Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26435208›Full record

ReviewTrends in pharmacological sciences2015

Biologic Approaches to Treat Substance-Use Disorders.

Phil Skolnick

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in pharmacological sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. In Vitro and In Vivo Sequestration of Phencyclidine by MeChemistry (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2021
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Investigations into the efficacy of multi-component cocaine vaccines.Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Effects of muscarinic MPsychopharmacology · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Effects of Acute and Chronic Treatments with Dopamine DThe Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 2017
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Phil SkolnickDivision of Pharmacotherapies and Medical Consequences of Drug Abuse, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-9551, USA. Electronic address: phil.skolnick@nih.gov.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 DA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In contrast to traditional pharmacodynamic approaches to treat substance-use disorders (SUDs), the use of biologics (vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, and genetically modified enzymes) is based on a pharmacokinetic principle: reduce the amount of (and, ideally, eliminate) abused drug entering the central nervous system (CNS). Preclinical studies indicate that biologics are effective in both facilitating abstinence and preventing relapse to abused substances ranging from nicotine to heroin. While data are still emerging, the results from multiple clinical trials can best be described as mixed. Nonetheless, these clinical studies have already provided important insights using 'first-generation' tools that may inform the development of effective and commercially viable biologics to treat tobacco-, cocaine-, and methamphetamine-use disorders.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntibodies, MonoclonalHumansHydrolasesSubstance-Related DisordersVaccinesAntibodies, MonoclonalHydrolasesVaccinescocainemethamphetaminemonoclonal antibodiesnicotinesubstance use disordersvaccines

Identifiers

PMID26435208
PMCPMC4593975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.