Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32045495›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2020

How preclinical studies have influenced novel psychoactive substance legislation in the UK and Europe.

Raquel Santos-Toscano, Amira Guirguis, Colin Davidson

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Raquel Santos-ToscanoSchool of Pharmacy & Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Clinical & Biomedical Sciences, University of Central Lancashire, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3129-6732
Amira GuirguisSwansea University Medical School, Institute of Life Sciences 2, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8255-0660
Colin DavidsonSchool of Pharmacy & Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Clinical & Biomedical Sciences, University of Central Lancashire, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8180-7943
University of Lancashire · GBSwansea University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Illicit DrugsSubstance-Related DisordersEuropeFemaleHumansPsychotropic DrugsUnited KingdomIllicit DrugsPsychotropic Drugsabuselegal highlegislationnovel psychoactive substancetoxicity

Identifiers

PMID32045495
PMCPMC7080617
OpenAlexW3006386164

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.