Methiopropamine

Sources

13 moderate · 9 weak

Studies and references cited across this article, graded by evidence strength.

Values approved

140/142 (99%)

Data points an editor reviewed and accepted for publication.

Value Provenance

Dosing

insufflatedtrace

Field	Published	AI Proposed	Confidence
Threshold	5 mg	5 mg	low
Low	5–20 mg	5–20 mg	low
Common	20–40 mg	20–40 mg	low
Strong	40–60 mg	40–60 mg	low
Heavy	60+ mg	60+ mg	low
Editorial	Values from existing DB / community consensus for threshold through strong tiers. Heavy tier (60+ mg) proposed by analogy to oral heavy dose. No controlled human dose-finding study exists for any insufflated tier. All values are safety-critical and unverified.
	ReasoningReasoning Values from existing DB / community consensus for threshold through strong tiers. Heavy tier (60+ mg) proposed by analogy to oral heavy dose. No controlled human dose-finding study exists for any insufflated tier. All values are safety-critical and unverified. Evidence basis: community_consensus_large

oraltrace

Field	Published	AI Proposed	Confidence
Threshold	10 mg	10 mg	low
Low	20–30 mg	20–30 mg	low
Common	30–50 mg	30–50 mg	low
Strong	50–60 mg	50–60 mg	low
Heavy	60+ mg	60+ mg	low
Editorial	Values from existing DB / community consensus. No controlled human dose-finding study exists. Consistent with MPA being approximately 5× less potent than methamphetamine in rodent locomotor assays (Tuv et al. 2021). All dose values are safety-critical and unverified against published clinical sources.
	ReasoningReasoning Values from existing DB / community consensus. No controlled human dose-finding study exists. Consistent with MPA being approximately 5× less potent than methamphetamine in rodent locomotor assays (Tuv et al. 2021). All dose values are safety-critical and unverified against published clinical sources. Evidence basis: community_consensus_large

Duration

oral

Field	Published	AI Proposed	Confidence
Onsettrace	30–60 minutes	30–60 minutes	low
Editorial	From existing DB / community consensus. No published controlled study.
	ReasoningReasoning From existing DB / community consensus. No published controlled study. Evidence basis: community_consensus_large
Offsettrace	2–3 hours	2–3 hours	low
Editorial	From existing DB / community consensus. No published controlled study.
	ReasoningReasoning From existing DB / community consensus. No published controlled study. Evidence basis: community_consensus_large
After effectstrace	1–2 hours	1–2 hours	low
Editorial	From existing DB / community consensus. No published controlled study.
	ReasoningReasoning From existing DB / community consensus. No published controlled study. Evidence basis: community_consensus_large
Come uptrace	30–60 minutes	30–60 minutes	low
Editorial	Not in seed data. Proposed based on oral stimulant class norms and the 30-60 min onset suggesting a similar come_up window.
	ReasoningReasoning Not in seed data. Proposed based on oral stimulant class norms and the 30-60 min onset suggesting a similar come_up window. Evidence basis: structural_analogy
Peaktrace	2–4 hours	2–4 hours	low
Editorial	From existing DB / community consensus. No published controlled study.
	ReasoningReasoning From existing DB / community consensus. No published controlled study. Evidence basis: community_consensus_large
Totaltrace	6–10 hours	6–10 hours	low
Editorial	From existing DB / community consensus. No published controlled study.
	ReasoningReasoning From existing DB / community consensus. No published controlled study. Evidence basis: community_consensus_large

insufflated

Field	Published	AI Proposed	Confidence
Onsettrace	5–15 minutes	5–15 minutes	low
Editorial	Proposed by analogy to insufflated stimulant class norms (methamphetamine, methylphenidate). No published insufflated duration data for MPA.
	ReasoningReasoning Proposed by analogy to insufflated stimulant class norms (methamphetamine, methylphenidate). No published insufflated duration data for MPA. Evidence basis: structural_analogy
Peaktrace	1–2 hours	1–2 hours	low
Editorial	Proposed by analogy to insufflated stimulant class norms, adjusted for MPA's lower potency. No published data.
	ReasoningReasoning Proposed by analogy to insufflated stimulant class norms, adjusted for MPA's lower potency. No published data. Evidence basis: structural_analogy
Offsettrace	1–2 hours	1–2 hours	low
Editorial	Proposed by analogy to insufflated stimulant class norms. No published data.
	ReasoningReasoning Proposed by analogy to insufflated stimulant class norms. No published data. Evidence basis: structural_analogy
Totaltrace	3–6 hours	3–6 hours	low
Editorial	Proposed by analogy to insufflated stimulant class norms and expected shorter duration vs. oral route. No published data. Reference compound: methamphetamine insufflated.
	ReasoningReasoning Proposed by analogy to insufflated stimulant class norms and expected shorter duration vs. oral route. No published data. Reference compound: methamphetamine insufflated. Evidence basis: structural_analogy
After effectstrace	1–2 hours	1–2 hours	low
Editorial	Proposed by analogy to insufflated stimulant class norms. No published data.
	ReasoningReasoning Proposed by analogy to insufflated stimulant class norms. No published data. Evidence basis: structural_analogy

