Open Access

A scoping review of home-produced heroin and amphetamine-type stimulant substitutes: implications for prevention, treatment, and policy

  • Evelyn Hearne1Email author,
  • Jean-Paul Cornelius Grund2, 3, 4,
  • Marie Claire Van Hout1 and
  • Jim McVeigh5
Harm Reduction Journal201613:14

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-016-0105-2

Received: 28 July 2015

Accepted: 24 March 2016

Published: 19 April 2016

Abstract

Several home-produced substances such as krokodil and boltushka are prevalent in many Eastern European countries. Anecdotal reports of its use have been circulating in Germany and Norway; however, this has not been confirmed. Its use has also been reported by the media in the USA, although only one confirmed report of its use exists. Home-produced drugs are associated with high levels of morbidity and a number of complex health issues such as the spread of blood borne viruses, gangrene, and internal organ damage. The high incidence of HIV rates amongst people who inject home-produced substances is a public health concern. The resulting physical health consequences of injecting these crude substances are very severe in comparison to heroin or amphetamine acquired in black markets. Due to this fact and the increased mortality associated with these substances, professionals in the area of prevention, treatment, and policy development need to be cognisant of the presentation, harms, and the dangers associated with home-produced substances globally. This scoping review aimed to examine existing literature on the subject of home-produced heroin and amphetamine-type stimulant substitutes. The review discussed the many implications such research may have in the areas of policy and practice. Data were gathered through the use of qualitative secondary resources such as journal articles, reports, reviews, case studies, and media reports. The home production of these substances relies on the utilisation of precursor drugs such as less potent stimulants, tranquillizers, analgesics, and sedatives or natural plant ingredients. The Internet underpins the facilitation of this practice as recipes, and diverted pharmaceutical sales are available widely online, and currently, ease of access to the Internet is evident worldwide. This review highlights the necessity of prevention, education, and also harm reduction related to home-produced drugs and also recommends consistent monitoring of online drug fora, online drug marketplaces, and unregulated pharmacies.

Keywords

Homemade drugs Scoping studies Krokodil Internet Kitchen chemistry

Background

The use of drugs in countries of the former socialist republic is not a recent phenomenon [1, 2]. Following the Former Soviet Union’s (fSU) downfall in December 1991, with the addition of massive social and economic collapse in Eastern Europe, came the escalating problem of illicit drug use [14] especially in Russia, the Ukraine, the Baltic States, and most other former Soviet republics [1, 2, 510]. Indeed, homemade drug cultures emerged already in the fSU in the late 1970s and 1980s, as well as in, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary [1, 11, 12]. Monetary restrictions and closed borders that preluded the Soviet Union’s downfall prohibited individuals from acquiring the substances emerging in the counter cultures of Western Europe and the USA [1, 2]. As a result, all the countries emerging from the Soviet Union have a shared history of widespread homemade drug use, primarily opiates and amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS), through the usage of natural elements, diverted pharmaceutical drugs, and even household chemicals [4, 13, 14].

A foremost concern for public health and drug policy is the diversion and misuse of pharmaceuticals [15]. The Internet underpins this concern as both recipes of drug chemistry and diverted pharmaceuticals are available online and the Internet is now accessible to virtually anyone worldwide [16]. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reported an increase in the diversion of pharmaceuticals for non-medicinal use in many countries including Nigeria, the USA, Hong Kong, Sweden, Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Germany, and China [16, 17].

There are a substantial number of physical harms resulting from injecting homemade drug solutions and countless dangers connected to the practice of home cooking of heroin and ATS substitutes such as the spread of blood borne viruses (BBVs), skin and soft tissue infections, and even chemical injuries and burns as a result of explosions during the cooking process [14, 1823]. Cooks and consumers alike are exposed to these chemicals, as are potentially their families and the environment [24, 25]. Further research in this area will be of great benefit to healthcare workers, treatment providers, and policy makers. As the consequences of injecting these homemade substances are considerably more acute than existing illicit narcotics [26], and life expectancy lower [19], treatment providers globally should be cognisant of the dangers of, presentation, and harms related to homemade drug use. Policy makers should be responsive, as homemade drug use in countries outside of Eastern Europe may be probable for reasons such as the current global economic climate and the effects of resulting austerity measures on vulnerable communities such as heroin users in Greece turning to cheap homemade methamphetamine; mephedrone and MDPV taking over people who inject drugs (PWID) scenes in Romania; and effortless access to unregulated pharmacies and online drug markets [16]. By scoping the literature, healthcare workers and treatment providers will benefit, and highlighted gaps in current research should inform practice and policymakers. An incidence of this type of drug production may be detrimental to PWID and become a major public health concern. This scoping study will focus on the history of homemade drug use worldwide but particularly in Eastern Europe, as it is more prevalent there. The harms associated with the practice of producing and consuming homemade drugs will be highlighted for harm reduction purposes and aimed toward prevention, treatment, and policy.

The scoping review

Scoping studies are gradually being encouraged for the extensive searching of literature on specific subjects. They are primarily used to emphasise the gaps and key issues in the current evidence base and to find areas that require further research, practical, and policy interventions [15, 2729]. It is important to acknowledge the limitations of a scoping study. As the quantity of data generated in a scoping study is sometimes considerable, the decision to include all material available versus a more detailed analysis of a smaller number of studies can be difficult. Scoping studies do not appraise the evidence quality in the primary research papers, and as a result, scoping studies simply offer a descriptive or narrative interpretation of available research [16, 27]. This scoping review employed qualitative secondary sources together with peer reviewed journal articles, reports, reviews, case studies, and some media accounts. A thorough list using many different search terms was used to perform a literature search. These terms included “homemade drugs”, “kitchen chemistry”, “krokodil”, “desomorphine”, “boltushka”, “drug formulation tampering”, andonline drug markets”. To guarantee all articles relevant to the study were included, a broad search was conducted using many databases: EBSCO Host, Science Direct, PubMed, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE. A set of criteria for inclusion and exclusion in the study were put in place. Inclusion criteria consisted of home-produced substances limited to ATS and heroin substitutes and full-text access. Exclusion criteria consisted of incomprehensible language, animal studies, and insignificance to the scoping review (see Fig. 1 and Table 1).
Fig. 1

Flow diagram charting inclusion and exclusion criteria for this study

Table 1

Categories used to organise the literature

Homemade drug use in Eastern Europe

Homemade drug use outside of Eastern Europe

Heroin and amphetamine-type stimulants/substitutes

Harms associated with homemade drugs

Drug and formulation tampering

The Internet

Scoping studies

Heroin and amphetamine-type stimulants

Heroin addiction is defined as a chronic relapsing condition that, for many, is an unrelenting, lifelong illness with severe effects. This is particularly relative to short life expectancies and high rates of morbidity [3033]. Ninety percent of the world’s heroin supply is directly from opium grown in Afghanistan. Heroin that is produced from Afghan poppies is shipped worldwide [34]. With an estimated 3.1 million consumers, Europe is the main destination for Afghan heroin. In Europe, the Russian Federation is by far the largest consumer of Afghan heroin [34] with 2.3 % of its population injecting opioid drugs, indicative of Russia’s proximity to Afghanistan [23]. Approximately 1.5 million people consume heroin in the Russian Federation and 1.6 million dispersed over other European countries [34].

