Identifying new psychoactive substances (NPS) using drug checking services: An innovative observational study design
M. Grifell, Guillem Mir, Roger Estelrich-Azubide, Mireia Ventura, Liliana Galindo, Josep Guilanyà, I. Fornís, Cristina Gil, Maria Roldán, Xoán Carbón, Monica J Barratt, Magı́ Farré, Francesc Colom, Víctor Perez
Research Square September 23, 2022 preprint DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2081925/v1 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Observational cohort |
|---|---|
| Sample size | 54 |
| Population | People recruited from online communities who claim to use NPS and submitted samples |
| Key findings | Laboratory analysis identified 40 different NPS, including 13 with no prior scientific literature and 12 with no peer-reviewed subjective effects data. Only one opioid and no synthetic cannabinoids were detected, suggesting the method can reveal emerging NPS not captured by other monitoring approaches. |
Abstract
Abstract Background Despite the proliferation of new psychoactive substances (NPS) in recent years, there are many gaps in our understanding of the phenomena. Current methodologies still fail to provide timely and scientifically reliable knowledge between controlled trials and online data reports that lack analytical confirmation of the reported substances. This study tests a new online, collaborative, observational methodology for tracking the emergence of NPS. It involves conducting laboratory analysis of community-submitted NPS samples using a naturalistic approach.
Methods: Participants were recruited from online communities of people who claim to use NPS. They were asked to send and report on the substances they would have taken independently of the study participation. They received free drug-checking services for the samples sent during the data collection. Participants were also asked to complete multiple online questionnaires to provide information about the analysed NPS samples. Comprehensive literature reviews of the analysed samples were conducted to assess the importance of the results.
Results: Participants sent 136 sample submission questionnaires. Ninety-two were followed by the laboratory analysis of a submitted NPS sample. Only 54 of those analysed NPS samples completed all the study protocols. Forty different NPS were identified in the laboratory analysis. Of those, 13 substances had no previous reports in the scientific literature as new psychoactive substances. Another 12 substances had no available peer-reviewed data regarding their subjective effects. Only one opioid and no synthetic cannabinoids were detected.
Conclusions: The confirmed identification of 13 previously unreported NPS demonstrates the capacity of the current methodology to identify potentially emerging NPS. Despite the vast diversity of substances submitted, the most common NPS types (e.g., cannabinoids and opioids) were not found. Altogether, these results warrant further research to consolidate the favourable impact of monitoring the NPS market using this innovative methodology.