Safety

Toxicity Profiletrace

Field	Published	AI Proposed	Confidence
Acute	moderate	moderate	medium
Chronic	high	high	medium
Organs Affected	cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal, neurological	cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal, neurological	medium
Editorial	Acute toxicity rated moderate based on documented organ effects in animal models and human case series (tachycardia, rhabdomyolysis) without established LD₅₀. Chronic toxicity rated high based on Foti et al. 2019 chronic mouse model showing 40% sudden death, myocardial ischemia, and renal/GI necrotic lesions, plus Nguyen et al. 2019 dopaminergic neurotoxicity cascade. Evidence primarily from animal studies with supporting human case series (White et al. 2019, 11 cases). Polydrug confounding in human data prevents definitive attribution.
	ReasoningReasoning Acute toxicity rated moderate based on documented organ effects in animal models and human case series (tachycardia, rhabdomyolysis) without established LD₅₀. Chronic toxicity rated high based on Foti et al. 2019 chronic mouse model showing 40% sudden death, myocardial ischemia, and renal/GI necrotic lesions, plus Nguyen et al. 2019 dopaminergic neurotoxicity cascade. Evidence primarily from animal studies with supporting human case series (White et al. 2019, 11 cases). Polydrug confounding in human data prevents definitive attribution. Evidence basis: animal_study

Dependence Profiletrace

Field	Published	AI Proposed	Confidence
Physical	low	low	medium
Psychological	moderate	moderate	medium
Compulsive Redosing	high	high	medium
Dose Escalation	moderate	moderate	medium
Editorial	Physical dependence rated low (no physical withdrawal syndrome described in literature; psychological withdrawal only). Psychological dependence rated moderate based on locomotor sensitization in rats (Yoon et al. 2016), NAc spine remodeling (Cai et al. 2019), and user-reported compulsive redosing. WHO ECDD concluded abuse potential similar to Schedule II substances. Animal models strong but human dependence data limited to user reports.
	ReasoningReasoning Physical dependence rated low (no physical withdrawal syndrome described in literature; psychological withdrawal only). Psychological dependence rated moderate based on locomotor sensitization in rats (Yoon et al. 2016), NAc spine remodeling (Cai et al. 2019), and user-reported compulsive redosing. WHO ECDD concluded abuse potential similar to Schedule II substances. Animal models strong but human dependence data limited to user reports. Evidence basis: animal_study

Withdrawal Profiletrace

Field	Published	AI Proposed	Confidence
Severity	mild	mild	low
Symptoms	fatigue, anhedonia, low mood, irritability	fatigue, anhedonia, low mood, irritability	low
Fatal	No	No	low
Medical Supervision	Not required	Not required	low
Editorial	Psychological withdrawal only — no physical withdrawal syndrome described. Symptoms (fatigue, anhedonia, low mood, irritability) reported by users but not systematically studied. Duration of 1-3 days inferred from stimulant class norms; no MPA-specific data.
	ReasoningReasoning Psychological withdrawal only — no physical withdrawal syndrome described. Symptoms (fatigue, anhedonia, low mood, irritability) reported by users but not systematically studied. Duration of 1-3 days inferred from stimulant class norms; no MPA-specific data. Evidence basis: animal_study