The most widespread used opiate worldwide is Codeine, an alkaloid prepared from opium via a process known as methylation [3537]. Codeine is employed in several different ways such as a sedative, analgesics, treatment of tuberculosis, and anti-diarrhoeal [36, 38]. In recent years, codeine-containing cough syrups (CCS) have been seen as independent substances of abuse and moreover as substitution for conventional drugs of abuse, e.g. amphetamines, cocaine, and opiates [37, 39, 40]. Combination analgesics containing codeine (CACCs) are a mixture of codeine and other substances, e.g. ibuprofen, paracetamol, or aspirin. CACCs are obtainable over-the-counter (OTC) drugs in some countries worldwide such as Ireland (Solpadeine®), Australia (Panadeine®), and the Ukraine (Codelac® and Terpincod®). These sales of CACCs were banned in Russia in June 2012 [22]; however, codeine has simply moved to the black market and is therefore still available. CACCs bought over the counter are considered “safe” to treat pain, if used in accordance with the recommended dosages. Yet, persistent long-term use and unnecessary dosing patterns can result in dependence physically and psychologically; continual headaches as a result of overuse of the medication; and a myriad of other complex medical issues [41, 42].

Amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) include amphetamine, d-amphetamine, methamphetamine, methylphenidate, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and also cathinone, methcathinone, pseudoephedrine, fenetylline, and ephedrine [4345]. These are a sizeable collection of psychoactive compounds that all contain natural elements in their chemical structure [45]. ATS operate on a person’s nervous system and have powerful effects on the individual’s mind and body. Some of these include appetite suppression, heart rate elevation, intense happiness, and mental and energy awareness. Although ATS are characteristically controlled substances, a number of them are regulated and utilised for treating disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), narcolepsy, and depression that is resistant to treatment [46]. There currently stands a general non-medicinal use of such stimulants [45, 47] with ATS production and manufacture occurring in numerous parts of the world [48]. Indeed, ATS use is more prevalent than cocaine or opiates [49]. It is suggested that there are 35 million people using ATS worldwide, compared with 29 million people consuming opiate and/or cocaine [34, 48, 50]. There are several variations in the form of ATS produced globally, e.g. in Europe, ATS manufacture is primarily in tablet or powder forms of ecstasy (MDMA) and amphetamine. In the Czech Republic and other countries of Central and Eastern Europe, homemade methamphetamine is locally known as “Pervitin”, “Vint”, orShirka” [1, 2, 51].

History of homemade drug use

Throughout the 1970s, information on Western youth and counter culture increasingly triggered the interest in psychoactive drugs amongst young adolescents. The practice of home-cooked drugs most likely commenced 10 to 15 years before the political changes, on the fringes of dissident intellectual “third culture” or “underground” circles. The growing aversion of the stifling Soviet ideology made these young people equally distrustful and disdainful of the harsh Soviet anti-drug propaganda—often phrased in the anti-Western Agit-Prop discourse and images they were subjected to. Keen on emulating the experiences of their western peers, Soviet Youth took their parents’ tradition of Samogon to the next level [1, 2] and used precursor drugs from natural plant ingredients or over-the-counter or prescription drugs with psychoactive properties—containing less potent stimulants, tranquillizers, analgesics, and sedatives—to produce their own drugs [1, 10, 14, 19, 20, 52].

In Poland, students from the University of Gdansk (the birthplace of the Solidarity movement) reportedly first synthesised “kompot,” homemade heroin, by extracting the opioids from poppy straw and acetylation of the morphine content [11, 53]. In early 1980s Prague, “Freud” had taken a few chemistry courses at a technical university before he first synthesised the (in)famous “pervitin” or “piko” (methamphetamine) from ephedrine, the active ingredient in over-the-counter cold medications [54]. Both drugs rapidly diffused amongst young people in both countries in the 1990s. Kompot was the driving force behind the 1980s HIV epidemic amongst PWID in Poland [5]. Although the Czech Republic has been spared widespread HIV infection amongst PWID, pervitin remains the problem child on the Czech drug scene [1, 54, 55].

During the 1980s these recipes diffused across most Soviet countries, but much less in its Central European vassal states. With that came adjustments of formulae and chemicals used in the synthesis [44], leading to a simpler, cruder process and a range of monikers. Heroin made from poppies became known under the moniker of “cheornaya” (black, referring to the colour of the final liquid drug) and “hanka” in Russia and “shirka” in Ukraine.

Homemade methamphetamine became “vint1 in Russian and methcathinone “jeff”, or “mulka”, while in Ukrainian, these drugs were termed “belyi2 and “ephedrone”, while cathinone is termed “Bolthuska3 [1, 44]. This argot is often very local and remarkably elastic. In some Russian towns, methamphetamine was called belyi/beloye and vint in many places in Ukraine. The word belyi is also used for ephedrine or methcathinone or may refer to any stimulants (white for stimulants; black for opiates).

Both the home-produced opioids and ATS are produced using caustic chemicals, such as sulphuric acid (H2SO4), phosphorus, iodine, and industrial or household solvents by (often unskilled) cooks under the most primitive laboratory conditions—in kitchens and basements. It should not come as a surprise that much of these corrosive reactants remain present in the final drug [44]. The grave and harsh reality of this practice is that the substances finally produced come primarily in liquid form, ready for injection, which is the usual mode of use in the region [7].

The phenomenon of homemade drug use continues to influence Eastern European drug culture (see Fig. 2) [53]. Early 2011 saw a remarkable escalation in the number of reports in the media of the use of a new homemade drug known as “krokodil” (Russian: крокодил), also “Russian Magic”, “crocodile”, or by its chemical name “Desomorphine” [19, 20]. Research has shown that this home-produced opiate first appeared in Russia around 2002/2003 [19, 20, 23], although Czech drug cooks also modestly produced a drug from codeine based analgesics in the 1980s, known as “braun” or “brown” due to its colour [1, 2] (see Table 2) [16].
Fig. 2

Summary map

Table 2

Homemade drug solutions, street names, ingredients, geographic area of use and key public health concerns

Street name

Drug type/chemical

Ingredients

Key adverse health and social consequences

Country/city of use

Krokodil.

Other common street names: Russian Magic, Crocodile, Russian Heroin

Opiate-desomorphine

Codeine, gasoline or paint thinner, iodine, red phosphorous, tropicamide

Injecting risks for BBV transmission and risks present in the production process, contamination, chemical reaction, sharing of paraphernalia, and group injecting practices.

