Research showed that drugs may not have saved the woman poisoned by Novichok

Drugs that could have been used to treat a woman who died after being poisoned by Novichok would likely have “not had any material effect,” a study has found.

Dawn Sturgess died on July 8, 2018 after being exposed to the nerve agent, which was left in a discarded perfume bottle in Amesbury, Wiltshire.

Professor Guy Rutty, a forensic pathologist, told the Dawn Sturgess Inquiry that by the time she could have been given the drug atropine, which increases a patient’s heart rate, “the damage had already been done”.

Professor Rutty, who carried out the autopsy on 44-year-old Ms Sturgess, told the hearing that one of the first symptoms Ms Sturgess had after coming into contact with the toxic chemical was a headache.

The inquest in central London heard on Tuesday that Ms Sturgess, who collapsed on June 30, 2018 and was taken to hospital in Salisbury until her death, had undergone toxicology tests while still alive which included “a number of therapeutic and non-therapeutic medications” had been identified. in her system.

“Although I have not been provided with the quantity of drugs identified, I am not aware that there is any indication that the deceased’s collapse was a direct result of the action of a therapeutic or illicit drug,” Prof. Rutty wrote in a report. on July 17, 2018, read the research.

The hearing was told that benzoylecgonine, the metabolite of cocaine, was present in Ms Sturgess’ urine sample from June 30, analyzed by Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospital NHS Trusts laboratories, but the level recorded did not indicate recent use.

There were large spikes in concentrations of the antidepressants mirtzazapine and zopiclone, indicating recent use, the study found.

Professor Rutty said these are “commonly prescribed” drugs and said he had “no reason to suggest this is the cause of her collapse”.

The inquiry was previously heard by interim Chief Inspector Kerry Lawes, who was a detective sergeant at the time of the poisoning, who apologized for calling Ms Sturgess a ‘known drug addict’ in an email after her poisoning.

Professor Rutty later explained that despite questions about whether Ms Sturgess, 44, could have survived if she had been given the drug atropine, which increases heart rate, “the damage had already been done”.

He told the inquest: “The critical damage to her brain caused by oxygen deprivation during prolonged cardiac arrest had already been identified.

“You would have to give it (atropine) in such large quantities.

“I think the damage has already been done.”

Ms Sturgess went into cardiac arrest on arrival of the first paramedic, Mark Faulkner, an expert paramedic, told the hearing on Tuesday.

Her death followed the attempted murder of former spy Sergei Skripal, his daughter Yulia and then police officer Nick Bailey, who were poisoned in nearby Salisbury in March 2018.

All three survived, as did Ms Sturgess’s friend, Charlie Rowley, who unknowingly gave her the bottle containing the deadly nerve agent.

The investigation revealed that atropine was wrongly given to Mr Skripal by paramedics on March 4, 2018.

Mr Faulkner said that although the drug was wrongly administered, it was unlikely to have caused any harm to Skripal and could have been “life-saving”.

The nerve agent Novichok, identified by the government’s Defense Science and Technology Laboratory, caused Ms Sturgess to go into cardiac arrest, depriving her brain of oxygen and causing her to suffer hypoxic brain damage, Prof Rutty told the inquiry .

The hearing was previously told that Mr Rowley had been given an auto-injector pen containing a drug called DuoDote, a treatment for nerve agent poisoning, on June 30.

In his report read out at the hearing, Professor Rutty said auto-injectors should be used after a person has been exposed to nerve agents and when experiencing symptoms, but there is no suggestion that they are used during cardiac arrest.

Lord Anthony Hughes, chairman of the inquiry, asked Professor Rutty: “If atropine or DuoDote had been used, would it have had any influence on the process that you think is the mechanism of death?”

Professor Rutty said: “From what I read, I don’t think it would have had any material effect.”

The investigation continues.