Tolerance Profiletrace

Field	Published	AI Proposed	Confidence
Buildup	moderate	moderate	low
Half-life	5 days	5 days	low
Full Reset	10.5 days	10.5 days	low
Cross-tolerances	amphetamine, methamphetamine, methylphenidate	amphetamine, methamphetamine, methylphenidate	low
Editorial	Tolerance buildup rated moderate per seed data and community consensus. Half-life and reset values from community consensus only — no published human or animal tolerance study exists. Cross-tolerances inferred from shared NDRI mechanism with amphetamine, methamphetamine, and methylphenidate.
	ReasoningReasoning Tolerance buildup rated moderate per seed data and community consensus. Half-life and reset values from community consensus only — no published human or animal tolerance study exists. Cross-tolerances inferred from shared NDRI mechanism with amphetamine, methamphetamine, and methylphenidate. Evidence basis: community_consensus_large

Effects & Profile

Contraindications

Field	Published	AI Proposed	Confidence
cardiovascular Pre-existing cardiovascular diseasetrace	absolute	absolute	medium
Editorial	Documented in both animal chronic model (40% sudden death, myocardial ischemia) and human case series (91% tachycardia). Multiple independent sources.
	ReasoningReasoning Documented in both animal chronic model (40% sudden death, myocardial ischemia) and human case series (91% tachycardia). Multiple independent sources.
other Concurrent MAOI usetrace	absolute	absolute	medium
Editorial	Class-level contraindication inferred from MPA's NDRI mechanism. Standard for all catecholaminergic stimulants. No MPA-specific data.
	ReasoningReasoning Class-level contraindication inferred from MPA's NDRI mechanism. Standard for all catecholaminergic stimulants. No MPA-specific data.
neurological Seizure disorderstrace	relative	relative	low
Editorial	Inferred from stimulant class mechanism. No MPA-specific seizure data. Reference compounds: methamphetamine, amphetamine.
	ReasoningReasoning Inferred from stimulant class mechanism. No MPA-specific seizure data. Reference compounds: methamphetamine, amphetamine.
psychiatric Psychotic disorders or bipolar disordertrace	relative	relative	medium
Editorial	Documented acute psychosis in human case series (45% hallucinations, 64% confusion in IONA cases) and individual case report. Medium confidence due to polydrug confounding in most cases.
	ReasoningReasoning Documented acute psychosis in human case series (45% hallucinations, 64% confusion in IONA cases) and individual case report. Medium confidence due to polydrug confounding in most cases.
renal Renal impairmenttrace	relative	relative	medium
Editorial	Supported by human case series (CK elevation in 64%) and chronic animal model (renal necrotic lesions). Polydrug confounding limits attribution certainty.
	ReasoningReasoning Supported by human case series (CK elevation in 64%) and chronic animal model (renal necrotic lesions). Polydrug confounding limits attribution certainty.
pregnancy breastfeeding Pregnancy and lactationtrace	relative	relative	low
Editorial	Class-level inference from catecholaminergic stimulant mechanism. No MPA-specific reproductive data. Reference compounds: methamphetamine, amphetamine.
	ReasoningReasoning Class-level inference from catecholaminergic stimulant mechanism. No MPA-specific reproductive data. Reference compounds: methamphetamine, amphetamine.
other Concurrent serotonergic medicationtrace	relative	relative	medium
Editorial	MPA has weak but non-zero SERT inhibition. Harm reduction organizations warn of serotonin toxicity in serotonergic combinations. No peer-reviewed case report of this specific interaction found.
	ReasoningReasoning MPA has weak but non-zero SERT inhibition. Harm reduction organizations warn of serotonin toxicity in serotonergic combinations. No peer-reviewed case report of this specific interaction found.