High mortality rates.

Krokodil users presenting in surgeries/emergency rooms with serious and advanced medical complications.

Undesirable medical and social costs.

Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan. Germany (Bochum, Berlin, Frankfurt), Norway (Tromsø). Also: Anecdotal reports in UK, Czech Republic, France, Belgium

Boltushka.

Other common street names: Baltushka, Balka

Cathinone

Ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, warm water, household vinegar, and potassium permanganate

Injecting risks for BBV transmission and risks present in the production process, contamination, chemical reaction, sharing of paraphernalia, and group injecting practices.

Long-term users of boltushka can experience partial loss of cognitive function, Alzheimer-type symptoms, and possible brain damage.

Manganese-induced Parkinsonism, which is irreversible.

Undesirable medical and social costs.

Odessa*

Jeff

Other common street names: Jaff, Cat, Mulka, Ephedrone

Methcathinone

Phenylpropanolamine, warm water, household vinegar, and potassium permanganate

Injecting risks for BBV transmission and risks present in the production process, contamination, chemical reaction, sharing of paraphernalia, and group injecting practices.

Manganese-induced Parkinsonism.

Injecting risks for BBV transmission.

Undesirable medical and social costs.

Ukraine

Fentanyl patches (new and used).

Other common street names: China White, White Persian

Opiate

Fentanyl, acetaminophen, caffeine

Fentanyl use is associated with increased odds of overdose.

Criminality such as misusers who resort to obtaining used patches from elderly nursing home residents, and searching hospital and nursing home dumpsters for discarded patches.

Undesirable medical and social costs.

Russia, Belarus

Cheornaya

Opiate

Poppy Straw, cigarette ash, sodium bicarbonate

Access to poppy straw is seasonal and when it is scarce, injectors will turn to other opiate-type drugs.

Injecting risks for BBV transmission and risks present in the production process, contamination, chemical reaction, sharing of paraphernalia, and group injecting practices.

Circulatory damage and soft tissue infections amongst injectors.

Undesirable medical and social costs.

Russia

Himiya

Opiate

Poppy straw

Access to poppy straw is seasonal and when it is scarce, injectors will turn to other opiate-type drugs, including krokodil.

Injecting risks for BBV transmission and risks present in group injecting practices.

Undesirable medical and social costs.

Ukraine

Braun

Other common street name: Brown

Opiate

Mixture of morphine and codeine products, e.g. hydrocodone

Injecting risks for BBV transmission and risks present in the production process, contamination, sharing of paraphernalia, and group injecting practices.

Czech Republic

Kompot

Other common street names: Polish heroin

Opiate

Poppy straw, acetic anhydride, acetone

Access to poppy straw is seasonal and when it is scarce, injectors will turn to other opiate-type drugs.

Injecting risks for BBV transmission

Guillain-Barré Syndrome.

Injecting risks for BBV transmission and risks present in group injecting practices.

Undesirable medical and social costs.

Poland

Shirka (Ukraine)

Other common street names: Cherniashka, Black, Hanka

Opiate

Poppy straw

Access to poppy straw is seasonal and when it is scarce, injectors will turn to other opiate-type drugs

Injecting risks for BBV transmission and risks present in group injecting practices.

Undesirable medical and social costs.

Ukraine, Moldova

Shirka (Odessa*)

Methamphetamine

Ephedrin, Pseudoephedrine

Binge-using patterns that enhance the probability of unintentional overdoses.

Injecting risks for BBV transmission, i.e. risks present in the production process, contamination, sharing of paraphernalia, and group injecting practices.

Undesirable medical and social costs.

Odessa*

Hemia

Opiate

Poppy straw

Access to poppy straw is seasonal and when it is scarce, injectors will turn to other opiate-type drugs, including krokodil and kolyosa.

Injecting risks for BBV transmission and risks present in group injecting practices.

Undesirable medical and social costs.

Odessa*

Kolyosa

Opiate

Mixture of codeine-containing pills

Users will turn to this due to poppy straw being unavailable with associated overdose and injecting risks.

Injecting risks for BBV transmission and risks present in the production process, contamination, sharing of paraphernalia, and group injecting practices.

Undesirable medical and social costs.

Moldova

Pervitin

Other common street name: Vint, Piko

Methamphetamine

Ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, industrial chemicals such as gasoline, toluene and tetrachlorethylene

Binge-using patterns that enhance the probability of unintentional overdoses.

Injecting risks for BBV transmission and risks present in the production process, contamination, sharing of paraphernalia, and group injecting practices.

Undesirable medical and social costs.

Czech Republic, Moldova

* Ukraine - refers to all cities in Ukraine, except Odessa, which has a range of different terms/names for their homemade drugs

Desomorphine’s sedative properties are ten times stronger than the effects of heroin. However, it has a shorter half-life; therefore, dependence may rapidly appear with continued administration [19, 20]. There are both serious short- and long-term negative health consequences and high mortality rates associated with krokodil, primarily resulting from the crude desomorphine extraction and the failure to separate or filter out its numerous toxic by-products [19, 20, 5658]. Evidence of widespread use of an injectable home-produced cathinone known as “boltushka” was noted by Chintalova-Dallas et al. [44]. This ATS was initially reported in Odessa, Ukraine in 2005. Boltushka is produced by mixing vinegar, warm water, potassium permanganate (KMnO4) together with the precursor, phenylpropanolamine (PPA) from crushed “koldack” or “teffedrin” tablets [44, 5961]. The tradition of home-produced drugs has been reported in several other countries such as Norway [14, 62, 63], Georgia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan [14, 23, 64], New Zealand [65], and Germany [14, 63, 66] where the use of krokodil is reported [16]. Greece reported a homemade version of methamphetamine called “shisa” or “drug of the poor” [67, 68], while in the Netherlands and other European Countries, the use of homemade gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) is a small but intensive problem [69, 70]. Reports indicate that the occurrence of homemade drug use has transpired as a result of reduced heroin availability in Russia, the Baltic States, and the five central Asian countries [16, 22, 55, 7173].

Drug and formulation tampering and the Internet

Using illicit drugs has now been exceeded by the non-medicinal use and abuse of diverted pharmaceuticals in the USA [13, 74]. (Pseudo) Ephedrine, codeine, codeine cough syrups (CCS), and fentanyl patches are the most ordinarily tampered with pharmaceuticals. Lankenau et al. [75] suggest that formulation tampering with these drugs allows for dispensing higher doses and therefore is cost effective. Motivations for tampering with pharmaceuticals involve numerous reasons including increasing the bio-availability of the drug, quicker onset of the effects, and to boost the drugs psychoactive effects [16]. Sedatives, stimulants, analgesics, and tranquillizers are broadly pursued, measured, and tampered with for the purpose of recreational intoxication [13, 76]. The Internet is accessible to many people worldwide and is a prime source of information for recreational drug consumers, interested in tampering with formulations due to the wealth of information on websites, including drug user fora, providing potential home cooks with advice and tips on the techniques and recipes. This is a concern for public health, given the pervasive nature of the Internet worldwide [13, 16]. Previous successes as well as failures are documented and discussed (see www.erowid.org; www.bluelight.ru; www.drugs-forum.com) [13, 77]. Advice includes description of methods for tampering such as crushing, separating, purifying, and optimum usage [13, 7883]. Moreover, online market places found on the “deep web” or “darknet” are now accessible. The deep web is described as the section of the Internet that is not searchable with established search engines, e.g. google. The darknet is described as a small area within the deep web and has been purposefully concealed and cannot be accessed via usual web browsers [84]. The most well-known online market is the Silk Road Marketplace which was active between Feb 2011 and October 2013, and was followed by Silk Road 2.0 active from November 2013 to November 2014 [85]. Although Silk Road and Silk Road 2.0 have been shut down, other online marketplaces can be found on the “deep web” where the site owners, buyers, and vendors can stay somewhat anonymous due to their IP addresses being masked and random routing via peer-based computer networks, using the TOR browser [8587]. These online marketplaces are innovative new avenues for drug sales [88, 89, 90, 91], facilitating anonymous acquisition and supply of licit drugs, pharmaceuticals, and illicit drugs alike [91]. Additionally, the Internet hosts a number of drug discussion fora, wherein users publicly and anonymously exchange knowledge. Several Darknet drug markets have discussion fora as well, where, for example, the quality of the drugs and vendors are rated and discussed. These drug fora offer users practical tools prior to purchase and use of substances and indigenous harm reduction. Numerous studies have emphasised the importance of harm reduction occurring amongst these online communities [9296]. Between 2010 and 2012, Russian policy makers highlighted the negative effect the Internet had in the dissemination of information related to krokodil production and use. A marked rise in online searches for krokodil preparation and methods to purchase was noted [16]. However, a major reduction in Internet searches for krokodil related information was noted after the ban on pharmaceutical sales of codeine, June 1, 2012 [22].

Harms associated with homemade drug use: implications for harm reduction

The well-established tradition of “kitchen chemistry” [16] is still dominating stimulant and opioid use in many parts of Eastern and Central Europe [23]. These homemade drugs are rife in marginalised strata of society such as amongst people with lower socioeconomic status or homeless individuals, due to their low costs and widespread availability of OTC or diverted pharmaceuticals and easy access to recipes [16, 23, 97]. In Russia, the process for producing krokodil only comprises of a small amount of precursor pharmaceuticals, e.g. one to five packets of codeine based analgesics or 80 to 400 mg of codeine and takes approximately 45 min to cook, sometimes less. Although other home-produced substances are not without harms, krokodil seems to be associated with particularly severe complications and ghastly health outcomes [10]. The severe morbidity associated with injecting krokodil is likely a function of the short half-life of the drug, dictating frequent injection, missing or inapt reactants, and incomplete synthesis, leaving large fractions of reactants and resulting in an extremely corrosive drug cocktail [14, 65].

The transmission of BBVs is a major health concern associated with any form of injecting drug use [16, 22]. The primary causes of BBV transmission are the collective use of injecting equipment (needle sharing) and sharing of liquefied drugs [98101]. These behaviours are also important drivers of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) around injection sites, affecting 10–30 % of PWID [102104] and associated with loss of venous access and intramuscular or subcutaneous injection [102, 104, 105]. It has been documented that there is a high risk of BBV transmission amongst PWID, through the sharing not only of needles but also of other equipment used in the process. HIV and hepatitis C infection rates amongst PWID are extremely high in Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, and other fSU countries [106]. These first two countries are reported as the most affected by krokodil use [23].

Grund et al. [14] summarised the major concerns related to krokodil use, as reported in the literature and by PWID, such as skin irritations, ulcers, scale-like skin deformations that eventually turn green (like a crocodile skin) and black (necrotic), jaw osteonecrosis, thrombophlebitis, muscle damage, thyroid injury, inflammation of kidneys and the liver, endocrine complications, amputation of limbs and, ultimately, death [16, 1820, 56, 107, 108]. Reportedly, limb amputations or jaw removals are often the only lifesaving intervention [20, 57, 108]. Reportedly, people who inject krokodil often present at medical services in the later stages of disease because they fear medical stigma and close ties between medical providers and law enforcement or other systems of social control, such as child protection agencies [14, 109111].

Krokodil is not the only homemade substance to have severe physical complications. In recent years, several Eastern European countries have reported “Manganese Induced Parkinsonism” associated with injection of “boltushka” (homemade cathinone). First described as “Manganism”, as early as 1837 [112], overexposure to manganese is a severe condition that can become manifest after only a few months of boltushka injecting, with symptoms of dysarthria, hypokinesia, dystonia, and damaged posture [113115]. Boltushka synthesis includes the oxidation of (the precursor) with permanganate or “marganzovka”, a commonly used disinfectant in Russia, in water [44]. During the reaction, Manganese (Mn) is released and toxic levels of remnants remain in the liquid drug. The rapid progression of Manganism amongst boltushka consumers [115, 116] points at short term, continuous exposure to perhaps extremely high concentrations of manganese. Although data are missing, we suggests that manganese concentrations in people who inject homemade (meth)cathinone may exceed levels amongst people affected by industrial pollution and perhaps even those of workers in the battery manufacturing and manganese processing industries, who, reportedly, are most at risk [117]. This is a serious concern for PWID, treatment providers, healthcare workers, and policy makers alike as the resulting Parkinsonism syndrome is not reversible [44]. Studies suggest Manganism related to (meth)cathinone injection amongst immigrants in Western Europe and in Canada [116]. Individuals have reported experiencing manganese toxicity from using MCAT (4-methylmethcathinone) [118] in online drug community forums [119].

Countries outside of Eastern Europe should be well-informed about these grave public health concerns. A variety of opioid and stimulant syntheses are described in detail on the Internet, and the precursors and reactants are readily available. This may lead to such harmful substances emerging in unexpected settings. Indeed, traditional drug diffusion theory [120, 121] accounts poorly for the way in which new drug trends spread geographically, from one locality to another, and culturally, between different social groups or communities, and also how information about their risks is being shared. Emerging drug trends no longer necessarily commence in (cultural) capitals, harbour cities or along (physical) drug trading routes. Indeed, in the glocalised and Vernetzte twenty first century, iDrugs and new drug trends may emerge in any municipality, large or small, urban, or rural. Digitalisation of drug markets, immigration, and global travel may also be of significant influence [16].

