Designer drugs: how dangerous are they?
- 89 Downloads
Of the designer drugs, the amphetamine analogues are the most popular and extensively studied, ecstasy (3,4-methylenedioxymetham-phetamine; MDMA) in particular. They are used recreationally with increasing popularity despite animal studies showing neurotoxic effects to serotonin (5-HT) and/or dopamine (DA) neurones. However, few detailed assessments of risks of these drugs exist in humans. Previously, there were no methods available for directly evaluating the neurotoxic effects of amphetamine analogues in the living human brain. However, development of in vivo neuroimaging tools have begun to provide insights into the effects of MDMA in human brain. In this review, contributions of brain imaging studies on the potential 5-HT and/or DA neurotoxic effects of amphetamine analogues will be highlighted in order to delineate the risks these drugs engender in humans, focusing on MDMA. An overview will be given of PET, SPECT and MR Spectroscopy studies employed in human users of these drugs. Most of these studies provide suggestive evidence that MDMA is neurotoxic to 5-HT neurones, and (meth)amphetamine to DA neurones in humans. These effects seem to be dose-related, leading to functional impairments such as memory loss, and are reversible in several brain regions. However most studies have had a retrospective design, in which evidence is indirect and differs in the degree to which any causative links can be implied between drug use and neurotoxicity. Therefore, at this moment, it cannot be ascertained that humans are susceptible to MDMA-induced 5-HT injury or (meth)amphetamine-induced DA injury. Finally, although little is known about other amphetamine analogues there are important questions as to the safety of these designer drugs as well, in view of the fact that they are chemically closely related to MDMA and some have been shown to be 5-HT neurotoxins in animals.
KeywordsNeurotoxic Effect Ecstasy User Mdma User Methamphetamine User Living Human Brain
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Battaglia G, Yeh SY, O’Hearn E, Molliver ME, Kuhar MJ, De Souza EB (1987) 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine and 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine destroy serotonin terminals in rat brain: quantification of neurodegeneration by measurement of [3H]paroxetine-labeled serotonin uptake sites. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 242: 911–916PubMedGoogle Scholar
- EMCDDA (2001) Annual report on the state of the drugs problem in the European Union. http://annualreport.emcdda.org/multimedia/Annual_Report_2001/ar01_en.pdf
- Howe FA, Maxwell RJ, Saunders DE, Brown MM, Griffiths JR (1993) Proton spectroscopy in vivo. Magn Reson Q 9: 31–59Google Scholar
- Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG (2002) Monitoring the future national results on adolescent drug use: overview of key findings, 2001. National Institute of Drug Abuse, Bethesda, MD (NIH Pub. No. 02-5105)Google Scholar
- Laruelle M, Baldwin RM, Malison RT, Zea-Ponce Y, Zoghbi SS, al-Tikriti MS, Sybirska EH, Zimmermann RC, Wisniewski G, Neumeyer JL (1993) SPECT imaging of dopamine and serotonin transporters with [123I]β-CIT: pharmacological characterization of brain uptake in nonhuman primates. Synapse 13: 295–309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mordenti J, Chappell (1989) The use of interspecies scaling in toxicokinetics. In: Yacobi A, Kelly J, Batra V (eds) Toxicokinetics and new drug development. Pergamon Press, New York, pp 42–96Google Scholar
- O’Hearn E, Battaglia G, De Souza EB, Kuhar MJ, Molliver ME (1988) Methylenedioxy-amphetamine (MDA) and methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) cause selective ablation of serotonergic axon terminals in forebrain: immunocytochemical evidence for neurotoxicity. J Neurosci 8: 2788–2803PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Reneman L, Lavalaye J, Booij J, Schmand B, de Wolff FA, vd Brink W, den Heeten GJ, Booij J (2001b) Cortical serotonin transporter density and verbal memory in individuals who stopped using 3,4-methylenedioxymethaphetamine (MDMA or “Ecstasy”) — preliminary findings. Arch Gen Psychiatry 58: 901–906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Reneman L, Booij J, Lavalaye J, de Bruin K, Reitsma JB, Gunning WB, den Heeten GJ, van den Brink W (2002c) Use of amphetamine by recreational users of ecstasy is associated with reduced striatal dopamine transporter densities: a [123I]β-CIT SPECT study. Psychopharmacology 159: 335–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schmidt CJ (1987a) Neurotoxicity of the psychedelic amphetamine, methylenedioxymethamphetamine.Google Scholar
- J Pharmacol Exp Ther 240: 1–7Google Scholar
- Shulgin A, Shulgin A (1991) Pihkal: a chemical love story. Transform Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
- Villemagne V, Yuan J, Wong DF, Dannals RF, Hatzidimitriou G, Mathews, Ravert HT, Musachio J, McCann UD, Ricaurte GA (1998) Brain dopamine neurotoxicity in baboons treated with doses of methamphetamine comparable to those recreationally abused by humans: evidence from [11C]WIN-35,428 positron emission tomography studies and direct in vitro determinations. J Neurosci 18: 419–427PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Volkow ND, Chang L, Wang G, Fowler JS, Leonido-Yee M, Franceschi D, Sedler MJ, Gatley SJ, Hitzemann R, Ding YS, Logan J, Wong C, Miller EN (2001a) Association of dopamine transporter reduction with psychomotor impairment in methamphetamine abusers. Am J Psychiatry 158: 377–382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- World Health Organization (2001) WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence. Thirty-second report. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 903: i–v, pp 1-26Google Scholar