Although originally marketed as safe alternatives to the habit-forming benzodiazepines, growing numbers of zaleplon, zolpidem, and zopiclone (“Z-drugs”) clinical concerns relating to their potential of abuse, dependence, and withdrawal have been reported over time. We aimed here at assessing these issues analyzing datasets of adverse drug reactions provided by the European Medicines Agency through the EudraVigilance system. Analyzing the adverse drug reactions databases of each Z-drug, descriptive analyses have been performed on cases and proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) computed. An overall number of 33 240 (e.g., 23 420 zolpidem; 9283 zopiclone; and 537 zaleplon) misuse-, abuse-, dependence-, and withdrawal-related adverse drug reactions, corresponding to some 6246 unique patients given Z-drugs, were here identified. Cases were studied and described, including demographic characteristics and clinical data such as concomitant drugs, doses, routes of administration, and outcomes of the reactions (being fatalities recorded). Considering PRR values and in comparison with zopiclone, zolpidem was more frequently involved in both misuse/abuse and withdrawal issues. Zolpidem and zopiclone presented with the same dependence risk, but zopiclone was most involved in overdose adverse drug reactions. Compared with zaleplon, zopiclone presented higher dependence and overdose-related issues but slightly lower misuse/abuse and withdrawal PRR values. Current data may only represent a gross underestimate of the real prevalence of Z-drug misuse. Caution should be exercised when prescribing those molecules, especially for patients with psychiatric illnesses and/or history of drug abuse. We recommend the need to invest in proactive pharmacovigilance activities to better and promptly detect, understand, and prevent any possible misuse potential of prescribed medications.

Introduction The gabapentinoids pregabalin and gabapentin are being increasingly prescribed for a range of clinical conditions. Recently, although gabapentinoids at therapeutic dosages may present with low addictive liability levels, cases of misuse and rising numbers of related fatalities have been reported. Objectives The aim of the study was to identify and assess cases of gabapentinoid misuse or dependence as reported to the European Medicines Agency’s EudraVigilance database, to identify the magnitude of this problem and the characteristics of these reactions. Methods All spontaneous reports of both gabapentin- (2004–2015) and pregabalin- (2006–2015) related misuse/abuse/dependence were retrieved. A descriptive analysis by source, sex, age, and type of report was performed. Results From the EudraVigilance database 7639 (6.6 % of a total of 115,616) and 4301 (4.8 % of 90,166) adverse drug reaction reports of misuse/abuse/dependence were, respectively, associated with pregabalin and gabapentin, with an overall reporting frequency increasing over time. For both molecules, subjects typically involved were female adults. A total of 27 and 86 fatalities, respectively, associated with pregabalin and gabapentin, and mostly in combination with opioids, were identified. Analysis of proportional reporting ratios for drug abuse/dependence/intentional product misuse values seem to indicate that these adverse drug reactions were more frequently reported for pregabalin (1.25, 1.39, and 1.58, respectively) compared with gabapentin. Conclusions Despite data collection/methodological approach limitations, the present data seem to suggest that gabapentinoid misuse may be a cause for concern, especially in patients with a history of substance misuse. Hence, healthcare professionals should be vigilant when prescribing these molecules.

Background: Over the past 20 years or so, the drug misuse scenario has seen the emergence of both prescription-only and over-the-counter (OTC) medications being reported as ingested for recreational purposes. OTC drugs such as antihistamines, cough/cold medications, and decongestants are reportedly the most popular in being diverted and misused.Objective: While the current related knowledge is limited, the aim here was to examine the published clinical data on OTC misuse, focusing on antihistamines (e.g., diphenhydramine, promethazine, chlorpheniramine, and dimenhydrinate), dextromethorphan (DXM)- and codeine-based cough medicines, and the nasal decongestant pseudoephedrine.Methods: A systematic literature review was carried out with the help of Scopus, Web of Science databases, and the related gray literature. For data gathering purposes, both the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and PROSPERO guidelines were followed (PROSPERO identification code CRD42020209261).Results: After completion of the selection, eligibility, and screening phases, some 92 articles were here taken into consideration; case reports, surveys, and retrospective case series analyses were included. Findings were organized according to the specific OTC recorded. Most articles focused here on DXM (n = 54) and diphenhydramine (n = 12). When specified, dosages, route(s) of administration, toxicity symptoms (including both physical and psychiatric ones), and outcomes were here reported.Conclusion: Results from the systematic review showed that the OTC misusing issues are both widespread worldwide and popular; vulnerable categories include adolescents and young adults, although real prevalence figures remain unknown, due to a lack of appropriate monitoring systems. Considering the potential, and at times serious, adverse effects associated with OTC misusing issues, healthcare professionals should be vigilant, and ad hoc preventative actions should be designed and implemented.

COVID-19: The Hidden Impact on Mental Health and Drug Addiction

Background and Objectives: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a common psychiatric disorder resulting from a traumatic event, is manifested through hyperarousal, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and sleep disturbances. Despite several therapeutic approaches being available, both pharmacological and psychological, recently a growing interest has developed in using cannabis and synthetic cannabinoids stems from their consideration as more efficient and better tolerated alternatives for the treatment of this condition. The present paper aims to evaluate the clinical and therapeutic potentials of medical cannabis and synthetic cannabinoids in treating PTSD patients. Methods: A systematic electronic search was performed, including all papers published up to May 2019, using the following keywords (((cannabis[Title/Abstract]) OR (synthetic cannabinoids [Title/Abstract])) AND ((PTSD[Title/Abstract]) OR (Posttraumatic stress disorder[Title/Abstract]))) for the topics ‘Cannabis’, ‘Synthetic Cannabinoids’, ‘PTSD’, and MESH terms, on the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science online databases. For data gathering purposes, PRISMA guidelines were followed. Results were organized into two groups, considering cannabis and synthetic cannabinoids as different therapeutic approaches for PTSD. Results: Present data show that cannabis and synthetic cannabinoids, both acting on the endocannabinoids system, may have a potential therapeutic use for improving PTSD symptoms, e.g., reducing anxiety, modulating memory-related processes, and improving sleep. Conclusions: Even though the current literature suggests that cannabis and synthetic cannabinoids may have a role in the treatment of PTSD, there is currently limited evidence regarding their safety and efficacy. Therefore, additional research is needed in order to better understand the effectiveness and therapeutic usage of these drug classes and monitor their safety.