Due to the adverse health issues associated with these homemade substances, governmental reaction is necessary so as to increase the regulation of over the counter and prescribed medications, and also to provide coordinated services such as counselling services, medical supports, wound and infection management, testing and support for HIV, outreach, and rehabilitation services for users of the substances [16, 20, 58, 65, 122126]. Development of harm reduction tactics such as hygiene education, needle exchanges, bleach distribution, provision of filters, foil packs to try encourage users to reverse route of administration, provision of safer recipes for home-produced substances, treatment such as opiate substitution and antiretroviral therapy, and prevention programmes are vital [16, 44, 123126]. Continuing research that will explore users’ awareness of harms of homemade drugs, user practices, users’ experiences of services, and trajectories of use are fundamental to informing harm reduction approaches [14, 16]. Continued surveillance and monitoring at harm reduction programmes using internal data systems to monitor new trends is warranted.

Conclusion

Home-produced substances that replace illicit ones, such as heroin and amphetamines, are associated with many complex health issues and high levels of morbidity. This scoping review has presented extant literature on the topic and highlights how this issue is a growing and concerning public health imperative warranting drug user and online surveillance, targeted harm reduction and clinical responses.

Footnotes
1

“Screw,” with reference to some of its less pleasurable side-effects.

 
2

“White”.

 
3

“Chatterbox”.

 

Abbreviations

ADHD: 

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

ATS: 

amphetamine-type stimulant

BBV: 

blood borne virus

CACC: 

combination analgesics containing codeine

CCS: 

codeine-containing cough syrup

fSU: 

Former Soviet Union

GHB: 

gamma-hydroxybutyric acid

H2SO4: 

sulphuric acid

KMnO4: 

potassium permanganate

MCAT: 

4-methylmethcathinone (4-MMC)

MDMA: 

3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine

MDPV: 

methylenedioxypyrovalerone

OTC: 

over the counter

PWID: 

people who inject drugs

SSTIs: 

skin and soft tissue infections

UNODC: 

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

Declarations

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
School of Health Sciences, Waterford Institute of Technology
(2)
Department of Addictology, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University
(3)
CVO – Addiction Research Centre
(4)
Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, Utrecht University
(5)
Centre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University

References

  1. Grund JPC, Zábranský T, Irwin K, Heimer R. Stimulant use in Central and Eastern Europe: how recent social history shaped current drug consumption patterns. In: Pates R, Riley D, editors. Interventions for amphetamine misuse. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009. p. 173–204.Google Scholar
  2. Grund JPC. A Candle lit from both sides: the epidemic of HIV infection in Central and Eastern Europe. In: McElrath K, editor. HIV and AIDS: A global view. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press; 2002. p. 41–68.Google Scholar
  3. Heimer R, Booth RE, Irwin KS, Merson MH. HIV and drug use in Eurasia. In: Twigg JL, editor. HIV/AIDS in Russia and Eurasia. Volume 2. Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2007.Google Scholar
  4. Orlova AV. The Russian “war on drugs”: a kinder, gentler approach? Probl Post Communism. 2009;56 Suppl 1:23–34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Dehne KL, Grund JPC, Khodakevich L, Kobyshcha Y. The HIV/AIDS epidemic among drug injectors in Eastern Europe: patterns, trends and determinants. J Drug Issues. 1999;29 Suppl 4:729–76.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Rhodes T, Ball A, Stimson GV, Kobyshcha Y, Fitch C, Pokrovsky V, et al. HIV infection associated with drug injecting in the Newly Independent States, Eastern Europe: the social and economic context of epidemics. Addiction. 1999;94(9):1323–36.Google Scholar
  7. Barnett T, Whiteside A, Khodakevich L, Kruglov Y, Steshenko V. The HIV/AIDS epidemic in Ukraine: its potential social and economic impact. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51 Suppl 9:1387–403.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Des Jarlais DC, Grund J-PC, Zadoretzky C, Milliken J, Friedmann P, Titus S, et al. HIV risk behaviour among participants of syringe exchange programmes in central/eastern Europe and Russia. Int J Drug Policy. 2002;13:165–74.Google Scholar
  9. Balakireva OM, Grund J-PC, Barendregt C, Rubanets YV, Ryabova MV, Volyk AM, Levchuk N, Meshcherina O, Bondar T. Risk and protective factors in the initiation of injecting drug use: report of a respondent driven sampling study and strategy paper on preventing the initiation of injecting drug use among vulnerable adolescents and young people. Kiev: UNICEF/UISR. [http://www.unicef.org/ukraine/3_HIV_injecting_drug_users_en.pdf]. Accessed 18 Mar 2013.
  10. Booth RE, Lehman WEK, Latkin CA, Dvoryak S, Brewster JT, Royer MS, et al. Individual and network interventions with injection drug users in 5 Ukraine cities. Am J Public Health. 2011;101 Suppl 2:336–43.Google Scholar
  11. Alcabes P, Grund JPC, Beniowski M, Bozek B, Kaciuba A, Zielinski A. Possible epidemic spread of HIV by syringe-based drug sharing in Poland: paradigm for the new AIDS frontier: 28 June - 3 July 1998. Geneva: 12th World AIDS Conference; 1998.Google Scholar
  12. Latypov AB. The Soviet doctor and the treatment of drug addiction: “a difficult and most ungracious task”. Harm Reduct J. 2011;8:32.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Cone EJ. Ephemeral profiles of prescription drug and formulation tampering: evolving pseudoscience on the Internet. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;83 Suppl 1:31–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Grund JPC, Latypov AB, Harris M. Breaking worse: the emergence of krokodil and excessive injuries among people who inject drugs in Eurasia. Int J Drug Policy. 2013;24 Suppl 4:265–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Brandt SD, King LA, Evans-Brown M. The new drug phenomenon. Drug Test Anal. 2014;6(Suppl 7–8):587–97.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Van Hout MC. Kitchen chemistry: a scoping review of the diversionary use of pharmaceuticals for non-medicinal use and home production of drug solutions. Drug Test Anal. 2014;6(Suppl 7–8):778–87.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. UNODC. World drug report 2013. Vienna: United Nations; 2013.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Azbel L, Dvoryak S, Altice FL. ‘Krokodil’ and what a long strange trip it’s been. Int J Drug Policy. 2013;24 Suppl 4:275–80.Google Scholar
  19. Gahr M, Freudenmann RW, Hiemke C, Gunst IM, Connemann BJ, Schonfeldt-Lecuona C. “Krokodil”: revival of an old drug with new problems. Subst Use Misuse. 2012;47 Suppl 7:861–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gahr M, Freudenmann RW, Hiemke C, Gunst IM, Connemann BJ, Schonfeldt-Lecuona C. Desomorphine goes “crocodile”. J Addict Dis. 2012;31 Suppl 4:407–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Thekkemuriyi DV, John SG, Pilai U. “Krokodil” —a designer drug from across the Atlantic, with serious consequences. Am J Med. 2014;127 Suppl 3:1–2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Zheluk A, Quinn C, Meylakhs P. Internet search and krokodil in the Russian federation: an infoveillance study. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16 Suppl 9, e212.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Alves EA, Grund JPC, Afonso CM, Netto AD, Carvalho F, Dinis-Oliveira RJ. The harmful chemistry behind krokodil (desomorphine) synthesis and mechanisms of toxicity. Forensic Sci Int. 2015;249:207–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Vearrier D, Greenberg MI, Ney Miller S, Okaneku JT, Haggerty DA. Methamphetamine: history, pathophysiology, adverse health effects, current trends, and hazards associated with the clandestine manufacture of methamphetamine. Dis Mon. 2012;28 Suppl 2:38–89.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Vernon A. Response to “one-pot” meth labs. Fire Eng. 2013;166 Suppl 11:79–82.Google Scholar
  26. UNODC. World drug report 2012. Vienna: United Nations Publication; 2012.Google Scholar
  27. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Meth. 2005;8 Suppl 1:19–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5 Suppl 1:69–78.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Daudt HM, van Mossel C, Scott S. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:48.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Alter MJ, Kruszon-Moran D, Nainan OV, McQuillan GM, Gao F, Moyer LA, et al. The prevalence of hepatitis C virus infection in the United States 1988 through 1994. N Engl J Med. 1999;341 Suppl 8:556–62.Google Scholar
  31. Hser YI, Hoffman V, Grella CE, Anglin MD. A 33-year follow-up of narcotics addicts. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58 Suppl 5:503–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Hser YI, Gelberg L, Hoffman V, Grella CE, McCarthy W, Anglin MD. Health conditions among aging narcotics addicts: medical examination results. J Behav Med. 2004;27 Suppl 6:607–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Hser YI, Huang D. Trajectories of heroin addiction: growth mixture modelling results based on a 33-year follow-up study. Evaluation Rev. 2007;31 Suppl 6:548–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. UNODC. World drug report 2010. Vienna: United Nations Publication; 2010.Google Scholar
  35. Hutchings HA, Eccles R. The opioid agonist codeine and antagonist naltrexone do not affect voluntary suppression of capsaicin induced cough in healthy subjects. Eur Res J. 1994;7 Suppl 4:715–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Bhandari M, Bhandari A, Bhandari A. Recent updates on codeine. Pharm Methods. 2011;2 Suppl 1:3–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Hou H, Yin S, Jia S, Hu S, Sun T, Chen Q, et al. Decreased striatal dopamine transporters in codeine-containing cough syrup abusers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011;118(Suppl 2–3):148–51.Google Scholar
  38. Vree TB, van Dongen RT, Koopman-Kimenai PM. Codeine analgesia is due to codeine-6-glucuronide, not morphine. Int J Clin Pract. 2000;54 Suppl 6:395–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Shek DT, Lam CM. Adolescent cough medicine abuse in Hong Kong: implications for the design of positive youth development programs in Hong Kong. Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2006;18 Suppl 3:493–503.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Yang Y, Yuan QY. Investigation and analysis on personalities of male-codeine phosphate addicts by MMPI. Chinese J Drug Abuse Prevent Treat. 2008;14:143–5.Google Scholar
  41. Reed K, Bond A, Witton J, Cornish R, Hickman M, Strang J. The changing use of prescribed benzodiazepines and z-drugs and of over-the-counter codeine-containing products in England: a structured review of published english and international evidence and available data to inform consideration of the extent of dependence and harm. London: The National Addiction Centre, Kings College London; 2011Google Scholar
  42. Van Hout MC. Nod and wave: an Internet study of the codeine intoxication phenomenon. Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26 Suppl 1:67–77.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. World Health Organization (WHO). Disease control priorities related to mental, neurological, developmental and substance abuse disorders. Disease Control Priorities Project, Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse. Geneva: WHO; 2006.Google Scholar
  44. Chintalova-Dallas R, Case P, Kitsenko N, Lazzarine Z. Boltushka: homemade amphetamine-type stimulant and HIV risk in Odessa, Ukraine. Int J Drug Policy. 2009;20 Suppl 4:347–51.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Mackey S, Stewart JL, Connolly CG, Tapert SF, Paulus MP. A voxel-based morphometry study of young occasional users of amphetamine-type stimulants and cocaine. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;2014(135):104–11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Berman SM, Kuczenski R, McCracken JT, London ED. Potential adverse effects of amphetamine treatment on brain and behavior: a review. Mol Psychiatry. 2009;14(2):123–42.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2010 national survey on drug use and health: summary of national findings. Rockville, MD: NSDUH Series H-41; 2011.Google Scholar
  48. Tait RJ, McKetin R, Kay-Lambkin F, Bennett K, Tam A, Bennett A, et al. Breakingtheice: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial of an internet-based intervention addressing amphetamine-type stimulant use. BMC Psychiatry. 2012;12:67–75.Google Scholar
  49. Colofax G, Santos GM, Chu P, Vittinghoff E, Pluddemann A, Kumar S, et al. Amphetamine-group substances and HIV. Lancet. 2010;376(9739):458–74.Google Scholar
  50. UNODC. Patterns and trends of amphetamine-type stimulants and other drugs: challenges for Asia and the Pacific. Vienna: UNODC; 2010.Google Scholar
  51. Griffiths P, Mravcik V, Lopez D, Klempova D. Quite a lot of smoke but very limited fire—the use of methamphetamine in Europe. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2008;27 Suppl 3:236–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Booth RE. ‘Krokodil’ and other home-produced drugs for injection: a perspective from Ukraine. Int J Drug Policy. 2013;24 Suppl 4:277–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Grund JP. The eye of the needle: an ethno erpidemiological analysis of injecting drug use. In: Pates R, McBride A, Arnold K, editors. Injecting illicit drugs. Volume 8. 1st ed. London: Blackwell; 2006.Google Scholar
  54. Zábranský T. Methamphetamine in the Czech Republic. J Drug Issues. 2007;37 Suppl 1:155–80.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. EMCDDA. Perspectives on drugs. Health and social responses for methamphetamine users. EMCDDA: Lisbon; 2014.Google Scholar
  56. Walker S. Krokodil: the drug that eats junkies. The Independent. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/krokodil-the-drug-that-eats-junkies-2300787.html]. Accessed 4 Jan 2013.
  57. Shuster S. The curse of the crocodile: Russia’s deadly designer drug. Time Magazine. [http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2078355,00.html]. Accessed 4 Jan 2013.
  58. Skowronek R, Celiński R, Chowaniec C. “Crocodile”—new dangerous designer drug of abuse from the East. Clin Toxicol (Phil). 2012;50 Suppl 4:269.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Aretha D. Methamphetamine and amphetamines. Ernslow: Berkeley Heights, NJ; 2005.Google Scholar
  60. Barcal K, Schumacher JE, Dumchev K, Moroz LV. A situational picture of HIV/AIDS and injection drug use in Vinnitsya, Ukraine. Harm Reduct J. 2005;2 Suppl 1:16.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Varlibas F, Delipoyraz I, Yuksel G, Filiz G, Tireli H, Gecim NO. Neurotoxicity following chronic intravenous use of “Russian cocktail”. Clin Toxicol (Phil). 2009;47 Suppl 2:157–60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Lindblad KE. Bad news: people are taking krokodil in Norway. [http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/krokodil-norway]. Accessed 19 Nov 2013.
  63. Katselou M, Papoutsis I, Nikolaou P, Spiliopoulou C, Athanaselis S. A “Krokodil” emerges from the murky waters of addiction. Abuse trends of an old drug. Life Sci. 2014;102 Suppl 2:81–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Piralishvili G, Gamkrelidze I, Nikolaishvili N, Chavchanidze M. Needs assessment and treatment compliance at state opioid substitution treatment programmes in Georgia. Georgian Med News. 2013;214:8–32.Google Scholar
  65. Harris M. The ‘do-it-yourself’ New Zealand injecting scene: implications for harm reduction. Int J Drug Policy. 2012;24 Suppl 4:281–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Der Spiegel. Todesdroge Krokodil erreicht Deutschland. [Death drugs crocodile reaches Germany]. [http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/russischerheroinersatz-todesdroge-krokodil-erreicht-deutschland-a-791273.html]. Accessed 18 Nov 2013.
  67. Rowlands J, Kyriakos K. Sisa: is meth use the latest face of the catastrophe in Athens? [http://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/joseph-rowlands-kyriakos-klosidis/sisa-is-meth-use-latest-face-of-catastrophe-in-]. Accessed 27 Mar 2014.
  68. Miller A. Austerity’s drug of choice. Sisa is destroying the lives of Athens’s homeless people. [http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/austeritys-drug-of-choice-000757-v20n5]. Accessed 19 Nov 2013.
  69. Wisselink DJ, Kuijpers WGT, Mol A. Kerncijfers Verslavingszorg 2013. Landelijk Alcohol en Drugs Informatie Systeem (LADIS). Houten: Stichting IVZ; 2014.Google Scholar
  70. van Gaalen S, de Bruin D, Grund J-PC. GHB overdose prevention among people who use GHB at home in the Netherlands and Belgium (2014-2015). An exploration of the characteristics associated with overdose and opportunities for risk reduction. Amsterdam: Mainline Foundation; 2015.Google Scholar
  71. Booth RE, Lehman W, Kwiatkowski C, Brewster J, Sinitsyna L, Dvoryak S. Stimulant injectors in Ukraine: the next wave of the epidemic? AIDS Behav. 2008;12 Suppl 4:652–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Platt L, Rhodes T, Hickman M, Mikhailova L, Lisetsky K, Sarang A, et al. Changes in HIV prevalence and risk among new injecting drug users in a Russian city of high HIV prevalence. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2008;47 Suppl 5:623–31.Google Scholar
  73. Zabransky T, Grund JPC, Latypov A, Otiashvili D, Stuikyte R, Scutelniciuc O. (2012) Harm reduction in central and Eastern Europe. In: Pates R, Riley D, editors. Harm reduction in substance use and high-risk behaviour: international policy and practice summaries. Volume 32. 5th ed. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell; 2012. p. 301–21.Google Scholar
  74. Carlisle Maxwell J. Trends in the abuse of prescription drugs. Austin, Texas: The Gulf Coast Addiction Technology Transfer Center (GCATTC); 2006.Google Scholar
  75. Lankenau SE, Teti M, Silva K, Jackson Bloom J, Harocopos A, Treese M. Initiation into prescription opioid misuse amongst young injection drug users. Int J Drug Policy. 2012;23(1):37–44.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Katz N, Dart RC, Bailey E, Trudeau J, Osgood E, Paillard F. Tampering with prescription opioids: nature and extent of the problem, health consequences, and solutions. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2011;37 Suppl 4:205–17.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. UNODC. The non-medicinal use of prescription drugs. Policy direction issues. Discussion paper. Vienna: UNODC; 2011.Google Scholar
  78. Fleming GF, McElnay JC, Hughes CM. The separation of codeine from nonprescription combination analgesic products. Subst Use Misuse. 2003;38 Suppl 9:1217–26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Gordon SM, Forman RF, Siatkowski C. Knowledge and use of the internet as a source of controlled substances. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2006;30 Suppl 3:271–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  80. Budman SH, Grimes Serrano JM, Butler SF. Can abuse deterrent formulations make a difference? Expectation and speculation. Harm Reduct J. 2009;6 Suppl 8:1–7.Google Scholar
  81. Nielsen S, Barratt MJ. Prescription drug misuse: is technology friend or foe? Drug Alcohol Rev. 2009;28 Suppl 1:81–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Raffa RB, Pergolizzi JV. Opioid formulations designed to resist/deter abuse. Drugs. 2010;70 Suppl 13:1657–75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Romach MK, Schoedel KA, Sellers EM. Update on tamper resistant drug formulations. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;130:13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. EMCDDA. The Internet and drug markets. 2015. Summary of results from an EMCDDA Trendspotter study. LisbonL EMCDDA.Google Scholar
  85. Dolliver DS. Evaluating drug trafficking on the Tor Network: Silk Road 2, the sequel. Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26:1113-23. Available online 14 Jan 2015.Google Scholar
  86. Konrad A. Feds say they’ve arrested ‘dread pirate Roberts,’ shut down his black market ‘the Silk Road’. [http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2013/10/02/feds-shut-down-silk-road-owner-known-as-dread-pirate-roberts-arrested]. Accessed 18 Mar 2015.