Timeline Phases

oral

Field	Published	AI Proposed	Confidence
Onsettrace	0–3600 sec(i=0.15)	0–3600 sec(i=0.15)	low
Editorial	Oral timeline derived from existing DB / community consensus duration data (onset 30-60 min, peak 2-4 h, offset 2-3 h, total 6-10 h, aftereffects 1-2 h). No published controlled study. Come_up phase interpolated from onset-to-peak transition. Plateau phase inferred from the 6-10 h total duration minus onset/peak/offset phases. Intensity weights from work-notes.
	ReasoningReasoning Oral timeline derived from existing DB / community consensus duration data (onset 30-60 min, peak 2-4 h, offset 2-3 h, total 6-10 h, aftereffects 1-2 h). No published controlled study. Come_up phase interpolated from onset-to-peak transition. Plateau phase inferred from the 6-10 h total duration minus onset/peak/offset phases. Intensity weights from work-notes. Evidence basis: community_consensus_large
Come uptrace	1800–3600 sec(i=0.40)	1800–3600 sec(i=0.40)	low
Editorial	Oral timeline derived from existing DB / community consensus duration data (onset 30-60 min, peak 2-4 h, offset 2-3 h, total 6-10 h, aftereffects 1-2 h). No published controlled study. Come_up phase interpolated from onset-to-peak transition. Plateau phase inferred from the 6-10 h total duration minus onset/peak/offset phases. Intensity weights from work-notes.
	ReasoningReasoning Oral timeline derived from existing DB / community consensus duration data (onset 30-60 min, peak 2-4 h, offset 2-3 h, total 6-10 h, aftereffects 1-2 h). No published controlled study. Come_up phase interpolated from onset-to-peak transition. Plateau phase inferred from the 6-10 h total duration minus onset/peak/offset phases. Intensity weights from work-notes. Evidence basis: community_consensus_large
Peaktrace	5400–10800 sec(i=1.00)	5400–10800 sec(i=1.00)	low
Editorial	Oral timeline derived from existing DB / community consensus duration data (onset 30-60 min, peak 2-4 h, offset 2-3 h, total 6-10 h, aftereffects 1-2 h). No published controlled study. Come_up phase interpolated from onset-to-peak transition. Plateau phase inferred from the 6-10 h total duration minus onset/peak/offset phases. Intensity weights from work-notes.
	ReasoningReasoning Oral timeline derived from existing DB / community consensus duration data (onset 30-60 min, peak 2-4 h, offset 2-3 h, total 6-10 h, aftereffects 1-2 h). No published controlled study. Come_up phase interpolated from onset-to-peak transition. Plateau phase inferred from the 6-10 h total duration minus onset/peak/offset phases. Intensity weights from work-notes. Evidence basis: community_consensus_large
Plateautrace	3600–7200 sec(i=0.50)	3600–7200 sec(i=0.50)	low
Editorial	Oral timeline derived from existing DB / community consensus duration data (onset 30-60 min, peak 2-4 h, offset 2-3 h, total 6-10 h, aftereffects 1-2 h). No published controlled study. Come_up phase interpolated from onset-to-peak transition. Plateau phase inferred from the 6-10 h total duration minus onset/peak/offset phases. Intensity weights from work-notes.
	ReasoningReasoning Oral timeline derived from existing DB / community consensus duration data (onset 30-60 min, peak 2-4 h, offset 2-3 h, total 6-10 h, aftereffects 1-2 h). No published controlled study. Come_up phase interpolated from onset-to-peak transition. Plateau phase inferred from the 6-10 h total duration minus onset/peak/offset phases. Intensity weights from work-notes. Evidence basis: community_consensus_large
Resolutiontrace	3600–7200 sec(i=0.25)	3600–7200 sec(i=0.25)	low
Editorial	Oral timeline derived from existing DB / community consensus duration data (onset 30-60 min, peak 2-4 h, offset 2-3 h, total 6-10 h, aftereffects 1-2 h). No published controlled study. Come_up phase interpolated from onset-to-peak transition. Plateau phase inferred from the 6-10 h total duration minus onset/peak/offset phases. Intensity weights from work-notes.
	ReasoningReasoning Oral timeline derived from existing DB / community consensus duration data (onset 30-60 min, peak 2-4 h, offset 2-3 h, total 6-10 h, aftereffects 1-2 h). No published controlled study. Come_up phase interpolated from onset-to-peak transition. Plateau phase inferred from the 6-10 h total duration minus onset/peak/offset phases. Intensity weights from work-notes. Evidence basis: community_consensus_large
Afterglowtrace	3600–7200 sec(i=0.10)	3600–7200 sec(i=0.10)	low
Editorial	Oral timeline derived from existing DB / community consensus duration data (onset 30-60 min, peak 2-4 h, offset 2-3 h, total 6-10 h, aftereffects 1-2 h). No published controlled study. Come_up phase interpolated from onset-to-peak transition. Plateau phase inferred from the 6-10 h total duration minus onset/peak/offset phases. Intensity weights from work-notes.
	ReasoningReasoning Oral timeline derived from existing DB / community consensus duration data (onset 30-60 min, peak 2-4 h, offset 2-3 h, total 6-10 h, aftereffects 1-2 h). No published controlled study. Come_up phase interpolated from onset-to-peak transition. Plateau phase inferred from the 6-10 h total duration minus onset/peak/offset phases. Intensity weights from work-notes. Evidence basis: community_consensus_large

insufflated

Field	Published	AI Proposed	Confidence
Onsettrace	0–900 sec(i=0.30)	0–900 sec(i=0.30)	low
Editorial	Insufflated timeline entirely inferred from structural analogy to insufflated methamphetamine and stimulant class norms, adjusted for MPA's lower potency. No published insufflated duration data for MPA. Onset 5-15 min, peak 1-2 h, total 3-6 h per work-notes. Intensity weights from work-notes.
	ReasoningReasoning Insufflated timeline entirely inferred from structural analogy to insufflated methamphetamine and stimulant class norms, adjusted for MPA's lower potency. No published insufflated duration data for MPA. Onset 5-15 min, peak 1-2 h, total 3-6 h per work-notes. Intensity weights from work-notes. Evidence basis: structural_analogy
Come uptrace	300–1800 sec(i=0.60)	300–1800 sec(i=0.60)	low
Editorial	Insufflated timeline entirely inferred from structural analogy to insufflated methamphetamine and stimulant class norms, adjusted for MPA's lower potency. No published insufflated duration data for MPA. Onset 5-15 min, peak 1-2 h, total 3-6 h per work-notes. Intensity weights from work-notes.
	ReasoningReasoning Insufflated timeline entirely inferred from structural analogy to insufflated methamphetamine and stimulant class norms, adjusted for MPA's lower potency. No published insufflated duration data for MPA. Onset 5-15 min, peak 1-2 h, total 3-6 h per work-notes. Intensity weights from work-notes. Evidence basis: structural_analogy
Peaktrace	1800–7200 sec(i=1.00)	1800–7200 sec(i=1.00)	low
Editorial	Insufflated timeline entirely inferred from structural analogy to insufflated methamphetamine and stimulant class norms, adjusted for MPA's lower potency. No published insufflated duration data for MPA. Onset 5-15 min, peak 1-2 h, total 3-6 h per work-notes. Intensity weights from work-notes.
	ReasoningReasoning Insufflated timeline entirely inferred from structural analogy to insufflated methamphetamine and stimulant class norms, adjusted for MPA's lower potency. No published insufflated duration data for MPA. Onset 5-15 min, peak 1-2 h, total 3-6 h per work-notes. Intensity weights from work-notes. Evidence basis: structural_analogy
Resolutiontrace	3600–7200 sec(i=0.35)	3600–7200 sec(i=0.35)	low
Editorial	Insufflated timeline entirely inferred from structural analogy to insufflated methamphetamine and stimulant class norms, adjusted for MPA's lower potency. No published insufflated duration data for MPA. Onset 5-15 min, peak 1-2 h, total 3-6 h per work-notes. Intensity weights from work-notes.
	ReasoningReasoning Insufflated timeline entirely inferred from structural analogy to insufflated methamphetamine and stimulant class norms, adjusted for MPA's lower potency. No published insufflated duration data for MPA. Onset 5-15 min, peak 1-2 h, total 3-6 h per work-notes. Intensity weights from work-notes. Evidence basis: structural_analogy
Afterglowtrace	3600–7200 sec(i=0.15)	3600–7200 sec(i=0.15)	low
Editorial	Insufflated timeline entirely inferred from structural analogy to insufflated methamphetamine and stimulant class norms, adjusted for MPA's lower potency. No published insufflated duration data for MPA. Onset 5-15 min, peak 1-2 h, total 3-6 h per work-notes. Intensity weights from work-notes.
	ReasoningReasoning Insufflated timeline entirely inferred from structural analogy to insufflated methamphetamine and stimulant class norms, adjusted for MPA's lower potency. No published insufflated duration data for MPA. Onset 5-15 min, peak 1-2 h, total 3-6 h per work-notes. Intensity weights from work-notes. Evidence basis: structural_analogy

Dose Tier Summaries

thresholdtrace

low

Minimal perceptible stimulation emerges as a slight increase in alertness and wakefulness without overt euphoria or noticeable mood elevation. Cognitive effects are subtle — a faint sense of thought acceleration and marginally improved focus that may be difficult to distinguish from placebo. Physical effects are negligible at this tier. Heart rate may increase slightly but remains within normal resting range. Appetite suppression is absent or barely perceptible. No significant temperature dysregulation, sweating, or bruxism expected. Oral onset may take 30–60 minutes, making premature redosing a risk. Duration commitment is modest. Sleep disruption is unlikely unless taken late in the day.

