A little-known synthetic opioid most Americans have never heard of is now appearing in forensic laboratories across North America and Europe. In many jurisdictions, it is not routinely included in toxicology panels.
N-propionitrile chlorphine, also known as cychlorphine, has been linked to fatal overdose investigations in parts of the United States and the United Kingdom. It has been detected in community drug-checking programs in Toronto and confirmed through advanced laboratory analysis in France and Germany. German authorities placed the compound under their New Psychoactive Substances Act in late 2025. In the United Kingdom, officials linked it to multiple fatal overdoses before issuing public alerts.
In one southeastern state, forensic officials recently confirmed 19 overdose deaths under investigation involving the compound, with 12 confirmed and seven pending laboratory confirmation. The state crime laboratory also reported 11 seized drug submissions testing positive for cychlorphine in 2025 and nine additional submissions in the first 30 days of 2026. The presence of the drug in seized materials does not establish cause of death, but it confirms circulation in the illicit supply.
Forensic officials there have described cychlorphine as approximately 10 times more potent than fentanyl. In at least one confirmed fatal case, it was the only drug identified, measured at approximately 0.5 nanograms in femoral blood. A nanogram is one-billionth of a gram. Yet in many states, the compound is not part of standard toxicology screens. This is not a story about a single drug. It is a story about surveillance design. Most overdose surveillance systems were built to classify causes of death, not to rapidly identify newly engineered molecules. Death certificates rely on ICD-10 coding categories that often aggregate synthetic opioids into broad classifications. Medical examiners determine which toxicology panels are ordered. Crime laboratories validate methods based on available standards and resources. Public dashboards update months after toxicology confirmation.
Detection, in other words, depends on laboratory capability and workflow. It is not purely a measure of street prevalence. International experience illustrates the challenge. French researchers reported that routine screening initially produced unidentified peaks because cychlorphine was not present in existing spectral libraries. Confirmation required high-resolution mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance analysis. Advanced methods were necessary because the compound was new to the system. Emerging synthetic opioids expose a structural vulnerability: analytical infrastructure adapts reactively.
When compounds are not included on routine panels, they may go undetected. When laboratories vary in capability, geographic visibility varies. When data flows through multiple agencies before reaching public dashboards, reporting lags toxicological reality. This dynamic is not unique to one state. It is built into how the United States tracks overdose deaths.
At the same time, global drug markets adapt quickly. Following regulatory pressure on certain nitazene opioids in 2025, forensic laboratories began identifying alternative synthetic opioids, including orphine analogues such as cychlorphine. That does not prove direct causation. It does illustrate a familiar substitution pattern: as enforcement targets one class, chemically modified compounds can emerge in its place. The result is a recurring cycle. Chemistry evolves at the molecular level. Surveillance systems adjust on bureaucratic timelines.
Federal databases such as the National Forensic Laboratory Information System collect seizure data. The CDC’s State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System aggregates death investigation information. State dashboards publish summarized categories months after confirmation. Each layer serves a purpose. None were designed for real-time molecular detection of newly engineered opioids. The absence of confirmed cases in a jurisdiction does not necessarily establish the absence of exposure. It may reflect the limits of current toxicology panels or the availability of validated testing standards.
This is not an argument for alarmism. It is an argument for alignment.
If emerging synthetic opioids are being identified in forensic laboratories across multiple states and countries, national surveillance conversations should focus as much on laboratory capacity and data integration as on individual compounds. Early detection depends on expanded panels, updated spectral libraries, validated standards and communication across agencies.
Chemistry is global. Surveillance remains fragmented and local.
Until that gap narrows, new synthetic opioids may circulate faster than the data systems designed to warn us.