Recent changes in drug abuse scenarios : The new/novel psychoactive substances (NPS) phenomenon

© 2018 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Pregabalin: a range of misuse-related unanswered questions

© 2019 The Authors. CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Analyzing the Open/Deep Web to Better Understand the New/Novel Psychoactive Substances (NPS) Scenarios: Suggestions from CASSANDRA and NPS.Finder Research Projects

© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).New/novel psychoactive substances (NPS) are defined as new narcotic/psychotropic drugs which are not controlled by the United Nations' 1961 Narcotic Drugs/1971 Psychotropic Substances conventions, but which may pose a public health threat [...].Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Coming off prescribed psychotropic medications: insights from their use as recreational drugs

© 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel. This is the peer-reviewed but unedited manuscript version of the following article: Schifano F: Coming Off Prescribed Psychotropic Medications: Insights from Their Use as Recreational Drugs. Psychother Psychosom 2020;89:274-282. DOI: 10.1159/000361001. The final, published version is available at https://doi.org/10.1159/000507897.Peer reviewedFinal Accepted Versio

2023: the best year ever for Future Pharmacology (and even better years to come)

© 2023 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Peer reviewe

The New Future Pharmacology Journal: A Cutting-Edge Opportunity for Rapidly Sharing and Widely Disseminating the Most Advanced Research Ideas and Findings

© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Submitted 10 June 2021; Accepted 10 June 2021; Published 18 June 2021Peer reviewe

From "Special K" to "Special M" : The Evolution of the Recreational use of Ketamine and Methoxetamine

Objective: To review the recreational use of ketamine (‘Special K’; KET) and explore the recent diffusion of its new derivative methoxetamine (‘Special M’; MXE). Methods: The literature search on the non-clinical/recreational use of KET and MXE was carried out in a range of medical databases. Considering the limitations of peer-reviewed information, data were integrated with a qualitative assessment of a range of websites, drug fora and other online resources including. Results: The recreational use of KET has started since its discovery in 1962. This was due to its rapid onset, short duration of action, and peculiar psychotropic effects (‘K-hole’). The latter effect ranges from confusion to dissociation and depersonalization (near-death experience). However, KET abuse is often associated with physical and psychological side effects of which the worst is urological/bladder toxicity. Recently, MXE has emerged as a legal and ‘bladder friendly’ KET alternative. MXE presents with the same dissociative effect of KET but with slower onset and longer duration of action. However, MXE seems to be associated with worse side effects than KET, ranging from mood disturbances/suicidal attempts to acute cerebellar toxicity. Conclusions: After 50 years of its discovery, KET has led to the emergence of MXE. However, this latter derivative does not appear to be a safer alternative to KET itself.Peer reviewe

A systematic review of the nature of dispensing errors in hospital pharmacies

Background: Dispensing errors are common in hospital pharmacies. Investigating dispensing errors is important for identifying the factors involved and developing strategies to reduce their occurrence. Objectives: To review published studies exploring the incidence and types of dispensing errors in hospital pharmacies and factors contributing to these errors. Methods: Electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, and Web of Science were searched for articles published between January 2000 and January 2015. Inclusion criteria were: studies published in English, and studies investigating type, incidence and factors contributing to dispensing errors in hospital pharmacies. One researcher searched for all relevant published articles, screened all titles and abstracts, and obtained complete articles. A second researcher assessed the titles, abstracts, and complete articles to verify the reliability of the selected articles. Key findings: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria all of which were conducted in just four countries. Reviewing incident reports and direct observation were the main methods used to investigate dispensing errors. Dispensing error rates varied between countries (0.015%–33.5%) depending on the dispensing system, research method, and classification of dispensing error types. The most frequent dispensing errors reported were dispensing the wrong medicine, dispensing the wrong drug strength, and dispensing the wrong dosage form. The most common factors associated with dispensing errors were: high workload, low staffing, mix-up of look-alike/sound-alike drugs, lack of knowledge/experience, distractions/interruptions, and communication problems within the dispensary team. Conclusion: Studies relating to dispensing errors in hospital pharmacies are few in number and have been conducted in just four countries. The majority of these studies focused on the investigation of dispensing error types with no mention of contributing factors or strategies for reducing dispensing errors. Others studies are thus needed to investigate dispensing errors in hospital pharmacies, and a combined approach is recommended to investigate contributing factors associated with dispensing errors and explore strategies for reducing these errors.Peer reviewe

