You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Brain Sciences
  • Systematic Review
  • Open Access

10 March 2021

The Use and Impact of Cognitive Enhancers among University Students: A Systematic Review

,
,
and
1
Psychopharmacology, Substance Misuse and Novel Psychoactive Substances Research Unit, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield AL10 9AB, UK
2
Institute of Life Sciences 2, Swansea University, Swansea SA2 8PP, Wales, UK
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Abstract

Introduction: Cognitive enhancers (CEs), also known as “smart drugs”, “study aids” or “nootropics” are a cause of concern. Recent research studies investigated the use of CEs being taken as study aids by university students. This manuscript provides an overview of popular CEs, focusing on a range of drugs/substances (e.g., prescription CEs including amphetamine salt mixtures, methylphenidate, modafinil and piracetam; and non-prescription CEs including caffeine, cobalamin (vitamin B12), guarana, pyridoxine (vitamin B6) and vinpocetine) that have emerged as being misused. The diverted non-prescription use of these molecules and the related potential for dependence and/or addiction is being reported. It has been demonstrated that healthy students (i.e., those without any diagnosed mental disorders) are increasingly using drugs such as methylphenidate, a mixture of dextroamphetamine/amphetamine, and modafinil, for the purpose of increasing their alertness, concentration or memory. Aim: To investigate the level of knowledge, perception and impact of the use of a range of CEs within Higher Education Institutions. Methodology: A systematic review was conducted in adherence with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Whilst 1400 studies were identified within this study through a variety of electronic databases (e.g., 520 through PubMed, 490 through Science Direct and 390 through Scopus), 48 papers were deemed relevant and were included in this review. Results: The most popular molecules identified here included the stimulant CEs, e.g., methylphenidate, modafinil, amphetamine salt mixtures and caffeine-related compounds; stimulant CEs’ intake was more prevalent among males than females; drugs were largely obtained from friends and family, as well as via the Internet. It is therefore suggested that CEs are increasingly being used among healthy individuals, mainly students without any diagnosed cognitive disorders, to increase their alertness, concentration, or memory, in the belief that these CEs will improve their performance during examinations or when studying. The impact of stimulant CEs may include tolerance, dependence and/or somatic (e.g., cardiovascular; neurological) complications. Discussion: The availability of CEs for non-medical indications in different countries is influenced by a range of factors including legal, social and ethical factors. Considering the risk factors and motivations that encourage university students to use CE drugs, it is essential to raise awareness about CE-related harms, counteract myths regarding “safe” CE use and address cognitive enhancement in an early stage during education as a preventative public health measure.

1. Introduction

Cognitive enhancement is defined as an “amplification or extension of core capacity of the mind by improving the internal and external information processing systems” []. Cognitive enhancement can be achieved in two ways, e.g., “pharmacologically”, by taking cognitive enhancer (CE) drugs/substances; or “non-pharmacologically”, by maintaining a healthy lifestyle, which includes being physically, mentally and socially active; eating a healthy, balanced diet; drinking alcohol only in moderation; and maintaining good sleep habits []. CEs, also known as “smart drugs” or “nootropics”, are a heterogeneous group of chemical substances that are used to improve cognitive function [], particularly memory, alertness, attention, learning performance, creativity and motivation []. CEs are typically being obtained, and at times by healthy individuals [,], on prescription, over-the-counter, online, or through other sources such as family or friends []. The clinical impact of CEs’ ingestion can be significant, with these molecules being able to affect various neurotransmitter pathways in the brain, including the cholinergic, dopaminergic, noradrenergic and serotonergic pathways []. Whilst their mechanism of action is not fully understood [], most popular CEs (e.g., methylphenidate, modafinil and amphetamine salt mixtures) are stimulants []. Methylphenidate increases the levels of noradrenaline (NA) and dopamine (DA) in both the prefrontal cortex and the cortical/subcortical regions, and this effect may be associated with levels of improved attention in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) []. Conversely, with modafinil—a medicine being used to treat narcolepsy—stimulant actions are associated with an impact on NA, glutamate (NMDA or N-methyl-D-aspartate) and DA []. In particular, modafinil increases DA levels in the caudate and nucleus accumbens (Nac), whilst blocking DA transporters in a healthy individual’s brain []. Out of these molecules, modafinil may be better tolerated, inducing less adverse drug reactions, whilst not being associated with a high risk of dependence []. The amphetamine salt mixtures (e.g., in the branded product Adderall) block the re-uptake of both NA and DA into the pre-synaptic neuron, and increase their release as well from the pre-synaptic neuron, hence increasing their concentrations in the synaptic cleft [].
Indeed, since the 1940s, both modafinil and amphetamine (e.g., “go pills”) CE categories have been the subject of military research, to help soldiers stay alert whilst attenuating the effects of sleep deprivation [,]. However, these drugs are increasingly being used by healthy individuals, including students and night shift workers, to improve their cognitive and motivational functions []. Associations between CEs and drugs in sports have been investigated []. CEs and drugs in sports share many aspects with respect to “enhancement” and “doping”. The former may be more socially acceptable, whilst the latter is considered illegal and is heavily monitored by organisations such as The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The use of freely available CEs, such as caffeinated products and vitamins, have been investigated in athletes as “gateway” and “predictor” of physical enhancers use. The non-monitored CEs were found to be highly used among athletes with or without physical enhancer use []. Studies also showed that users of erogonomic aids such as caffeine may favour doping due to “biased reasoning patterns” [].
It is important to note that students using CEs do not only aim to achieve a cognitive enhancement, but also a motivational enhancement and an overflow of energy. They may use a combination of CEs as well as alcohol, and/or recreational sedatives, in an attempt to achieve a good quality sleep, reduce nervousness and improve overall performance in exams and study-related assessments [,].
The lifetime prevalence rate of prescribed CEs’ intake for non-medical reasons, as a self-attempt to increase cognitive performances, among university students in the UK and Ireland has been estimated to be around 10% []. However, these levels of intake may be underestimated [] and the trend has attracted a considerable interest [], relating to its social, ethical and legal implications [,,]. Whilst most studies have focused on the prevalence of a limited range of a few CEs (e.g., amphetamine salt mixtures, methylphenidate and modafinil), focusing on intake by students in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), a study by Napoletano et al. (2020) identified a total of 142 unique CEs. These molecules were then sub-grouped into 10 categories, according to recently proposed classifications [] including: prescribed drugs, plants/herbs/products, psychostimulants; image- and performance-enhancing drugs (IPEDs), miscellaneous, GABAergic (gamma- aminobutyric acid-ergic) drugs, phenethylamines, cannabimimetics, tryptamine derivatives, and piperazine derivatives. In parallel with the continuous emergence of new/novel psychoactive substances (NPS), which has enriched the repertoire of illicit drug use [], this manuscript aims to provide an updated overview of the use of CEs among university students.

2. Methods

The current systematic literature review was performed in adherence with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [], to estimate CEs’ prevalence of intake; and assess knowledge, awareness and impact of CEs’ use among university students.

2.1. Literature Search (Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria)

The focus here was on quantitative and qualitative studies relating to CEs’ use among University students: The literature search was performed using a range of key word strings, e.g., cognitive enhancers AND neuroenhancement, prescription drug misuse OR prescription drug abuse among healthy individuals AND enhancement. In particular, the search strategy was conducted from three databases Scopus, PubMed and Science direct. Finally, a manual search was also carried out using Google Scholar in order to ensure none of the key articles and studies were missed.
Inclusion criteria were quantitative (surveys) and qualitative (interviews) studies having been carried out among healthy students aged 18 years and older in HEIs. Articles were included if they related to a range of nine CEs (prescription CEs including amphetamine salt mixtures, methylphenidate, modafinil and piracetam; and non-prescription CEs including caffeine, cobalamin (vitamin B12), guarana, pyridoxine (vitamin B6) and vinpocetine), which were selected here because of their popularity among university students [,,,,]. Studies written in English, from the year 2000 (i.e., from around the time when NPS started to emerge in drug scenarios) to 2020 were included in the study search. Regional/world drug reports (e.g., from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction/EMCDDA and the United Nations Office for Drug and Crime/UNODC) were included here as well. Conversely, studies focussing on underage children, on preclinical experiments or students with medical diagnoses using the selected drugs/substances for medical reasons were excluded from the study. Non-English articles were also excluded.

2.2. Quality Assessment

Based on the inclusion criteria, the selected articles were appraised for quality using PRISMA checklists []. Search results were exported to Mendeley, a free reference manager and academic social network. This tool was used to determine the structure of the index study methodology [].

3. Results

3.1. Summary of the Literature Search

The literature search identified a total of 1400 studies here (e.g., 520 through PubMed, 490 through Science Direct and 390 through Scopus) (Figure 1). Forty-eight studies were excluded as they were duplicates, 1294 studies were screened and were excluded based on their title and abstract, 10 did not meet the inclusion criteria, and 48 were deemed relevant and were included in this review (Table 1).
Figure 1. Cognitive enhancers’ intake by university students: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Flow Diagram.
Table 1. Summary of the literature review focusing on Cognitive Enhancer (CE) drug(s)/substance(s) being considered for the study (e.g., methylphenidate, amphetamine, modafinil and piracetam, caffeine pills, guarana, cobalamin (vitamin B12), vinpocetine and pyridoxine (vitamin B6).
Table 1 shows the summary of findings from the literature review on the prevalence of CEs among university students.
Nine studies were conducted in the UK (i.e., six survey studies, two interviews and one mixed methods study). The remaining studies included survey studies that were conducted in the USA (n = 8) and Iran (n = 4). In Australia, three surveys and one interview, in Canada, two surveys and one focus group interview, in Germany, three surveys and one interview were conducted. Three survey studies were carried out in each of the following countries: Brazil, France, Italy and Switzerland. Two survey studies were carried out in each of the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Greece, New Zeeland and the Netherlands; and one survey study was carried out in each of the following countries: Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, Pakistan, Portugal, South Africa and UAE. Finally, one mixed-methods study was carried out in both Lithuania and the Netherlands. Participants were students from a range of disciplines, including Medicine, Pharmacy, Engineering, Law, Computer Science, Business, Education, Psychology and Social Sciences. The sample size of the different studies ranged between 77 and 80,000 participants each.
An overview of the demographic variables, prevalence of use, technical knowledge of CEs, motivations for use, source of CEs’ acquisition and positive/negative subjective effects is summarised here.
  • Demographics’ variables
Males were here identified as the most typical CE misusers [,,,,,,,,,,,,,], with some studies reporting a male:female ratio of 3:1 []. In contrast with this, a Welsh study reported that female representation was slightly more than males [].
2.
Prevalence of CEs’ use
A growth of CEs’ intake over the past few years has been reported, including from both high-ranking universities and highly competitive courses such as Medicine and Pharmacy []. In the UK, findings showed that 33% of the participants used CEs which were not prescribed to them for the purpose of study []. In a survey conducted among UK and Ireland university students, it was found that the lifetime prevalence of the use of modafinil, methylphenidate and amphetamine were, respectively, 6.2%, 5.9%, and 2% []. Conversely, the lifetime prevalence of CEs’ intake among University students in the US was estimated to range between 5% and 43% []. More precisely, a meta-analysis from the US estimated that the misuse of CEs among university students was 17% []. Compared to the US, most British university students may be more cautious in using prescription drugs as CEs [].
A recent study in Brazil reported that, out of 1865 students from different academic disciplines, 4.2% reported to having had used CEs in the last 12 months, with the most popular molecule having been methylphenidate which was not associated with an ADHD diagnosis. With respect to what is being described in less competitive study fields [], Medicine and Pharmacy have been identified as being both stressful and highly competitive academic courses worldwide [,]. In this respect, a study that was conducted among medical students in Iran (2000–2007) showed that methylphenidate users’ mean knowledge score was higher than that of non-users (p = 0.008), with age (range 18–28 years), sex (male 92.5%) and 26% fourth school year having been positively correlated with knowledge score (p < 0.05). Some 8.7% of participants had taken methylphenidate at least once in their lifetime []. Similarly, a study carried out in Lithuania reported that the point prevalence of CEs (modafinil, methylphenidate and amphetamine) among medical students was 8.1% [].
Finally, caffeine use as a CE has grown in popularity worldwide []. A study in the UAE assessed the prevalence and perceived benefits of caffeinated beverage consumption among university students []. More than 98.5% of the study participants were shown to be caffeine consumers, with 31% having reported being addicted to caffeine; heavy caffeine consumption was significantly associated with heart problems [].
Despite the global popularity of the non-prescription caffeine, most research articles report the use of prescription CEs among university students. Therefore, the true prevalence of prescription vs. non-prescription CEs among university students is not fully understood and, hence, more research is needed.

3.2. CEs’ Knowledge and Reported Positive/Negative Effects

University students may be attracted by stimulant drugs for several reasons, e.g., to increase awake time, enhance cognitive performance, improve professional and academic achievement [], but also to help with socialising and getting high []. Indeed, the main motivations for misusing methylphenidate may relate to improving concentration (65.2%), helping with studying (59.8%) and increasing wakefulness (47.5%) []. Other studies have associated methylphenidate misuse with the need to help with concentration, stay alert, have more energy and improve self-confidence levels [,,]. A 2019 UK qualitative study with Biomedical Science undergraduate students examined their understanding of the risks of non-prescribed drugs, and particularly modafinil, misuse. Drivers of use were related to university pressures and desires to increase productivity; the customisation of the sleep–wake cycle was described as a key benefit of ‘study drug’ use [].
Increasing the levels of cognitive performance may indeed potentially allow students to study for more hours, and/or increase working memory performance []. According to Greely et al. (2008), modafinil may be chosen as a CE because of its high online accessibility and availability. Conversely, whilst studies in the UK suggested that CE drugs such as modafinil can enhance thinking skills [], over-confidence was reported as one of the CE’s side effects, together with a high risk of dependence [].
The popularity of caffeine and related products as CEs may be related to the need to boost energy, stay awake, improve mood, increase concentration and socialise []. In the UAE, the mean level of knowledge about caffeine was described as less than 33%. Younger participants (p = 0.008) and those who worked in healthcare and education (p < 0.001) were significantly more knowledgeable about its negative effects, including anxiety, insomnia, tachycardia, irritability and muscle tremors []. A recent systematic review focussing on the effects of the caffeine-containing plant Paullinia cupana (“guarana”) on cognition in young, healthy adults found improved levels in both reaction time and accuracy performance []. Guarana has also been described to improve memory performance and increase alertness levels []. Long-term use of high dose of guarana can, however, result in a series of adverse effects, including irritability, palpitation and anxiety [,].
Despite the legal restrictions that control the possession and supply of controlled CEs, students often obtain them due to their desired pharmacological effects. Table 2 summarises the desired effects of CEs, their neuro-modulatory effects and their legal classification.
Table 2. Studies summarising Cognitive Enhancers (CEs)’ legal classification, desired effects and neuro-modulatory mechanisms.
Mixtures of CE substances/drugs used by healthy students to improve cognition is on the rise and is being considered as a type of “academic doping” []. Poly-CE use has been documented in previous studies []. In Switzerland, users reported ingesting methylphenidate in addition to other CEs. Others reported using both modafinil in addition to Alzheimer’s disease drugs. Others ingested antidepressants in combination with Parkinson’s disease drugs []. Studies have shown that methylphenidate users were more likely to use illicit substances as well e.g., marijuana and ecstasy (MDMA or 3,4-methylene dioxymethamphetamine) as compared to other prescription CE users [].
Poly-CE use with psychostimulant and other effects offers both synergistic and additive effects based on used substances, hence potentially combining cognitive effects with wakefulness; emotional and/or motivational effects; mood-, performance-, and executive functioning-enhancing and euphoric effects [,], with risks to health that may range from mild to serious risks including dependence, tolerance and neurological, psychological and cardiovascular disorders, with a risk of overdose potentially leading to death.
The 2015 Western Australian Stimulant Regulatory Scheme showed that students may use CE to cope with study-related stress []. They also found that CE users are also regular illicit psychostimulant users, yet the relationship between CE and other psychostimulant such as MDMA (ecstasy) co-use/consumption is to be determined [].

3.3. Sources of CEs’ Acquisition

Sources of CE acquisition may relate to friends and family [,]. Students diagnosed with ADHD, but not taking their methylphenidate medication regularly, have been reported as the main source for fellow students []. In another study, 75.5% of methylphenidate was identified as having been purchased from friends at a university campus whilst 64.3% of modafinil was obtained online []. Accessing the web for drug acquisition activities is a reason for concern [], with young people (18–25 years old) being at high risk because there is no way to know what the actual ingredients of the drugs/substances are in those products [], they are extensive users of the Internet []; it was found that over a third of the websites selling modafinil specifically recommended use of the drug to aid studying [].

4. Discussion

The current systematic review provided an in-depth and updated understanding on CEs’ prevalence of use; levels of knowledge; and their impact on HEI university students, which is clearly a critical public health issue. The past few years have seen increasing levels of concern about the use of pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement among university students worldwide, with the lifetime prevalence of CEs misuse among these subjects ranging from 6% to 20%, depending on the study subject []. Of particular concern, however, is CE’s use in Health Sciences/ Biomedical students [,,,,,,,,,,,]. Most data initially emerged from the United States [,,], eventually followed by reports from the United Kingdom [], Australia [,]; and Europe, namely from France [,], and Italy [,].
The most popular prescription CEs among the selected ones in this study were modafinil, methylphenidate and amphetamine salt mixtures [], with methylphenidate being the most popular among students []. Conversely, the most popular freely available CE was Caffeine []. Although not confirmed by some studies [,], males were identified here as more likely to use CE drugs than females [,,,,,]. Some studies also showed that, despite that the number of female participants was higher than their male counterparts, the rate of CE use was much higher than in female students [].
Although no differences between genders in favouring methylphenidate as the most popular CE or in the preferential choice of any CE were recorded, there were gender differences in motivation for use []. Female students’ motivation for CE use were to increase concentration, memory, alertness and academic performance, and because “friends use it”. In contrast, male students’ motivations for CE use were mainly to increase study time and experiment [].
In general, with regard to illicit substance use, Dr Adam Winstock (CEO of the Global drug Survey) pointed out the gender differences, explaining it as possibly resulting from societal stigma, shame and cultural expectations around women taking drugs. Additional factors that influence women’s decisions in using drugs include pregnancy and motherhood. Economic status and the lower rate of criminal activity amongst women also reduce female drug use and exposure to illicit drugs as compared to males [].
Indeed, several social factors have been identified here to influence CEs’ use practices among university students []. These included: peer-pressure, competition, performance demands and prior drug use [], but also recreation [].
The availability of CEs for non-medical indications in the different countries is affected by a range of factors, including legal, social, and ethical factors [,,]. Indeed, some CEs are being openly made available online [,], where they are marketed as “smart drugs”, “study drugs”, “plant food”, “research chemicals” and “designer drugs” as well [,]. The unregulated online access, and especially so for modafinil and methylphenidate, is likely to be associated with an increase in CEs’ non-medical use and subsequent harm []. Indeed, high levels of modafinil may have reportedly been sold and shipped to students at high-ranking/top UK universities, mostly during the examination period []. Conversely, as CEs’ legal alternative to either prescribing or illicit drugs of abuse, guarana was found here to be popular, with affordable online prices encouraging young users/students to buy greater quantities in order to receive discounts and free shipping [,].
Sahakian et al. (2008) opened a debate on the positive impact on improving cognitive functions, suggesting that benefits of CEs should be maximised, and their harm minimised []. In some studies, CE drugs have been shown to moderately enhance cognitive performance in healthy individuals []. Accordingly, CE tools including pharmacological cognitive enhancement could improve the quality of life of both busy workers and exhausted students to extend their work/academic productivity levels [], hence benefitting both the individual and society []. There have been extensive reports focussing on CEs’ intake to aid concentration and memory among healthy individuals, including students, academics, shift workers, and even chess players to improve their cognitive performance []. A study by Smith and Farah (2011a) suggested that the effects of both methylphenidate and amphetamine salt mixtures on cognitive performances in healthy participants showed positively consistent effects in learning, but especially so in delayed recall and recognition testing, pointing to an effect on memory consolidation []. An additional study by Schelle et al. (2015) showed a positive effect of methylphenidate on memory and planning performance in healthy individuals. However, others have suggested that evidence regarding the clinical benefits