The use of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) in drug-facilitated sexual assault (DFSA) is not uncommon. Indeed, the effects associated with the use of this substance may lead to disinhibition. Several synthetic cathinones, such as mephedrone or methylone, also possess marked entactogenic properties. This manuscript aims to (i) report a DFSA case involving a novel cathinone derivative, namely N-ethyl-pentedrone (NEPD) and (ii) review previously reported DFSA cases involving synthetic cathinones. Using liquid chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS), NEPD was detected in both plasma and urine collected from a 36-year-old male who had been victim of DFSA. Furthermore, an exhaustive, non-period-specific English-language literature search was performed using several different electronic databases to identify DFSA cases involving synthetic cathinones. Overall, five synthetic cathinones have been associated with DFSA:methylenedioxypyrovalerone, 4-methylethcathinone, α -pyrrolidinopentiophenone, mephedrone, α -pyrrolidinohexiophenone, and methylone, which appears to be the most frequently reported. Methylone is the β-keto analog of MDMA, with which it shares substantial pharmacological similarities. Indeed, the pharmacological effects of methylone are similar to those associated with MDMA. By contrast, little is known regarding NEPD's pharmacological effects in humans. Based on subjective reports, NEPD can produce both positive and negative effects in human. Unlike what is reported in the case of methylone or mephedrone, only a small minority of NEPD users report slightly entactogenics effects. Such properties theoretically make NEPD more suitable for use in a chemsex context than in DFSA context; even though, the boundary between these two specific forms of sexualized drug use can sometimes appear tenuous.

Kidney EGFR expression together with reported cases of glomerular diseases in the context of anti-EGFR drug administration raise concerns about the renal safety profile of these drugs. This issue is addressed in a case/non-case study carried out on VigiBase^®, the WHO global database of individual case safety reports (ICRS). Disproportionality analysis of renal adverse effects related to the selected anti-EGFR drugs, erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib, osimertinib, cetuximab and panitumumab, was assessed using the reporting odds ratio (ROR). Nine hundred and eighty-nine ICRSs were included. A signal of disproportionate reporting (SDR) was found for afatinib (ROR = 2.70; 95% CI [2.22–3.29]) and erlotinib (ROR = 1.73; 95% CI [1.46–2.04]) with acute kidney injury, and for afatinib (ROR = 2.41; 95% CI [1.78–3.27]), cetuximab (ROR = 1.42; 95% CI [1.14–1.78]) and erlotinib (ROR = 2.23; 95% CI [1.80–2.77]) with renal failure. The preferred term “diarrhoea” was frequently reported in the included cases. An SDR was found for erlotinib with haemolytic and uremic syndrome (ROR = 4.01; 95% CI [1.80–8.94]) and thrombotic microangiopathy (ROR = 4.94; 95% CI [2.80–8.72]). No SDR was seen for glomerular or tubule-interstitial diseases. This study showed that the anti-EGFR drug renal toxicity is mainly related to renal failure in the context of digestive toxicity.

Treatment of organophosphate poisoning with pralidoxime needs to be improved. Here we have studied the pharmacokinetics of pralidoxime after its intramuscular injection alone or in combination with avizafone and atropine using an auto-injector device. The study was conducted in an open, randomized, single-dose, two-way, cross-over design. At each period, each subject received either intramuscular injections of pralidoxime (700 mg), or two injections of the combination: pralidoxime (350 mg), atropine (2 mg), avizafone (20 mg). Pralidoxime concentrations were quantified using a validated LC/MS-MS method. Two approaches were used to analyse these data: (i) a non-compartmental approach; and (ii) a compartmental modelling approach. The injection of pralidoxime combination with atropine and avizafone provided a higher pralidoxime maximal concentration than that obtained after the injection of pralidoxime alone (out of bioequivalence range), while pralidoxime AUC values were equivalent. Pralidoxime concentrations reached their maximal value earlier after the injection of the combination. According to Akaike and to goodness of fit criteria, the best model describing the pharmacokinetics of pralidoxime was a two-compartment with a zero-order absorption model. When avizafone and atropine were injected with pralidoxime, the best model describing pralidoxime pharmacokinetics becomes a two-compartment with a first-order absorption model. The two approaches, non-compartmental and compartmental, showed that the administration of avizafone and atropine with pralidoxime results in a faster absorption into the general circulation and higher maximal concentrations, compared with the administration of pralidoxime alone.