Assessing the 2004-2018 fentanyl misusing issues reported to an international range of adverse reporting systems

© 2019 Schifano, Chiappini, Corkery and Guirguis. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Submitted 2 October 2018, Accepted 14 January 2019, published 1 February 2019.Objective: A recent, global, increase in the use of opioids including the prescribing, highly potent, fentanyl has been recorded. Due its current popularity and the potential lethal consequences of its intake, we aimed here at analyzing the fentanyl misuse, abuse, dependence and withdrawal-related adverse drug reactions (ADRs) identified within the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the United Kingdom Yellow Card Scheme (YCS), and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) databases. Methods: Descriptive analysis of both ADRs and related cases. Results: The analysis of fentanyl-related misuse, abuse, dependence and withdrawal cases reported during years 2004-2018 to the EMA, the YCS, and the FAERS showed increasing levels overtime, specifically, EMA-related data presented two peaks (e.g., in 2008 and 2015), whilst the FAERS dataset was characterized by a dramatic increase of the ADRs collected over the last 18 months, and particularly from 2016. Some 127,313 ADRs (referring to n = 6,161 patients/single cases) related to fentanyl's misuse/abuse/dependence/withdrawal issues were reported to EMA, with 14,287 being judged by the reporter as "suspect." The most represented ADRs were: "drug dependence "(76.87%), "intentional product misuse" (13.06%), and "drug abuse" (7.45%). Most cases involved adult males and the concomitant use of other prescribing/illicit drugs. A range of idiosyncratic (i.e., ingestion/injection of transdermal patches' fentanyl) and very high-dosage intake cases were here identified. Significant numbers of cases required either a prolonged hospitalization (192/559 = 34.35%) or resulted in death (185/559 = 33.09%). Within the same time frame, YCS collected some 3,566 misuse/abuse/dependence/withdrawal ADRs, corresponding to 1,165 single patients/cases, with those most frequently reported being "withdrawal," "intentional product misuse," and "overdose" ADRs. Finally, FAERS identified a total of 19,145 misuse/abuse/dependence/withdrawal-related cases, being "overdose," withdrawal, and "drug use disorder/drug abuse/drug diversion" the most represented ADRs (respectively, 43.11, 20.80, and 20.29%). Conclusion: Fentanyl abuse may be considered a public health issue with significant implications for clinical practice. Spontaneous pharmacovigilance reporting systems should be considered for mapping new trends of drug abuse.Peer reviewe

Role of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in the drug approval process in Europe (2008-2012)

The present study aimed at systematically reviewing the role and extent of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) usage within the package of scientific evidence considered for marketing authorization (MA). All regulatory information published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for products authorized between January 2008 and December 2012 and appearing in the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) database was examined for efficacy endpoints. The endpoints here considered included: PROs, clinician reported outcomes (CROs), and laboratory reported outcomes (LROs). LROs were the most frequently reported endpoints. Out of the 180 products here selected, 99 (55%), 67 (37%), and 30 (17%), respectively, used LROs, CROs and PROs as primary endpoints (PEs). PROs as any endpoints were used in 82 (46%) products. Out of these, PROs were documented as PE in 30 (37%), with 27 (33%) products having used PROs both as primary and non-PEs. PRO usage was most frequently identified with nervous system and antineoplastic agents. During the study period, the use of all the three types of endpoints appeared to be static. Both the regulatory bodies and the industry should ensure complete and clear reporting of all endpoints used, including PROs, to improve transparency.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio