Thirty-nine patients were included: 24 (61.5%) had used METH and 15 (38.5%) an amphetamine. Synthetic cathinones were detected in samples from 11 patients (28.2%), 10 (90.9%) in the METH group and 1 (9.1%) in the amphetamine group ( P = .028). The METH users had taken mephedrone (8 patients) or methylone (2 patients); the amphetamine user had taken mephedrone. None of the patients had declared use of a cathinone; nor was use suspected. The mean (SD) number of substances involved was higher among users of cathinones (3.5 [1.13] vs 2.5 [1.40] in those who took no cathinones; P = .036). Among the cathinone users, 90.9% were men, 90.9% had used METH, and 45.5% had practiced chemsex. HIV positivity was significantly associated with cathinone use (in 45.5% vs 10.7% of those not using cathinones; P = .028). All 5 of the patients who had taken cathinones and also practiced chemsex were HIV positive. Significantly more patients who had taken cathinones presented with anxiety (72.7% vs 21.43%; P = .007). No differences in clinical management were found.

    Conclusions. Detection of METH in intoxicated patients should raise suspicion of probable use of a synthetic cathinone. Patients in whom new psychoactive substances are detected should be kept under observation, and clinical protocols should include referring them to addiction treatment centers