Interpol review of controlled substances 2016–2019

Jones, Nicole S.; Comparin, Jeffrey H.

doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.01.019

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 1,567 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Between 50-85 percent of recent heroin users report abusing opioids before initiating heroin (e.g., Siegal et al 2003 andPollini et al 2011). 12 Similarly, in Cicero and Ellis (2015), a small sample (N = 153) of OxyContin users were asked how they responded to the reformulation: 33 percent indicated that they replaced OxyContin with other drugs. Of this group, 70 percent reported that they had switched to heroin and a smaller proportion switched to other opioids (primarily other forms of oxycodone).…”

Section: Figure 2 National Trends In Prescription Opioid Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Supply-Side Drug Policy in the Presence of Substitutes: Evidence from the Introduction of Abuse-Deterrent Opioids

Alpert

Powell

Pacula

2018

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

161

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Overdose deaths from prescription opioid pain relievers nearly quadrupled between 1999 and 2010. We study the consequences of one of the largest supply disruptions to date to abusable opioids—the introduction of an abuse-deterrent version of OxyContin in 2010. Supply-side interventions that limit access to opioids may have the unintended consequence of increasing use of substitute drugs, including heroin. Exploiting cross-state variation in OxyContin exposure, we find that states with the highest initial rates of OxyContin misuse experienced the largest increases in heroin deaths. Our results imply that the recent heroin epidemic is largely due to the reformulation of OxyContin. (JEL I12, I18)

show abstract

Section: Figure 2 National Trends In Prescription Opioid Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Supply-Side Drug Policy in the Presence of Substitutes: Evidence from the Introduction of Abuse-Deterrent Opioids

Alpert

Powell

Pacula

2018

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

161

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The INTERPOL reviews are undertaken by multiple authors who, after extensively surveying the literature, summarize all the information in individual reviews covering specific evidence types, which are combined into one final report. The most recent edition from 2019 covered 15 major topic areas reviewed by 43 authors ranging between 1 and 11 authors per area or per evidence type (Almirall et al, 2020; Baiker‐Sørensen et al, 2020; Bécue et al, 2020; Butler & Willis, 2020; Chan et al, 2020; Charles et al, 2020; N. S. Jones & Comparin, 2020; Klapec et al, 2020; Lepot et al, 2020; Ludik, 2020; Mattijssen, 2020; Stauffer, 2020). The style and format of the individual reviews vary greatly depending on the topic being covered, some being more descriptive than others in their analyses of the cited references.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research trends in forensic science: A scientometric approach to analyze the content of the INTERPOL reviews

Ménard

Akinpelu

Fiakpui

et al. 2021

WIREs Forensic Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of forensic evidence has become indispensable in many countries and jurisdictions around the world; however, the dissemination of research advancements does not necessarily directly or easily reach the forensic science community. Reports from the INTERPOL International Forensic Science Managers Symposium outline major areas that are of interest to forensic practitioners across the INTERPOL member countries. The information contained in the INTERPOL reports is extensive but can be challenging to process. The purpose of this research is to provide a comprehensive overview of the evolution of trends within the INTERPOL reports over an 18 year period. References relating to 10 evidence types retrieved from the 14th to 19th INTERPOL IFSMS reports (2004-2019 were processed and compared with data exports from the citation database Scopus covering the same evidence types. The results from this work are summarized by investigating the relationships between the 10 evidence types. To explore the outputs a user-friendly R-Shiny application was developed and is freely available at: https://uod.ac.uk/lrcfsinterpolreportsexplorer.

show abstract

“…These novel compounds have also introduced a number of new analytical challengesso much so that over 80 % of laboratories reported limited analytical tools as one of their major challenges [3]. Recent research efforts have focused on approaches to keep pace with the changing landscape, ensuring adequate standards are available, methodologies for differentiating isomeric or isobaric species, and tools for sensitive detection of small amounts of highly toxic compounds [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing two seized drug workflows for the analysis of synthetic cannabinoids, cathinones, and opioids

Sisco

Burns

Schneider

et al. 2021

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the challenges faced by drug chemists continue to persist due to the presence of synthetic opioids, novel psychoactive substances, and other emerging drugs, laboratories are continuing to look for new analytical approaches or techniques to ease the burdens. These new solutions can range from simple changes in existing methods to better distinguish isomers to adoption and implementation of entirely new technologies for screening or confirmation. One barrier to making these transitions is lack of data to understand how, or even if, workflow changes will address the challenges. In this study, we attempt to compare, qualitatively and quantitatively, an existing analytical workflow for seized drug analysis to a new, experimental workflow to better understand the potential benefits and drawbacks. Using adjudicated and mock case samples containing synthetic cannabinoids, synthetic cathinones, and opioids, four forensic chemists were asked to analyze fifty samples using one of two workflows. The first was an existing workflow that employed color tests for screening alongside general purpose gas chromatography flame ionization detection (GC-FID) and general purpose gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analyses for confirmation. The second was an experimental workflow that combined direct analysis in real time mass spectrometry (DART-MS) for screening with class-specific (targeted) GC-MS methods for confirmation. At each step in the analysis scheme, chemists recorded the time required and as well as their interpretation of the results.Comparison of the workflows showed that screening by DART-MS required the same amount of time as color tests but yielded significantly more accurate, and specific, information. Confirmation using the general purpose GC-FID and GC-MS methods of the existing workflow required more than twice the amount of instrument time and data interpretation time while also presenting other analytical challenges that prevented compound confirmation in select samples. Use of targeted GC-MS methods simplified data interpretation, reduced consumption of reference materials, and addressed almost all the limitations of general purpose methods. While the experimental workflow is not yet validated for casework, this study shows how rethinking analytical workflows for seized drug analysis could greatly assist laboratories in reducing turnaround times, backlogs, and standards consumption. It also demonstrates the potential impact of being able to investigate workflow changes prior to implementation.

show abstract

Interpol review of controlled substances 2016–2019

Cited by 16 publications

References 1,567 publications

Supply-Side Drug Policy in the Presence of Substitutes: Evidence from the Introduction of Abuse-Deterrent Opioids

Supply-Side Drug Policy in the Presence of Substitutes: Evidence from the Introduction of Abuse-Deterrent Opioids

Research trends in forensic science: A scientometric approach to analyze the content of the INTERPOL reviews

Comparing two seized drug workflows for the analysis of synthetic cannabinoids, cathinones, and opioids

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About