Editorial

Based on community consensus dose ranges (oral threshold ~10 mg). No controlled human study at threshold. Effects extrapolated from the substance's NDRI mechanism and user reports describing MPA as mild/caffeine-like at low doses.

Reasoning

Evidence basis: community_consensus_large

lighttrace

low

Noticeable wakefulness and mild focus enhancement become apparent. Thought acceleration is gentle — a sense of mental alertness comparable to moderate caffeine. Cognitive euphoria is minimal or absent. Motivation enhancement may be subtly present, manifesting as increased willingness to engage with routine tasks. Appetite suppression emerges at a low level. Heart rate may be slightly elevated, and some users notice increased heart rate perception. Stimulation is functional rather than forceful — body high is largely absent. Spontaneous body sensations are minimal. Functional impairment is unlikely at this tier. Oral duration extends to 6–8 hours. The mild character of effects at this range may encourage dose escalation — note that MPA has a steep dose-response curve.

Editorial

Based on community consensus dose ranges (oral 20-30 mg, insufflated 5-20 mg). User reports consistently describe MPA as methylphenidate-like at lower doses (DrugWise). No controlled study.

Reasoning

Based on community consensus dose ranges (oral 20-30 mg, insufflated 5-20 mg). User reports consistently describe MPA as methylphenidate-like at lower doses (DrugWise). No controlled study.

Evidence basis: community_consensus_large

commontrace

low

Clear stimulant effects establish themselves: sustained wakefulness, focus enhancement, and mild cognitive euphoria. Thought acceleration and thought organization improve task engagement. Analysis enhancement is noticeable. Motivation enhancement supports sustained productivity. Music enhancement may be subtly present. Appetite suppression is moderate and reliable. Stimulation is clearly perceptible — increased energy and physical alertness without the intensity of amphetamine. Heart rate elevation is common. Spontaneous body sensations and mild temperature dysregulation may emerge. Bruxism and excessive sweating are possible but typically mild. Compulsive redosing urge may emerge at this tier — users frequently describe wanting to sustain the functional stimulation. Oral duration is 6–10 hours. Insomnia is likely if taken in the afternoon or evening. Comedown involves mild fatigue, irritability, and low mood.

Editorial

Based on community consensus dose ranges (oral 30-50 mg, insufflated 20-40 mg). Effects profile drawn from user reports (DrugWise) and work-notes effects data. Compulsive redosing emphasized per work-notes.

Reasoning

Evidence basis: community_consensus_large

strongtrace

low

Pronounced stimulation dominates the experience. Wakefulness is intense and persistent. Focus enhancement may shift from productive to scattered as overstimulation narrows cognitive flexibility. Thought acceleration intensifies. Cognitive euphoria is more apparent but still moderate compared to classical stimulants. Irritability and anxiety may emerge alongside stimulation. Cardiovascular effects become significant: tachycardia, vasoconstriction, and abnormal heartbeat are likely. Bruxism intensifies. Excessive sweating and temperature dysregulation are common. Appetite suppression is strong. Restlessness replaces productive stimulation. Pupil dilation is probable. Compulsive redosing urge intensifies markedly at this tier. The steep dose-response curve means the transition from common to strong effects may feel abrupt. Sleep is impossible for an extended period. Comedown is more pronounced — depression, cognitive fatigue, and motivation suppression are expected.

Editorial

Based on community consensus dose ranges (oral 50-60 mg, insufflated 40-60 mg). Cardiovascular effects supported by animal models showing steep dose-response curve (Tuv et al. 2021) and human case series (91% tachycardia at intoxicating doses, White et al. 2019).

Reasoning

Evidence basis: community_consensus_large

heavytrace

low

Risk of cardiovascular toxicity is significantly elevated at this tier. The narrow margin between strong and heavy doses — a steep dose-response curve documented in rodent models — means effects may escalate rapidly. Tachycardia, vasoconstriction, and abnormal heartbeat are expected. Rhabdomyolysis (muscle breakdown) is a documented risk at intoxicating doses. Psychological effects may become destabilizing: confusion, agitation, hallucinations, and paranoid delusions are documented in clinical cases at high doses. Cognitive impairment replaces cognitive enhancement. Delirium is possible. Aggressive behavior has been demonstrated at higher doses in animal models. Sleep is impossible for an extended period. Compulsive redosing urge remains high. Comedown is severe — prolonged fatigue, depression, irritability, and cognitive fatigue. Seek emergency medical attention if chest pain, severe confusion, or hallucinations develop.

