The prevalence of novel psychoactive substances (NPS) use in non-clinical populations: a systematic review protocol

Salma M Khaled, Elizabeth Hughes, Dan Bressington, Monica Zolezzi, Ahmed Radwan, Ashish Badnapurkar, Richard Gray, Salma M Khaled, Elizabeth Hughes, Dan Bressington, Monica Zolezzi, Ahmed Radwan, Ashish Badnapurkar, Richard Gray

Abstract

Background: Novel psychoactive substances (NPS) are new narcotic or psychotropic drugs that are not controlled by the United Nations drug convention that may pose a serious public health threat due to their wide availability for purchase on the internet and in so called "head shops." Yet, the extent of their global use remains largely unknown. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the prevalence of NPS use in non-clinical populations.

Methods: This is a systematic review of observational studies. Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Lilacs, Scopus, Global Health, PsychINFO, Web of Science, and the World Health Organization (WHO) regional databases will be searched for eligible prevalence studies published between 2010 and 2016. Data from cross-sectional studies that report the prevalence of NPS use (one or more types) in participants (of any age) from censuses or probabilistic or convenience samples will be included. Data will be extracted from eligible publications, using a data extraction tool developed for this study. Visual and statistical approaches will be adopted instead of traditional meta-analytic approaches.

Discussion: This review will describe the distributions of various types of prevalence estimates of NPS use and explore the impact of different population groups and study-related and tempo-geographical variables on characteristics of these distributions over the period of 2010 to 2016.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42016037020.

Keywords: Club drugs; Designer drugs; Epidemiology; Internet drugs; Legal highs; New psychoactive substances; Novel psychoactive substances; Prevalence; Psychiatric morbidity; Research chemicals.

