4.5 Article

Common opioids and stimulants in autopsy and DUID cases: A comparison of measured concentrations

期刊

FORENSIC SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL
卷 338, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111387

关键词

DUID; Autopsy; Toxicology; Intoxication; Comatose -fatal levels; Drugs of abuse

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compares the concentrations of commonly used drugs in drug addict autopsies and driving under the influence of drugs cases, and finds that some drugs are often in concentrations higher than the reported comatose-fatal levels, leading to potential false assessment of intoxication cases.
Quantitative results from toxicological analyses of autopsy material are widely compared to ranges in re-ference works to determine if drug concentrations are in relevant levels for establishing intoxication. This study compares concentrations of commonly used opioids and stimulants from drug addict autopsies and driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) cases to supplement current knowledge of the possible span and overlaps of measured concentrations. The study included whole-blood results from forensic autopsies of drug addicts performed from 2015 to 2020 (n = 220) and DUID cases from 2015 to 2019 (n = 7088). The focus was on heroin/morphine, methadone, cocaine, amphetamine and MDMA concentrations because these drugs are commonly encountered in both fatal intoxications and DUID cases and the potential for abuse is well known. In the DUID group, the opioids heroin/morphine and methadone and the stimulants amphetamine and MDMA were often seen in concentrations above the reported lower comatose-fatal level whereas cocaine was almost always below. Thus, based on our data, the potential for false assessment of intoxication cases when comparing to reported comatose-fatal limits appears greatest on lower end con-centrations of heroin/morphine, methadone, amphetamine and MDMA, whereas false assessment of co-caine appears less likely because most control cases are below reported comatose-fatal levels.(c) 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V. CC_BY_4.0

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据