Editorial

Based on community consensus dose ranges (oral 60+ mg, insufflated 60+ mg). Cardiovascular and psychological toxicity documented in IONA case series (White et al. 2019) — 91% tachycardia, 64% confusion, 45% hallucinations. Animal model steep dose-response curve (Tuv et al. 2021).

Reasoning

Evidence basis: community_consensus_large

History

current version

published Oct 2, 2026system—

versions

2 total · since previous: +1 / −1 citations

+ Methiopropamine (MPA) - DrugWise (2020)

− Methiopropamine - MPA - DrugWise harm reduction information (2023)

publication ledger

publish Oct 2, 2026 · by agent-psx

backfill Jun 4, 2026

Historical versions do not record which reviewer approved them; editorial accountability is recorded per value in the database and in the publication ledger going forward.

full version history suggest a correction contact@psychedex.org

Sources

13 moderate · 9 weak

[1]
moderate
Comparative Neuropharmacology and Pharmacokinetics of Methamphetamine and Its Thiophene Analog Methiopropamine in Rodents
Tuv SS, Bergh MS, Andersen JM, Steinsland S, Vindenes V, Baumann MH, Huestis MA, Bogen IL · 2021 · International Journal of Molecular Sciences
doi.org/10.3390/ijms222112002 pubmed 34769427no claims checked
[2]
moderate
Understanding methiopropamine, a new psychoactive substance: an in-depth review on its chemistry, pharmacology and implications to human health
Bunaim MK, Damanhuri HA, Yow HY, Yaakob NS, Makmor-Bakry M, Azmi N · 2024 · International Journal of Legal Medicine
doi.org/10.1007/s00414-024-03201-7 pubmed 38424369no claims checked
[3]
weak
Methiopropamine (MPA) - DrugWise
DrugWise · 2020
linkno claims checked
[4]
weak
Methiopropamine (MPA) Critical Review Report - WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence
WHO ECDD · 2019
linkno claims checked
[5]
moderate
Repeated exposure to methiopropamine increases dendritic spine density in the rat nucleus accumbens core
Cai WT, Yoon HS, Lee S, Kim JH · 2019 · Neurochemistry International
doi.org/10.1016/j.neuint.2019.104487 pubmed 31176680no claims checked
[6]
moderate
Phenotypic effects of chronic and acute use of methiopropamine in a mouse model
Foti F, Marti M, Ossato A, Bilel S, Sangiorgi E, Botré F, Cerbelli B, Baldi A, De-Giorgio F · 2019 · International Journal of Legal Medicine
doi.org/10.1007/s00414-018-1891-8 pubmed 30056621no claims checked
[7]
moderate
Forensic electrochemistry: indirect electrochemical sensing of the components of the new psychoactive substance 'Synthacaine'
Cumba LR, Kolliopoulos AV, Smith JP, Thompson PD, Evans PR, Sutcliffe OB, do Carmo DR, Banks CE · 2015 · The Analyst
doi.org/10.1039/c5an00858a pubmed 26102088no claims checked
[8]
weak
Acute toxicity following analytically confirmed use of the novel psychoactive substance (NPS) methiopropamine. A report from the Identification of Novel psychoActive substances (IONA) study
White JC, Wood DM, Hill SL, Eddleston M, Officer J, Dargan PI, Dunn M, Thomas SHL · 2019 · Clinical Toxicology
doi.org/10.1080/15563650.2018.1538519 pubmed 30676081no claims checked
[9]
moderate
Analysis of anonymous pooled urine from portable urinals in central London confirms the significant use of novel psychoactive substances
Archer JR, Dargan PI, Hudson S, Wood DM · 2013 · QJM
doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcs219 pubmed 23178933no claims checked
[10]
weak
Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of Methiopropamine in Schedule I
US DEA / Federal Register · 2022
linkno claims checked
[11]
weak
Acute Methiopropamine Intoxication After 'Synthacaine' Consumption
Daveluy A, Castaing N, Cherifi H, Richeval C, Humbert L, Faure I, Labadie M, Allorge D, Haramburu F, Molimard M, Titier K · 2016 · Journal of Analytical Toxicology
