In the article [1] published in the April 2017 issue of Addition, an error slipped into following sentence of the abstract: "There were no large differences in drug purity, yet small but statistically significant differences were found for 4-FA (on-line 59% versus off-line 52% purity for 4-FA on average, P = 0.001), MDMA powders (45 versus 61% purity for MDMA, P = 0.02), 2C-B tablets (21 versus 10 mg 2C-B/tablet dosage, P = 0.49) and ecstasy tablets (131 versus 121 mg MDMA/ tablet dosage, P = 0.05)." P = 0.49 (in 2C-B tablets) should be P = 0.049. The authors wish to apologize for this error. Reference 1. van der Gouwe D., Brunt T. M., van Laar M., van der Pol P. Purity, adulteration and price of drugs bought on-line versus off-line in the Netherlands. Addiction 2017; 112: 640-8.
Background and Aims
Although European‐wide data on the new psychoactive substances (NPS) drug market are available, country‐specific data are limited. We studied recent NPS trend data relative to all recreational drugs on the Dutch drug market.
Design
National observational study.
Setting
The Netherlands.
Data sources
Three national indicators were used between 2013 and 2017: (1) forensic drug samples offered to the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI); (2) drug samples submitted by consumers to the Drugs Information and Monitoring System (DIMS); and (3) exposures in which the Dutch Poisons Information Center (DPIC) was consulted.
Measurements
Overall NPS incidence rate was the primary outcome. Numbers and specific categories of NPS were also studied. Changes in NPS incidence rates over time were analyzed using Poisson regression analyses [year effect expressed as incidence rate ratios (IRR)].
Findings
From 2013 to 2017, NPS were involved in 1892 forensic samples, 6316 consumer samples and 481 poisons center exposures. In 2013, NPS incidence rates were 2.5, 7 and 4% versus 3, 11 and 11% in 2017, respectively, in the NFI, DIMS and DPIC samples/exposures. NPS incidence rates increased significantly in consumer samples between 2013 and 2016 [IRR = 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.18, 1.29] and in poisons center exposures between 2013 and 2017 (IRR = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.06, 1.35), while the trend in forensic samples appeared more stable. Phenethylamines were the largest class and were detected in 58, 80 and 63% of NFI, DIMS and DPIC samples/exposures, respectively. Detected phenethylamines mainly involved 4‐fluoroamphetamine and 2C‐x derivatives. The second largest class were cathinones, which were detected in 21, 11 and 16% of NFI, DIMS and DPIC samples/exposures, respectively.
Conclusions
Analysis of forensic drug samples, consumer drug samples and exposures reported to poison centers from 2013 to 2017 shows the constant presence of new psychoactive substances on the Dutch drug market and its use by the Dutch population. The two largest classes present in the Netherlands were phenethylamines and cathinones.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to present some of the continued resistance and challenges faced by drug checking services (DCS) and review how the existing literature and the contributions to the special issue address them, with a view to making recommendations.
Design/methodology/approach
The existing literature and the contributions to the special issue are reviewed.
Findings
Drug checking cannot be equated with quality control. With the appropriate equipment and chemistry staff, DCS can provide quantitative analysis and reliable results. When the product does not match expectations, service users discard the tested substance of concern. To more easily compare the results of different studies and better evaluate drug checking, standardisation of measures is desirable. Uptake of drug checking, notably in festivals, is low and depends in part on the capacity of DCS. Drug checking has added value in monitoring drug markets and is complementary with chemical (forensic) analysis.
Originality/value
This paper interrogates in a relatively comprehensive way the continued resistance to drug checking in light of theoretical and empirical research to derive recommendations that are specific to drug checking and that are addressed to health professionals, researchers and also to policymakers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.