ArticleHarm reduction journal2025
Evaluation of nitazene immunoassay test strips for rapid in-situ detection of nitazene and nitazene analogs in illicit drug samples.
Article in Harm reduction journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temporal and geographical patterns of nitazene detections in drug samples and biospecimens in the United States, 2019-2024.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2026Article
- Novel 2-Benzylbenzimidazole Opioids: Emerging Drugs of Abuse and Pharmacological Considerations with Nitazene Analogs.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Addressing the Oxygen in the Room: Exploring the Formation of Oxygenated Species for Nitazene Analogs Using DART-MS.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe detection of nitazene compounds in the United Kingdom has raised concerns among healthcare professionals, public health authorities, and law enforcement due to the increased risk of fatal overdose, particularly among opioid users. In response, nitazene testing strips have been distributed to help users identify these substances in drugs they may consume. However, to date, limited testing has been conducted on the effectiveness of these strips.
methodsThis study assesses the sensitivity and selectivity of a widely distributed nitazene immunoassay drug testing strip. The limit of detection and selectivity was examined for 36 nitazene analogs and 93 other drugs and cutting agents commonly encountered in illicit samples. The effectiveness of the test strips for the detection of metonitazene in the presence of other drugs was examined using a series of concentrations in solution in combination with other drugs. Testing of the strips was also carried out using authentic seized heroin samples.
resultsThe strips detected 28 out of 36 nitazene compounds (78%) with detection limits ranging from 250 ng/mL to 100 µg/mL. The strips did not provide positive results for 93 other drugs and cutting agents at a concentration of 100 µg/mL. However, false positives were observed when testing seized heroin samples, caused by caffeine concentrations over 300 µg/mL. False negatives were also seen for eight nitazene compounds.
conclusionCaution should be exercised when deploying these nitazene test strips as frontline presumptive tests in both criminal justice and public health contexts due to the observed false negative and false positive results. While the strips successfully detected a majority of nitazene compounds, their inability to identify certain analogs poses a risk of not detecting the presence of these potent opioids in the drug supply. Additionally, the occurrence of false positives, due to the presence of caffeine-a common adulterant in illicit substances-raises concerns about their suitability for use as a harm reduction method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.