Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41185108›Full record

ArticleJournal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England)2026

Abuse potential assessment of novel central nervous system active and psychedelic substances for controlled substances act scheduling recommendations.

Jack E Henningfield, Sandra D Comer, Matthew L Banks, Marion A Coe, Gregory T Collins, Ziva D Cooper, William E Fantegrossi, Caitlyn J Durgin, David J Heal, Sally L Huskinson and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

16 authors.

Jack E HenningfieldPinney Associates, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Sandra D ComerDepartment of Psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Matthew L BanksDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4949-5246
Marion A CoePinney Associates, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Gregory T CollinsDepartment of Pharmacology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio; South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Ziva D CooperDepartment of Psychiatry, Biobehavioral Sciences, Anesthesiology, and Perioperative Medicine; Center for Cannabis and Cannabinoids, Jane and Terry Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8001-2332
William E FantegrossiDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9964-1593
Caitlyn J DurginPinney Associates, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8518-3410
David J HealDevelRx Ltd, BioCity, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6128-9632
Sally L HuskinsonDepartment of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA.
Ryan K LanierPinney Associates, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Wendy J LynchDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Richard A MeischDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Texas, Health Science Center, Houston, TX, USA.
James K RowlettDepartment of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4077-5017
Justin C StricklandDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1077-0394
Brenda M GannonDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1428-2400

Funding

Bath Salts: Abuse-related and Toxic EffectsR01DA039146 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI Gregory Collins · 2015 to 2026
$4.0M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA039146
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAbuse potential assessment of drugs with central nervous system activity is a critical component of the development of new medications for regulatory filings for approval worldwide. These new drug applications typically include recommendations for scheduling status as a controlled substance, if scheduling is warranted. This commentary focuses on the approach and current issues related to scheduling in the United States (US) Controlled Substances Act (CSA); however, scheduling more globally generally involves similar approaches and issues. Although scheduling is intended to protect public health and safety by adequate restrictive control based on the abuse potential assessment, it is also intended to serve medicinal use and access and to incentivize the development of new medicines with reduced abuse-related risks. Thus, overly restrictive scheduling can present risks to public health, as does under-scheduling.

objectiveIdentify the categories of substances and new drugs that appear most challenging for reliable and valid abuse potential assessment by the widely used abuse potential assessment approaches recommended in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2017 Guidance and which generally serve globally. METHODOLOGY: A panel of abuse potential assessment experts convened at a scientific meeting that included many leading abuse potential and regulatory experts, namely the International Study Group Investigating Drugs as Reinforcers. The focus of the panel was novel and psychedelic substances and cannabinoids that raise challenges for accurate abuse potential assessment, in which postmarketing evaluations by the FDA suggested were overestimates of their abuse potential that resulted in overly restrictive scheduling.

resultsThere is agreement that many novel acting substances, including medications for treating disorders related to anxiety, sleep, depression, and pain, and including orexin receptor acting substances, psychedelics, and diverse cannabinoids, may require modifications of existing methods and alternative approaches to more fully and accurately characterize their abuse potential and guide CSA scheduling. This included a human abuse potential (HAP) assessment that can raise challenges for the identification of the most appropriate placebo and positive comparators, study populations, and protocols to ensure both safety and scientific reliability.

conclusionsThe core abuse potential methods that serve U.S. CSA scheduling and global new drug scheduling are generally reliable for many categories of drugs but need to be modified and perhaps supplemented with additional outcome measures to more fully and accurately characterize potential abuse-related risks. This may include behavioral economic assessments in preclinical and clinical studies and a broader range of outcome measures in HAP studies and adverse event assessment in all clinical studies in drug development programs.

Indexed as

Central Nervous System AgentsControlled SubstancesDrug and Narcotic ControlHallucinogensSubstance-Related DisordersHumansRisk AssessmentUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationCentral Nervous System AgentsControlled SubstancesHallucinogensabuse potentialnovel drugspsychedelic

Identifiers

PMID41185108
PMCPMC13198618

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.