ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2020
How preclinical studies have influenced novel psychoactive substance legislation in the UK and Europe.
Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- ADME of Bromo-DragonFLY as an example of a new psychoactive substance (NPS) - application of in Silico methods for prediction: absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Epigenetic Studies for Evaluation of NPS Toxicity: Focus on Synthetic Cannabinoids and Cathinones.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- Molecular mechanisms of action of stimulant novel psychoactive substances that target the high-affinity transporter for dopamine.Neuronal signaling · 2021Review
- How preclinical studies have influenced novel psychoactive substance legislation in the UK and Europe.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Review
- The challenge of the novel psychoactive substances: How have we responded and what are the implications of this response?British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Novel psychoactive substances (NPS) are new drugs of abuse. Over the last 10 years 50-100 new NPS have been detected for the first time each year. This has led to numerous deaths and challenges to healthcare providers and law-makers worldwide. We review preclinical studies of NPS and discuss how these studies have influenced legislative decisions. We focus on the UK legal system but include experiences from Europe. We reviewed manuscripts from 2008-2019 and have summarised the in vitro and in vivo data on NPS, highlighting how these studies define pharmacological mechanisms and how they might predict harm in humans. We found that only a small percentage of NPS have been examined in preclinical studies. Most preclinical studies of NPS focus on basic pharmacological mechanisms (46% of studies reviewed) and/or addictive liability (32%) rather than toxicity and harm (24%). Very few preclinical studies into NPS include data from chronic dosing schedules (9%) or female rodents (4%). We conclude that preclinical studies can predict harm to humans, but most of the predictions are based on basic pharmacology rather than demonstrated toxicity. Some of these studies have been used to make changes to the law in the UK and Europe and perhaps, because of the paucity of toxicology data, most NPS have been placed in the highly dangerous schedule 1 or Class A category in the UK. We suggest that in silico studies and high throughput toxicology screens might be the most economical way forward to rapidly screen the health harms of NPS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.