A systematic review and meta-analysis of synthetic cathinone use and psychosis.

RATIONALE: Synthetic cathinones (SC), commonly referred to as "bath salts", are stimulants resembling the natural alkaloid cathinone found in the khat plant. These substances have the potential to induce serious health risks such as hallucinations, delusions, paranoia and agitation which can lead to substance-induced psychotic disorders. Despite growing concerns, there is a limited understanding of the association between SC consumption and the devolvement of such psychopathologies. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to investigate the frequency of substance-induced psychotic disorder (SIPD) and associated conditions in humans following synthetic cathinone consumption. We qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed SC exposure cases. RESULTS: A total of 32 studies were included, with a diverse range of demographics, synthetic cathinone types, and consumption patterns. The proportion of individuals developing psychotic symptoms was reported at 0.380 (Random-effects model, 95% CI 0.289 - 0.475). Additionally, the significant heterogeneity in diagnostic approaches limited our ability to provide a precise estimate of prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: Synthetic cathinone consumption is associated with the risk of developing psychotic symptoms as indicated by the prevalence of hallucinations and/or delusions. Due to the lack of information on classifying factors, particularly duration of symptoms, we are unable to conclude synthetic cathinone-induced psychosis. Further research is warranted to elucidate the underlying mechanism linking synthetic cathinone consumption and psychosis. This review underscores the urgency of addressing the growing health risks posed by synthetic cathinone use. Additionally, it highlights the necessity of proper quantification of psychotic symptoms through scales and reporting of classification criteria to accurately diagnose SIPD.

Pain-related gamma band activity is dependent on the features of nociceptive stimuli: a comparison of laser and contact heat.

Painful contact heat and laser stimulation offer an avenue to characterize nociceptive pathways involved in acute pain processing, by way of evoked potentials. Direct comparisons of radiant laser and contact heat are limited, particularly in context of examining time-frequency responses to stimulation. This is important in light of recent evidence to suggest that gamma band oscillations (GBOs) represent a functionally heterogeneous measure of pain. The purpose of the current study was to investigate differences in GBOs generated in response to laser and contact heat stimulation of the nondominant forearm. Following intensity matching to pain ratings, evoked electroencephalography (EEG) responses to laser and contact heat stimulation were examined in the time-frequency domain in the same participants (19 healthy adults) across two sessions. At ∼200 ms, both contact heat and laser stimulation resulted in significant, group-level event-related synchronization (ERS) in the low gamma band (i.e., 30-60 Hz) in central electrode locations (Cc, Cz, Ci). Laser stimulation also generated ERS in the 60-100 Hz range (i.e., high gamma), at ∼200 ms, while contact heat led to a significant period of desynchronization in the high gamma range between 400 and 600 ms. Both contact heat and laser GBOs were stronger on the central electrodes contralateral to the stimulated forearm, indicative of primary somatosensory cortex involvement. Based on our findings, and taken in conjunction with previous studies, laser and contact heat stimulation generate characteristically different responses in the brain, with only the former leading to high-frequency GBOs characteristic of painful stimuli.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Despite matching pain perception between noxious laser and contact heat stimuli, we report notable differences in gamma band oscillations (GBO), measured via electroencephalography. GBOs produced following contact heat more closely resembled that of nonnoxious stimuli, while GBOs following laser stimuli were in line with previous reports. Taken together, laser and contact heat stimulation generate characteristically different responses in the brain, with only the former leading to high-frequency GBOs characteristic of painful stimuli.

Efficacy of topical cannabinoids in the management of pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies.

BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE: Cannabinoids are emerging as an alternative pain management option, preliminarily supported by preclinical and clinical studies. Unwanted side effects from oral or inhaled cannabinoids remain, however, a major barrier to widespread use. Peripherally acting cannabinoids (eg, topically applied) may circumvent these side effects while providing localized pain management. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to systematically review the literature on the effectiveness of peripherally acting cannabinoids for pain management. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PubMed databases. Included studies examined the effect of topical/peripherally administered cannabinoids on pain ratings in humans, as well as pain-related outcomes in animals (eg, paw withdrawal). Due to a lack of trials, human studies were summarized in a narrative synthesis. Separate meta-analyses were performed for animal studies using radiant tail flick or paw withdrawal outcomes. FINDINGS: Our search yielded 1182 studies following removal of duplicates, with 46 studies (6 human, 40 animal) included. Human studies (one randomized controlled trial and five case studies/series) reported no adverse events to topical cannabinoids and preliminary evidence of decreased pain ratings. Animal studies reporting tail flick (5) (2.81, 95% CI 1.93 to 3.69, p<0.001) and mechanical withdrawal (11) (2.74, 95% CI 1.82 to 3.67, p<0.001) reported prolonged responses (analgesia) in peripheral cannabinoid groups compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS: Preclinical animal studies provided low-quality evidence for peripherally administered cannabinoids to provide regional, antinociceptive effects. The scarcity of high-quality human studies underscores the need to translate preclinical evidence into well-controlled human trials.