4DQSAR
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2025
- Messages
- 5,914
Oh - Cases where the isomerism of a drug alters it's legal control is extremely niche. The only case I know of was a smart defence lawyer being able to demonstrate that trans-4-methylaminorex and cis-4-methylaminorex were sufficiently different to have a jury return a not guilty verdict. The law was quickly altered to remove that loophole.
But as things more than one group researched the isomers of buprioion and even applied for patents to protect their discoveries.
WO1999038502A1 - Pharmaceutical uses of optically pure (+)-bupropion
One never knows why a chiral derivative of a raecemic medicine does or does not become a new medicine. It may be as dull as the enantiopure compound being too costly (certainly cost would be far higher) and/or if their isn't much CLINICAL advantage and/or the dangers of using a cathinone meant researchers weren't confident that a new product would ever obtain a GSL.
I highlighted the term clinial because what most of us might see as positives (faster onset, shorter duration of action and at non-clinical doses fewer side-effects) wouldn't be 'clinical' advantages.
But if nothing else, from a legal perspective if would at a stroke halve the amount an importer was holding and while medically chiral legally means ≥ 98% ee (>99% of the stated isomer), if a cheaper resolution only achieved around 90% ee (circa 95% of the stated isomer), that wouldn't matter so that the costly chiral synthesis would not be required.
Right now the more I look at bupropion the more I wonder if it may already be mixed in with other cathinones on the basis that it's a very cheap active cut and from my experience the best you can expect from a dealer is total disinterest in the end user. To them it's simply a comodity they can sell for a large profit. But you would be AMAZED at how many would try out the stuff on customers - it's it's accepted AND more profitable, obviously they would run with it.
But as things more than one group researched the isomers of buprioion and even applied for patents to protect their discoveries.
WO1999038502A1 - Pharmaceutical uses of optically pure (+)-bupropion
One never knows why a chiral derivative of a raecemic medicine does or does not become a new medicine. It may be as dull as the enantiopure compound being too costly (certainly cost would be far higher) and/or if their isn't much CLINICAL advantage and/or the dangers of using a cathinone meant researchers weren't confident that a new product would ever obtain a GSL.
I highlighted the term clinial because what most of us might see as positives (faster onset, shorter duration of action and at non-clinical doses fewer side-effects) wouldn't be 'clinical' advantages.
But if nothing else, from a legal perspective if would at a stroke halve the amount an importer was holding and while medically chiral legally means ≥ 98% ee (>99% of the stated isomer), if a cheaper resolution only achieved around 90% ee (circa 95% of the stated isomer), that wouldn't matter so that the costly chiral synthesis would not be required.
Right now the more I look at bupropion the more I wonder if it may already be mixed in with other cathinones on the basis that it's a very cheap active cut and from my experience the best you can expect from a dealer is total disinterest in the end user. To them it's simply a comodity they can sell for a large profit. But you would be AMAZED at how many would try out the stuff on customers - it's it's accepted AND more profitable, obviously they would run with it.