  87. Barratt MJ, Ferris JA, Winstock AR. Use of Silk Road, the online drug marketplace, in the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States. Addiction. 2014;109 Suppl 5:774–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Davey Z, Schifano F, Corazza O, Deluca P. e-Psychonauts: conducting research in online drug forum communities. J Ment Health. 2012;21 Suppl 4:386–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Forsyth AJM. Virtually a drug scare: mephedrone and the impact of the Internet on drug news transmission. Int J Drug Policy. 2012;23 Suppl 3:198–209.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Van Hout MC, Bingham T. ‘Surfing the Silk Road’: a study of users’ experiences. Int J Drug Policy. 2013;24(6):524–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Van Hout MC, Bingham T. Responsible vendors, intelligent consumers: Silk Road, the online revolution in drug trading. Int J Drug Policy. 2014;25(2):183–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Chiauzzi E, DasMahapatra P, Lobo K, Barratt MJ. Participatory research with an online drug forum: a survey of user characteristics, information sharing, and harm reduction views. Subst Use Misuse. 2013;48 Suppl 8:661–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Móró L, Rácz J. Online drug user-led harm reduction in Hungary: a review of “Daath”. Harm Reduct J. 2013;10:18.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  94. Soussan C, Kjellgren A. Harm reduction and knowledge exchange—a qualitative analysis of drug-related internet discussion forums. Harm Reduct J. 2014;11:25.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  95. Soussan C, Kjellgren A. “Chasing the high”—experiences of ethylphenidate as described on international Internet forums. Subst Abuse. 2015;9:9–16.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  96. Van Hout MC, Hearne E. ‘Word of mouse’: indigenous harm reduction and online consumerism of the synthetic compound methoxphenidine. J Psychoact Drugs. 2014;47 Suppl 1:30–41.Google Scholar
  97. EHRN. Young people and injecting drug use in selected countries of Central and Eastern Europe. [http://www.harm-reduction.org/library/young-people-injecting-drug-use-selected-countries-central-andeastern-europe]. Accessed 9 Nov 2013.
  98. Clatts MC, Heimer R, Abdala N, Goldsamt L, Sotheran J, Anderson KT, et al. HIV-1 transmission in injection paraphernalia: heating drug solutions may inactivate HIV-1. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1999;22(2):194–9.Google Scholar
  99. Grund JPC, Kaplan CD, Adriaans NFP, Blanken P. Drug sharing and HIV transmission risks: the practice of “frontloading” in the Dutch injecting drug user population. J Psychoact Drugs. 1991;23:1–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  100. Dumchev KV, Soldyshev R, Qian HZ, Zezyulin OO, Chandler SD, Slobodyanyuk P, et al. HIV and hepatitis C virus infections among hanka injection drug users in central Ukraine: a cross-sectional survey. Harm Reduction Journal. 2009;6:23.Google Scholar
  101. Hagan H, Thiede H, Weiss NS, Hopkins SG, Duchin JS, Alexander ER. Sharing of drug preparation equipment as a risk factor for hepatitis C. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(1):42–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  102. Binswanger IA, Kral AH, Bluthenthal RN, Rybold DJ, Edlin BR. High prevalence of abscesses and cellulitis among community-recruited injection drug users in San Francisco. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;30:579–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Murphy EL, DeVita D, Liu H, Vittinghoff E, Leung P, Ciccarone DH, et al. Risk factors for skin and soft-tissue abscesses among injection drug users: a case-control study. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33:35–40.Google Scholar
  104. Ciccarone D, Bourgois P. Explaining the geographical variation of HIV among injection drug users in the United States. Subst Use Misuse. 2003;38:2049–63.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  105. Lloyd-Smith E, Wood E, Zhang R, Tyndall MW, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Risk factors for developing a cutaneous injection-related infection among injection drug users: a cohort study. BMC Pub Health. 2008;8:405.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  106. UNAIDS. The GAP report 2014: people who inject drugs. Geneva: UNAIDS; 2014.Google Scholar
  107. Asaeva AV, Ocheret D, Fayziev Zh. Russia: New trends in drug use lead to severe health consequences and death among IDUs: 3-7 April 2011; 22nd international conference on the reduction of drug related harm, Beirut, 2011.Google Scholar
  108. Poghosyan YM, Hakobyan KA, Poghosyan AY, Avetisyan EK. Surgical treatment of jaw osteonecrosis in “Krokodil” drug addicted patients. J Cranio-Maxillo- Fac Surg. 2014;42:1639–43.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  109. Orekhovsky V, Calzavara L, Yakovlev A, Nikitina T, Volkova G, Michalchenko M, Saldanha V. Fuelling HIV epidemic in Russia: the stigma of IDU and HIV and its impact on treatment access and testing. In: Poster presentation, The XIV international AIDS conference: 7-12 July, 2002; Barcelona: Spain; 2002.Google Scholar
  110. Elovich R, Drucker E. On drug treatment and social control: Russian narcology’s great leap backwards. Harm Reduct J. 2008;5:23.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  111. Wolfe D, Carrieri MP, Shepard D. Treatment and care for injecting drug users with HIV infection: a review of barriers and ways forward. Lancet. 2010;376 Suppl 9738:355–66.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. Couper J. Sur les effets du peroxide de manganèse. Journal de chimie médicale, de pharmacie et de toxicologie. 1873;3:223–5.Google Scholar
  113. Crossgrove J, Zheng W. Manganese toxicity upon overexposure. NMR Biomed. 2004;17:544–53.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  114. Lucchini RG, Martin CJ, Doney BC. From manganism to manganese-induced parkinsonism: a conceptual model based on the evolution of exposure. Neuromolecular Med. 2009;11(4):311–21. Jan [cited 2015 Apr 1]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20012385.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. Sikk K, Haldre S, Aquilonius SM, Taba P. Manganese-induced parkinsonism due to ephedrone abuse. Parkinsons Dis. 2011;4:1-8.Google Scholar
  116. de Bie RMA, Gladstone RM, Strafella AP, Ko JH, Lang AE. Manganese-induced parkinsonism associated with methcathinone (ephedrone) abuse. Arch Neurol. 2007;64(6):886–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. Lucchini R, Selis L, Folli D, Apostoli P, Mutti A, Vanoni O, et al. Neurobehavioral effects of manganese in workers from a ferroalloy plant after temporary cessation of exposure. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1995;21 Suppl 2:143–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. Papanti D, Grund J-P, Francesconi F, Orsolini L, Schifano F. (New) Glocal syndremics: the ‘M-cat’ tale. Res Advances Psychiatry. 2014;1 Suppl 1:27.Google Scholar
  119. Bluelight. Manganese poisoning from ephedrone (MCAT). [http://bluelight.org/vb/archive/index.php/t-665468.html]. Accessed 6 Apr 2014.
  120. Oldenburg BF, Hardcastle DM, Kok G. Diffusion of innovations. In: Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer B, editors. Health behavior and health education: theory, research and practice. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1997. p. 207–86.Google Scholar
  121. Ferrence R. Diffusion theory and drug use. Addiction. 2001;96 Suppl 1:165–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. Mathers BM, Degenhardt L, Ali H, Wiessing L, Hickman M, Mattick RP, et al. HIV prevention, treatment, and care services for people who inject drugs: a systematic review of global, regional, and national coverage. Lancet. 2010;375:1014.Google Scholar
  123. Pizzey R, Hunt N. Distributing foil from needle and syringe programmes (NSPs) to promote transitions from heroin injecting to chasing: an evaluation. Harm Reduct J. 2008;5:24.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  124. Bojko MJ, Dvoriak S, Altice FL. At the crossroads: HIV prevention and treatment for people who inject drugs in Ukraine. Addiction. 2013;108(10):1697–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  125. Hedrich D, Kerr T, Dubois-Arber F. Drug consumption facilities in Europe and beyond. In: Rhodes T, Hendrich D, editors. Harm reduction: evidence, impacts and challenges. Luxembourg: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), Scientific Monograph, Office of the European Union; 2010.Google Scholar
  126. Alistar SS, Owens DK, Brandeau ML. Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of expanding harm reduction and antiretroviral therapy in a mixed HIV epidemic: a modeling analysis for Ukraine. PLoS Med. 2011;8, e1000423.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Hearne et al. 2016

Advertisement