ArticleHarm reduction journal2025
Evaluation of the unregulated online kratom market in two east-central European countries: test purchase and analysis of potential toxicological consequences.
Article in Harm reduction journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs interest in human enhancement continues to rise in Europe, kratom (Mitragyna speciosa) products have raised significant public health concerns. Kratom, which is used for its dose-dependent stimulant and sedative effects, has grown in popularity to enhance mood and self-manage pain or opioid withdrawal symptoms. This study aimed to assess the East-Central European online kratom market, evaluate product quality, and analyze potential toxicological risks to inform evidence-based harm reduction strategies.
methodsA comprehensive approach was employed, including online market surveillance, detailed content analysis of vendor websites, test purchase of products, followed by chemical analysis. Google search engine results were used to identify vendors shipping to Hungary. A total of 59 web shops were identified, and 25 distributors were selected for further analysis. Eight online sellers were included in test purchases. Mitragynine content was analyzed using supercritical fluid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (SFC-MS/MS) and high-performance liquid chromatography with diode-array detection (HPLC-DAD). Toxicovigilance data were extracted from the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Adverse Event Reporting System (CAERS).
resultsThe online kratom market in East-Central Europe is extensive and accessible, with many sellers identified in Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and the Netherlands. While 68% (n/N = 17/25) of the evaluated web shops promoted enhancement effects, only 32% (n/N = 8/25) presented any information on potential adverse effects. Analysis of the products revealed highly variable mitragynine content, with mean concentrations ranging between 14.16 and 18.41 mg/g in powder form, and 42.60-210.20 µg/mL in prepared teas. Vigilance databases revealed 1090 cases in FAERS and 630 in CAERS associated with kratom use, with high rates of serious outcomes, including 592 deaths reported in FAERS.
conclusionsThe online kratom market in East-Central Europe poses a significant public health threat, particularly to individuals seeking its enhancement effects. The significant variability in the mitragynine content, combined with the lack of safety information creates a high-risk environment. Toxicological data revealed a high incidence of serious adverse reactions, particularly in cases of polysubstance use. These findings highlight the urgent need for regulatory oversight and harm reduction strategies.
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.