ReviewArchives of toxicology2025
Outsmarting generic legislation: 4 years into the cat-and-mouse game of the synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist market since the Chinese ban in 2021.
Review in Archives of toxicology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physicochemical Characterization and Metabolites Identification of the Synthetic Cannabinoid MDMB-5'Br-PINACA UsingChemical research in toxicology · 2026Article
- AB-MDMSBA-Not a Synthetic Cannabinoid Receptor Agonist.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026Article
- Identification and Structural Elucidation of a New Synthetic Cannabinoid, MDMB-5'Br-PINACA, in Seized Herbal Materials.Drug testing and analysis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The enactment of the generic ban on synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists (SCRAs) in China in 2021 has significantly altered the international SCRA landscape, both in size and diversity. To circumvent the new legislation, covering 7 common SCRA scaffolds, manufacturers have employed various ban-evading strategies during the past 4 years, yielding numerous novel compounds with distinct properties and challenges. These strategies include introducing alternative core moieties, such as a oxoindolins ("OXIZIDs"), an oxopyridone (CH-FUBBMPDORA) and a 4-methyl benzoate (NMDMSB), as well as replacing the carboxamide linker with an acetamide (e.g., seen in ADB-FUBIATA). Additional approaches involve modifying conventional core structures by switching tail group positions (e.g., pyrazoles 5F-3,5-AB-PFUPPYCA and 3,5-ADB-4en-PFUPPYCA), or removing/adding substitutions (e.g., tail-less SCRAs like ADB-INACA and brominated SCRAs like ADB-5'Br-BUTINACA, respectively). Furthermore, a concerning 'do-it-yourself' synthesis approach has emerged, enabling users or intermediate suppliers to easily generate banned, potent SCRAs themselves from ban-evading tail-less precursors, thereby obtaining renewed access to previously scheduled and potentially dangerous compounds. In addition to the proliferation of structurally novel, unknown substances, new ways to market readily existing (highly potent) SCRAs, continue to complicate analytical detection and risk assessment. This review explores the ban-evading strategies that have been observed between mid-2021 and mid-2025, along with a discussion on strategies for detection, identification, metabolic profiling, and pharmacological characterization of the SCRAs that have emerged as a result of this ban. Additionally, for some compounds that have not been pharmacologically characterized in literature, the first published data are presented here.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40983778What 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.