pubmed 27474360no claims checked
[12]
weak
Methiopropamine - Wikipedia
Wikipedia contributors · 2024
linkno claims checked
[13]
weak
Methiopropamine Legal Status by Jurisdiction
Erowid · 2023
linkno claims checked
[14]
moderate
Methiopropamine and its acute behavioral effects in mice: is there a gray zone in new psychoactive substances users?
De-Giorgio F, Bilel S, Tirri M, Arfè R, Trapella C, Camuto C, Foti F, Frisoni P, Neri M, Botré F, Marti M · 2020 · International Journal of Legal Medicine
doi.org/10.1007/s00414-020-02302-3 pubmed 32356113no claims checked
[15]
moderate
New Psychoactive Substances: Chemistry, Pharmacology, Metabolism, and Detectability of Amphetamine Derivatives With Modified Ring Systems
Welter-Luedeke J, Maurer HH · 2016 · Therapeutic Drug Monitoring
doi.org/10.1097/ftd.0000000000000240 pubmed 26327309no claims checked
[16]
moderate
Urinary excretion profile of methiopropamine in mice following intraperitoneal administration: A liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry investigation
Camuto C, Pellegrini S, De-Giorgio F, de la Torre X, Marti M, Mazzarino M, Botré F · 2021 · Drug Testing and Analysis
doi.org/10.1002/dta.2900 pubmed 32678963no claims checked
[17]
moderate
The expression of methiopropamine-induced locomotor sensitization requires dopamine D2, but not D1, receptor activation in the rat
Yoon HS, Cai WT, Lee YH, Park KT, Lee YS, Kim JH · 2016 · Behavioural Brain Research
doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2016.05.060 pubmed 27265782no claims checked
[18]
moderate
Methiopropamine, a methamphetamine analogue, produces neurotoxicity via dopamine receptors
Nguyen PT, Dang DK, Tran HQ, Shin EJ, Jeong JH, Nah SY, Cho MC, Lee YS, Jang CG, Kim HC · 2019 · Chemico-Biological Interactions
doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2019.03.017 pubmed 30922767no claims checked
[19]
moderate
Effects of methiopropamine on cognitive function and monoaminergic systems in mice
Bunaim MK, Yaakob NS, Ahmad Damanhuri H, Yow HY, Japar Sidik FZ, Mohd Noor N, Azmi N · 2026 · Drug and Chemical Toxicology
doi.org/10.1080/01480545.2025.2515128 pubmed 40525303no claims checked
[20]
weak
Organ distribution of diclazepam, pyrazolam and 3-fluorophenmetrazine
Lehmann S, Sczyslo A, Froch-Cortis J, Rothschild MA, Thevis M, Andresen-Streichert H, Mercer-Chalmers-Bender K · 2019 · Forensic Science International
doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.109959 pubmed 31546164no claims checked
[21]
weak
Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia associated with injected new psychoactive substances
Griffith DJ, Mackintosh CL, Inverarity D · 2015 · Epidemiology and Infection
doi.org/10.1017/s095026881500271x pubmed 26548371no claims checked
[22]
moderate
Low-normal doses of methiopropamine induce aggressive behaviour in mice
Foti F, Bilel S, Tirri M, Arfè R, Boccuto F, Bernardi T, Serpelloni G, De-Giorgio F, Marti M · 2021 · Psychopharmacology
doi.org/10.1007/s00213-021-05813-y pubmed 33770233no claims checked

Claim Verification

No claim verification has run for this version.

Coverage & Gaps

effect links

102 links · 100 approved · 20 audited0/102 with evidence basis

interactions

3 approved pairs0/3 graded

Methiopropamine

Value Provenance

Dosing

insufflatedtrace →

oraltrace →

Duration

oral

insufflated

Safety

Toxicity Profiletrace →

Dependence Profiletrace →

Withdrawal Profiletrace →

Tolerance Profiletrace →

Effects & Profile

Contraindications

Timeline Phases

oral

insufflated

Dose Tier Summaries

History

Sources

Claim Verification

Coverage & Gaps

insufflatedtrace

oraltrace

Toxicity Profiletrace

Dependence Profiletrace

Withdrawal Profiletrace

Tolerance Profiletrace