‘Legal highs’ linked to more deaths as officials struggle to track new substances

‘Legal highs’ linked to more deaths as officials struggle to track new substances

Play all audios:

Loading...

John Corkery is affiliated with the National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths at St George's University, the Department of Pharmacy, University of Hertfordshire, and is an expert on


drug-related deaths for the UK Focal Point on Drugs (based in Public Health England)


The number of deaths caused by a group of mind altering drugs, including mephedrone, has increased over the past three years. And while toxicology reports also link the use of these


substances to deaths from other causes, the speed at which new substances are created is making it difficult for authorities to keep up.


At the National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths (NPSAD) at St George’s, University of London, we’ve been monitoring the rise of new psychoactive substances (NPS), including benzofurans,


MDAI and methoxetamine, since 2005. According to our latest report the deaths from these substances rose six-fold from 10 in 2009 to 68 in 2012. The presence of the substances identified in


post-mortem toxicology tests has also increased, from 12 cases in 2009 to 97 in 2012.


From information collected from forensic scientists, law enforcement, and other agencies, it’s clear that people are increasingly using these drugs. But even as misuse becomes more


recognised, the authorities are one step behind in trying to stop it; just as new psychoactive substances become regulated, new molecules appear on the market and the cycle repeats.


Physical and psychological problems reported by health professionals from psychoactive substance use include dependence, psychoses, paranoia, as well as risky behaviour like injecting


mephedrone, overdosing and poisonings that result in hospital admissions.


The worst case scenario is death by overdose (accidental or intentional), suicide (induced by psychiatric conditions including depression, anxiety, psychoses, caused or triggered by the


drugs), and accidents resulting from impaired judgement, including traffic accidents, falls from heights and drowning.


Although the composition of many new psychoactive substances is largely unknown, they may be derivatives of controlled or regulated psychoactive substances. We found many consumers use the


internet to obtain or exchange psychoactive drug-related information. And despite the risks, advertising these drugs as “legal” and of “high purity” can make them more attractive because it


suggests they are therefore safe.


But most of these chemicals have never been subject to proper scientific investigation or evaluation in laboratory or animal experiments, let alone human trials. This lack of knowledge and


practical experience causes problems not only for potential consumers but also health and other professionals who may have to deal with consequent harmful effects.


Undertaking a risk assessment usually includes evaluating what acute or chronic effects it might have, along with medical or psychopathological features associated with use, such as


increased blood pressure, cardiac problems and seizures.


Technical knowledge about recreational compounds appearing in the drug market in recent years is rarely obtained through reference books and scientific journals because basic research on


them hasn’t taken place. Instead, information is often only gained after such substances have started causing harms to users. So despite increasing use, drug policy makers, EU regulators,


drug enforcement agencies and individual health professionals have clear gaps in their knowledge.


We need more regular data and information to be collected from a range of sources to understand trends, how they are used, who is using them, and who is suffering adverse health


consequences. Our report is the most comprehensive look at the world of new psychoactive substances involved in deaths. We collect information on individual fatalities from forensic


toxicology laboratories and associated informal networks, pathologists, coroners and their staff, the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, Drug and Alcohol Action Teams – who all


voluntarily supply information – and media reports. This requires regular communication and co-operation.


But it’s clear that more information is needed to keep up with emerging and continuing drug trends, and if health professionals and the government are to be more clued up and ahead, rather


than behind.


The way information is collected and when is also hugely important. Logging admissions to Accident & Emergency departments will pick up adverse outcomes quickly, but the full extent of their


causes may not become evident until the conclusion of an inquest into any resulting deaths. These investigations may not be completed until six months, or longer, after the event. This


means that some key information, which could inform treatment options and education, isn’t available until some time after the substances have appeared. So building a full picture will


require effort and working across different boundaries.


Monitoring drug-related deaths will help us to contribute scientific data to the pool of knowledge to help inform potential users of the potential dangers, and help the health professionals


who look after them if they become unwell. Deaths have gone up so we must find a way of reducing the number.