New psychoactive substances are conquering the drug scene. Police seize different colourful packages with exceptional names. They are declared as 'bath salts', 'plant food', or 'research chemical powders'. Little is known about the actual prevalence of these drugs. Reanalysis of hair samples from routine cases concerning the presence of new psychoactive substances or 'smart drugs' should provide insight into changing patterns of designer drugs. All hair samples from 2009 and 2010 that originally tested positive for amphetamines or MDMA (N = 325) were reanalyzed for new or smart drugs such as 4-fluoroamphetamine, piperazines (BZP, mCPP and TFMPP), cathinones (4-MMC (mephedrone), methylone, butylone, ethylone, MDPV, methcathinone and cathinone), methylphenidate and ketamine. Hair snippets were extracted using a two-step extraction procedure. The analytes were analyzed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) (electrospray ionization; multiple-reaction-monitoring mode - information dependent acquisition - enhanced product ion scan). New psychoactive substances were found in 120 cases (37%). Concerning the piperazine drugs, mCPP was positive in 34 (10.5%) cases and TFMPP in one case. Five mCPP cases were also positive for trazodone, an antidepressant which is metabolized to mCPP. In 11 (3%) cases, 4-MMC was detected. Concerning the smart drugs, methylphenidate was found in 16 (5%). Ketamine was found in 45 (14%) cases. 4-Fluoroamphetamine was identified in 12 (4%) cases and methylone in one case.In conclusion, there is a high prevalence of these drugs. Consequently, at least the most common ones (e.g. mCPP, KET, 4-MMC and 4-FA) should be included in screening procedures in clinical and forensic toxicology.

No abstract

No abstract

A liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay for the determination of sildenafil, norsildenafil, vardenafil, norvardenafil, and tadalafil in human blood plasma was developed and validated. It has proven to be selective, linear, accurate, and precise for all studied drugs. The method has also proven to be applicable for forensic cases and for therapeutic drug monitoring.

BackgroundA significant number of smokers would like to stop smoking. Despite the demonstrated efficacy of pharmacological smoking cessation treatments, many smokers are unwilling to use them; however, they are inclined to try alternative methods. Hypnosis has a long-standing reputation in smoking cessation therapy, but its efficacy has not been scientifically proven. We designed this randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effects of group hypnosis as a method for smoking cessation, and we will compare the results of group hypnosis with group relaxation.Methods/DesignThis is a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to compare the efficacy of a single session of hypnosis with that of relaxation performed in groups of 8-15 smokers. We intend to include at least 220 participants in our trial. The inclusion criteria include smoking at least 5 cigarettes per day, not using other cessation methods and being willing to quit smoking. The intervention is performed by a trained hypnotist/relaxation therapist. Both groups first receive 40 min of mental preparation that is based on motivational interviewing. Then, a state of deep relaxation is induced in the hypnosis condition, and superficial relaxation is induced in the control condition. Suggestions are made in the hypnosis condition that aim to switch the mental self-image of the participants from that of smokers to that of non-smokers. Each intervention lasts for 40 min. The participants also complete questionnaires that assess their smoking status and symptoms of depression and anxiety at baseline, 2 weeks and 6 months post-intervention. In addition, saliva samples are collected to assess cotinine levels at baseline and at 6 months post-intervention. We also assess nicotine withdrawal symptoms at 2 weeks post-intervention.DiscussionTo the best of our knowledge, this RCT is the first to test the efficacy of group hypnosis versus group relaxation. Issues requiring discussion in the outcome paper include the lack of standardisation of hypnotic interventions in smoking cessation, the debriefing of the participants, the effects of group dynamics and the reasons for dropouts.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials, ISRCTN72839675.