References

    1. UNODC. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2013. [Internet]. Vienna: United Nations Office On Drugs And Crime; 2013 [cited 2016 May 5]. (World Drug Report). Available from: .
    1. Corazza O, Demetrovics Z, van den Brink W, Schifano F. “Legal highs” an inappropriate term for “Novel Psychoactive Drugs” in drug prevention and scientific debate. Int J Drug Policy. 2013;24(1):82–83. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2012.06.005.
    1. Schifano F, Orsolini L, Duccio Papanti G, Corkery JM. Novel psychoactive substances of interest for psychiatry. World Psychiatry. 2015;14(1):15–26. doi: 10.1002/wps.20174.
    1. Iversen L, Gibbons S, Treble R, Setola V, Huang X-P, Roth BL. Neurochemical profiles of some novel psychoactive substances. Eur J Pharmacol. 2013;700(1–3):147–151. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2012.12.006.
    1. Hermanns-Clausen M, Kneisel S, Szabo B, Auwarter V. Acute toxicity due to the confirmed consumption of synthetic cannabinoids: clinical and laboratory findings. Addict Abingdon Engl. 2013;108(3):534–544. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.04078.x.
    1. Balmelli C, Kupferschmidt H, Rentsch K, Schneemann M. Fatal brain edema after ingestion of ecstasy and benzylpiperazine. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1946. 2001;126(28–29):809–811. doi: 10.1055/s-2001-15702.
    1. Borek HA, Holstege CP. Hyperthermia and multiorgan failure after abuse of “bath salts” containing 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60(1):103–105. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.01.005.
    1. Corkery JM, Elliott S, Schifano F, Corazza O, Ghodse AH. MDAI (5,6-methylenedioxy-2-aminoindane; 6,7-dihydro-5H-cyclopenta[f][1,3]benzodioxol-6-amine; “sparkle”; “mindy”) toxicity: a brief overview and update. Hum Psychopharmacol. 2013;28(4):345–355. doi: 10.1002/hup.2298.
    1. Spiller HA, Ryan ML, Weston RG, Jansen J. Clinical experience with and analytical confirmation of “bath salts” and “legal highs” (synthetic cathinones) in the United States. Clin Toxicol Phila Pa. 2011;49(6):499–505. doi: 10.3109/15563650.2011.590812.
    1. Warrick BJ, Hill M, Hekman K, Christensen R, Goetz R, Casavant MJ, et al. A 9-state analysis of designer stimulant, “bath salt”, hospital visits reported to poison control centers. Ann Emerg Med. 2013;62(3):244–251. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.12.017.
    1. Wood DM, Davies S, Greene SL, Button J, Holt DW, Ramsey J, et al. Case series of individuals with analytically confirmed acute mephedrone toxicity. Clin Toxicol Phila Pa. 2010;48(9):924–927. doi: 10.3109/15563650.2010.531021.
    1. UNODC. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2016. [Internet]. Vienna: United Nations Office On Drugs And Crime; 2016 [cited 2016 May 5]. (World Drug Report). Available from: .
    1. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. EU Drug Markets Report, In-depth Analysis, 2016 [Internet]. Lisbon: EMCDD; 2016 p. 141. Available from: .
    1. UNODC. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2014 [Internet]. Vienna: United Nations Office On Drugs And Crime; 2014 [cited 2016 May 5]. (World Drug Report). Available from: .
    1. European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction . European Drug Report: Trends and Developments [Internet] Lisbon: EMCCDA; 2016.
    1. European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction . European Drug Report: Trends and Developments [Internet] Lisbon: EMCCDA; 2015.
    1. Murray CJ. Quantifying the burden of disease: the technical basis for disability-adjusted life years. Bull World Health Organ. 1994;72(3):429–445.
    1. Health Canada. “Summary of results of 2010–11 Youth Smoking Survey” [Internet]. Waterloo, Canada: Health Canada; 2012 May. (Controlled Substances and Tobacco Directorate). Available from: .
    1. Ministry of Health, New Zealand. “Regulatroy impact statement, new regulatory regime for psychoactive substances” [Internet]. Wellington, New Zealand: the Treasury; 2012 Jul. Available from: .
    1. National Advisory Commitee on Drugs and Public Health Information and Research Branch, Ireland and Northern Ireland (United Kingdom). Drug Use in Ireland and Northern Ireland 2010/2011: Drug Prevalence Survey: Regional Drug Task Force (Ireland) and Health and Social Care Trust (Northern Ireland) Results. Ireland and Northern Ireland (United Kingdom): National Advisory Commitee on Drugs and Public Health Information and Research Branch; 2012.
    1. National Drug and Alcohol Research Center, Sydney, 2012. “Australian trends in ecstasy and related drug markets 2011”, findings from ecstasy and related drugs reporting system (EDRS) [Internet]. Sydney 2012: University of New South Wales; (Australian Drug Trends Series No.82). Available from: .
    1. Smith K, Flatley J. Drug misuse declared: findings from the 2010/2011 British Crime Survey England and Wales. UK: Home Office; 2011.
    1. The National Institute on Drug Abuse, USA. “Monitoring the Future, national results on adolescent drug use, overview of key findings, 2011” [Internet]. USA: The University of Michigan, sponsored by The National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute of Health; 2012 Feb. Available from: .
    1. Palamar JJ, Acosta P. Synthetic cannabinoid use in a nationally representative sample of US high school seniors. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;149:194–202. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.01.044.
    1. Palamar JJ, Martins SS, Su MK, Ompad DC. Self-reported use of novel psychoactive substances in a US nationally representative survey: Prevalence, correlates, and a call for new survey methods to prevent underreporting. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;156:112–119. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.08.028.
    1. European Union. “Youth Attitudes on Drugs”, Flash Eurobarometer 330 [Internet]. 2011 p. 18. Available from: .
    1. Martinotti G, Lupi M, Acciavatti T, Cinosi E, Santacroce R, Signorelli MS, et al. Novel psychoactive substances in young adults with and without psychiatric comorbidities. BioMed Res Int. 2014;2014:815424.
    1. Global Drug Survey (GDS). The Global Drug Survey 2016 findings [Internet]. Available from: .
    1. World Bank Organization. World Atlas Method [Internet]. The World Bank. 2016. Available from: .
    1. Hoy D, Brooks P, Woolf A, Blyth F, March L, Bain C, et al. Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(9):934–939. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.014.
    1. American Associaton For Public Opinion Research. Evaluating Survey Quality in Today’s Complex Environment [Internet]. AAPOR; 2016 Dec [cited 2016 Sep 15]. Available from: .
    1. McGrath J, Saha S, Welham J, El Saadi O, MacCauley C, Chant D. A systematic review of the incidence of schizophrenia: the distribution of rates and the influence of sex, urbanicity, migrant status and methodology. BMC Med. 2004;2:13. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-2-13.
    1. Lau J, Antman EM, Jimenez-Silva J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1992;327(4):248–254. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199207233270406.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever