To identify drug-related death trends associated with synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists (SCRAs) reported to the National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths (NPSAD) from England.
Design:
Case reports from NPSAD (England) where a SCRA was detected in post-mortem tissue(s) and/or implicated in the death were extracted, analyzed, and compared against non-SCRA-related deaths that occurred over the same time period (2012–2019).
Findings:
One hundred sixty-five death SCRA-related reports were extracted, with 18 different SCRAs detected. Following the first death in 2012, a subsequent sharp increase in reporting is evident. Acute SCRA use was the underlying cause of death in the majority of cases (75.8%) with cardiorespiratory complications the most frequently cited underlying physiological cause (13.4%). SCRA users were predominantly found dead (68.6%), with a large proportion of those witnessed becoming unresponsive described as suddenly collapsing (81.6%). Psychoactive polydrug use was detected in 90.3% of cases, with alcohol the most commonly co-detected (50.3%), followed by opioids (42.2%), benzodiazepines/Z-drugs (32.1%), stimulants (32.1%, [28.5% cocaine]), and cannabis (24.8%).
Compared to all non-SCRA-related NPSAD deaths occurring over the same time period, SCRA-related decedents were more predominantly male (90.3% vs. 72.0%; p<0.01), and lived in more deprived areas (p<0.01). While a comparatively significant proportion of decedents were homeless (19.4% vs. 4.1%), living in a hostel (13.3% vs. 2.3%) or in prison (4.9% vs. 0.2%) at time of death (all p<0.01), the greatest majority of SCRA-related decedents were living in private residential accommodations (57.6%).
Conclusions:
This is the largest dataset regarding SCRA-related mortalities reported to date. Reporting of SCRA-related deaths in England have increased considerably, with polydrug use a specific concern. Lack of effective deterrents to SCRA use under current UK legislation, compounded by limited knowledge regarding the physiological impacts of SCRA consumption and their interaction with other co-administered substances are contributory factors to the occurrence of SCRA-related mortalities in an increasingly deprived demographic.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkramH, MokryszC, CurranHV. What are the psychological effects of using synthetic cannabinoids? A systematic review. J Psychopharmacol. 2019; 33:271–283.
2.
AtwoodBK, LeeD, StraikerA, et al.CP47,497-C8 and JWH073, commonly found in ‘Spice’ herbal blends, are potent and efficacious CB(1) cannabinoid receptor agonists. Eur J Pharmacol. 2011; 659:139–145.
3.
LigrestiA, De PetrocellisL, Di MarzoV. From phytocannabinoids to cannabinoid receptors and endocannabinoids: pleiotropic physiological and pathological roles through complex pharmacology. Physiol Rev. 2016; 96:1593–1659.
4.
WhiteCM.The pharmacologic and clinical effects of illicit synthetic cannabinoids. J Clin Pharmacol. 2017; 57:297–304.
5.
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). Fentanils and synthetic cannabinoids: driving greater complexity into the drug situation. An update from the EU Early Warning System. European Union: Luxembourg, 2018.
6.
PeacockA, BrunoR, GisevN, et al.New psychoactive substances: challenges for drug surveillance, control, and public health responses. Lancet. 2019; 394:1668–1684.
7.
SmithKE, StatonM. Synthetic cannabinoid use among a sample of individuals enrolled in community-based recovery programs: are synthetic cannabinoids actually preferred to other drugs?. Subst Abus. 2019; 40:160–169.
8.
CastanetoMS, GorelickDA, DesrosiersNA, et al.Synthetic cannabinoids: epidemiology, pharmacodynamics, and clinical implications. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014; 144:12–41.
9.
MathewsEM, JeffriesE, HsiehC, et al.Synthetic cannabinoid use among college students. Addict Behav. 2019; 93:219–224.
10.
BonarEE, AshrafiounL, IlgenMA. Synthetic cannabinoid use among patients in residential substance use disorder treatment: prevalence, motives, and correlates. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014; 143:268–271.
11.
GundersonEW, HaugheyHM, Ait-DaoudN, et al.A survey of synthetic cannabinoid consumption by current cannabis users. Subst Abus. 2014; 35:184–189.
12.
BruntTM, AtkinsonAM, NefauT, et al.Online test purchased new psychoactive substances in 5 different European countries: a snapshot study of chemical composition and price. Int J Drug Policy. 2017; 44:105–114.
13.
ScourfieldA, FlickC, RossJ, et al.Synthetic cannabinoid availability on darknet drug markets—changes during 2016–2017. Toxicol Commun. 2019; 3:7–15.
14.
WeinsteinAM, RoscaP, FattoreL, et al.Synthetic cathinone and cannabinoid designer drugs pose a major risk for public health. Front Psychiatry. 2017; 8:156.
15.
Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW). Drugs Misuse: findings from the 2018/19 Crime Survey for England and Wales. Statistical Bulletin: 21/19. Home Office: London, 2019.
16.
BlackmanS, BradleyR. From niche to stigma-Headshops to prison: exploring the rise and fall of synthetic cannabinoid use among young adults. Int J Drug Policy. 2017; 40:70–77.
17.
FordLT, BergJD. Analytical evidence to show letters impregnated with novel psychoactive substances are a means of getting drugs to inmates within the UK prison service. Ann Clin Biochem. 2018; 55:673–678.
18.
NormanC, WalkerG, McKirdyB, et al.Detection and quantitation of synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists in infused papers from prisons in a constantly evolving illicit market. Drug Test Anal. 2020; 12:538–554.
19.
EllsworthJ.Spice, vulnerability, and victimization: synthetic cannabinoids and interpersonal crime victimization among homeless adults. Subst Abus. 2019; 7:1–7.
20.
CsákR, SzécsiJ, KassaiS, et al.New psychoactive substance use as a survival strategy in rural marginalised communities in Hungary. Int J Drug Policy. 2020; 85:102639.
21.
GrayP, RalphsR, WilliamsL. The use of synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists (SCRAs) within the homeless population: motivations, harms and the implications for developing an appropriate response. Addict Res Theory. 2020; 29:1–10.
22.
TheunissenEL, HuttenN, MasonNL, et al.Neurocognition and subjective experience following acute doses of the synthetic cannabinoid JWH-018: a phase 1, placebo-controlled, pilot study. Br J Pharmacol. 2018; 175:18–28.
23.
TheunissenEL, HuttenN, MasonNL, et al.Neurocognition and subjective experience following acute doses of the synthetic cannabinoid JWH-018: responders versus nonresponders. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res. 2019; 4:51–61.
24.
WaughJ, NajafiJ, HawkinsL, et al.Epidemiology and clinical features of toxicity following recreational use of synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists: a report from the United Kingdom National Poisons Information Service. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2016; 54:512–518.
25.
GiorgettiA, BusardòFP, TittarelliR, et al.Post-mortem toxicology: a systematic review of death cases involving synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists. Front Psychiatry. 2020; 11:464.
26.
DarkeS, DuflouJ, FarrellM, et al.Characteristics and circumstances of synthetic cannabinoid-related death. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2020; 58:368–374.
27.
MorrowPL, StablesS, KeshaK, et al.An outbreak of deaths associated with AMB-FUBINACA in Auckland NZ. EClinicalMedicine. 2020; 25:100460.
28.
ClaridgeH, WilliamsBD, CopelandCS. A deadly trend in fentanyl fatalities (England, 1998–2017). Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2020; 86:437–444.
ElliottS, SedefovR, Evans-BrownM. Assessing the toxicological significance of new psychoactive substances in fatalities. Drug Test Anal. 2018; 10:120–126.
O'NealCL, PoklisA. Postmortem production of ethanol and factors that influence interpretation: a critical review. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 1996; 17:8–20.
WebbNE, WoodDM, GreeneSL, et al.Change in the new psychoactive substances associated with Emergency Department acute toxicity presentations associated with the introduction of the UK 2016 Psychoactive Substances Act. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2019; 57:36–41.
35.
Welsh Emerging Drugs and Identification of Novel Substances (WEDINOS). Welsh Emerging Drugs and Identification of Novel Substances Project. 2020. wedinos.org Accessed September7, 2020.
36.
De LucaMA, FattoreL. Therapeutic use of synthetic cannabinoids: still an open issue?. Clin Ther. 2018; 40:1457–1466.
37.
HalterS, AngererV, RohrichJ, et al.Cumyl-PEGACLONE: a comparatively safe new synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist entering the NPS market?. Drug Test Anal. 2019; 11:347–349.
38.
SharpP, HudsonS, HikinL, et al.The changing pattern of synthetic cannabinoid use within England, April 2014 to March 2018. Med Sci Law. 2019; 59:180–186.
39.
GatesPJ, SabioniP, CopelandJ, et al.Psychosocial interventions for cannabis use disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 5:CD005336.
40.
HickmanM, CarrivickS, PatersonS, et al.London audit of drug-related overdose deaths: characteristics and typology, and implications for prevention and monitoring. Addiction. 2007; 102:317–323.
41.
TeboC, Mazer-AmirshahiM, DeGeorgeL, et al.Suspected synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist intoxication: does analysis of samples reflect the presence of suspected agents?. Am J Emerg Med. 2019; 37:1846–1849.
42.
HalterS, HaschimiB, MoglerL, et al.Impact of legislation on NPS markets in Germany—the rise and fall of 5F-ADB. Drug Test Anal. 2020; 12:853–856.
43.
CairnsR, BrownJA, GunjaN, et al.The impact of Australian legislative changes on synthetic cannabinoid exposures reported to the New South Wales Poisons Information Centre. Int J Drug Policy. 2017; 43:74–82.
44.
BilgreiOR.From “herbal highs” to the “heroin of cannabis”: exploring the evolving discourse on synthetic cannabinoid use in a Norwegian Internet drug forum. Int J Drug Policy. 2016; 29:1–8.
45.
RalphsR, WilliamsL, AskewR, et al.Adding Spice to the Porridge: the development of a synthetic cannabinoid market in an English prison. Int J Drug Policy. 2017; 40:57–69.
HancoxJC, KalkNJ, HendersonG. Synthetic cannabinoids and potential cardiac arrhythmia risk: an important message for drug users. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2020; 11:1–4.
49.
PertweeRG.Receptors and channels targeted by synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists and antagonists. Curr Med Chem. 2010; 17:1360–1381.
50.
AlonMH, Saint-FleurMO. Synthetic cannabinoid induced acute respiratory depression: case series and literature review. Respir Med Case Rep. 2017; 22:137–141.
51.
MayetS, GossopM, LintzerisN, et al.Methadone maintenance, QTc and torsade de pointes: who needs an electrocardiogram and what is the prevalence of QTc prolongation?. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2011; 30:388–396.
52.
ChimalakondaK, SeelyK, BrattonS, et al.Cytochrome P450-mediated oxidative metabolism of abused synthetic cannabinoids found in K2/Spice: identification of novel cannabinoid receptor ligands. Drug Met Dispos. 2012; 40:2174–2184.
53.
PattonAL, SeelyKA, YarbroughAL, et al.Altered metabolism of synthetic cannabinoid JWH-018 by human cytochrome P450 2C9 and variants. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2018; 498:597–602.
54.
NielsenLM, HolmNB, OlsenL, et al.Cytochrome P450-mediated metabolism of the synthetic cannabinoids UR-144 and XLR-11. Drug Test Anal. 2016; 8:792–800.
55.
AshinoT, HakukawaK, ItohY, et al.Inhibitory effect of synthetic cannabinoids on CYP1A activity in mouse liver microsomes. J Toxicol Sci. 2014; 39:815–820.
56.
ChimalakondaKC, JamesLP, Radominska-PandyaA, et al.Sulfaphenazole and α-naphthoflavone attenuate the metabolism of the synthetic cannabinoids JWH-018 and AM2201 found in K2/spice. Drug Metab Lett. 2013; 7:34–38.
57.
ErraticoC, NegreiraN, NorouzizadehH, et al.In vitro and in vivo human metabolism of the synthetic cannabinoid AB-CHMINACA. Drug Test Anal. 2015; 7:866–876.
58.
HolmNB, NielsenLM, LinnetK. CYP3A4 mediates oxidative metabolism of the synthetic cannabinoid AKB-48. AAPS J. 2015; 17:1237–1245.
59.
HolmNB, NobleC, LinnetK. JWH-018 ω-OH, a shared hydroxy metabolite of the two synthetic cannabinoids JWH-018 and AM-2201, undergoes oxidation by alcohol dehydrogenase and aldehyde dehydrogenase enzymes in vitro forming the carboxylic acid metabolite. Toxicol Lett. 2016; 259:35–43.
60.
JonesS, YarbroughAL, FantegrossiWE, et al.Identifying cytochrome P450s involved in oxidative metabolism of synthetic cannabinoid N-(adamantan-1-yl)-1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indole-3-carboxamide (STS-135). Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2020; 8:e00561.
61.
KimS, ChoiWG, KwonM, et al.In vitro inhibitory effects of APINACA on human major cytochrome P450, UDP-glucuronosyltransferase enzymes, and drug transporters. Molecules. 2019; 24:3000.
62.
BaxterK, PrestonC. Stockley's drug interactions. Pharmaceutical Press, London.
63.
WinstockAR, BarrattMJ. Synthetic cannabis: a comparison of patterns of use and effect profile with natural cannabis in a large global sample. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013; 131:106–111.
64.
MayB, NaqiHA, TippingM, et al.Synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists detection using fluorescence spectral fingerprinting. Anal Chem. 2019; 91:12971–12979.
65.
SegawaH, FukuokaT, ItohT, et al.Rapid detection of synthetic cannabinoids in herbal highs using surface-enhanced Raman scattering produced by gold nanoparticle co-aggregation in a wet system. Analyst. 2019; 144:6928–6935.
66.
LabayLM, CarusoJL, GilsonTP, et al.Synthetic cannabinoid drug use as a cause or contributory cause of death. Forensic Sci Int. 2016; 260:31–39.
67.
SchaeferN, KröllA, KörbelC, et al.Time- and temperature-dependent postmortem concentration changes of the (synthetic) cannabinoids JWH-210, RCS-4, as well as Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol following pulmonary administration to pigs. Arch Toxicol. 2020; 94:1585–1599.