of CEs in healthy individuals is still inconclusive []. A 2010 systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomised controlled trials of the effect of both modafinil and methylphenidate in healthy individuals showed that the anticipated effects of these two agents as cognitive enhancers exceeded their actual effect []. Hence, it has been suggested that the ability of amphetamine-type substance mixtures to enhance academic performance among students could be attributed to their effect on energy, confidence and motivation levels rather than to a direct effect on cognitive performances []. In fact, individuals may be biased in predicting their own performance, e.g., they either underestimate or overestimate their academic competence []. Moreover, cognitive improvement seems to vary considerably from one agent to another, and Smith et al. (2011) reported that one third of studies from past literature reviews showed null results. One could then argue that there are more unpublished studies in the literature with null results, due to publication bias favouring positive results [].
On the other hand, use of stimulant CEs may be associated with negative academic performances in terms of the euphoric state induced, with abnormal mood elation preventing the student from spending enough time in preparation for an exam [,]. Furthermore, methylphenidate is reported to present with a dependence potential [], and modafinil dependence cases have been identified as well []. It is also worth noting the amphetamine-type substance-related dependence; withdrawal; and psychosis issues []. Untoward effects relating to the index CE may indeed influence students’ choices, with them being keen to consider modafinil as opposed to methylphenidate and amphetamine salt mixtures. Indeed, Steward and Pickersgill (2019) found that all their CE users had ingested modafinil, with only some also having tried methylphenidate and amphetamine salt mixtures for the purpose of study. In fact, students described how the use of methylphenidate and amphetamine salt mixtures could result in dependence and hence these were approached more cautiously []. Overall, however, the use of methylphenidate has significantly increased, with its consumption, in defined daily doses, having increased to approximately 2.4 billion worldwide []. In the UK, both methylphenidate and amphetamine compounds are Class B controlled drugs []. This means they can be provided via prescription, but the maximum quantity issued should not exceed 30 days (unless justified by the prescriber) and a personal import/export licence is required to transport the drug in or out of the UK if the amount exceeds a 3-month supply []. Modafinil is a prescription-only medicine in the UK, but it is not controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or subject to scheduling under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001; hence, it is illegal to supply it without a prescription, but it is not illegal to possess the drug for personal use []. To cope with these restrictions, CEs’ selling websites provide discreet packaging; offer free reshipment if the package is seized; and encourage third-party, difficult to track, payment methods []. This outcome suggests running campaigns that mitigate harm and raise awareness among students who use CE drugs. Finally, although caffeine is also a stimulant, its use is not associated with either acquisition, affordability, availability, or legality issues [,]. However, with caffeine high-dosage intake a range of medical and psychiatric effects can be observed, most typically including anxiety, panic attacks, sleeping disorders and cardiovascular issues [].
A Cochrane review found no evidence that short-term intake of vitamins B6 and B12 supplements improve cognitive function or mood. The review did find some evidence that daily vitamin B6 and B12 supplements can affect biochemical indices of vitamin B6 and B12 status in healthy individuals, but these changes had no overall impact on cognition [].
According to the review of the literature, the drugs selected were chosen based on their popularity among healthy university students, but the drugs most used among students were (modafinil, methylphenidate and Adderall) and, in terms of substances, caffeine was the most popular among university students. However, a study by Carlier, J (2019) reported that methylphenidate is one of the most popular CEs and several analogues appeared on the drug market during the last years. However, little or no scientific data on these new analogues are available.
As sports organisations such as WADA are overviewing and prohibiting the use of physical enhancers, no such control exists in schools and universities. Therefore, in order to decrease the long-term deleterious effects of CEs in individuals who use them, government-level interventions are urgently required.
A harm reduction programme is also recommended to reduce the negative, legal and societal impact of substance use []. The programme should consider supporting individuals with problematic substance use and their families with compassion and appropriate advice and interventions, whilst safeguarding their dignity []. These findings suggest the importance of raising awareness of the harms of CE use, provide accurate knowledge, counteract myths regarding “safe” CE use and address cognitive enhancement in an early stage during education as a preventative public health measure.

5. Limitations

There are a few limitations that were considered in this manuscript. The first limitation is related here to the sole focus on English language studies having been included in the search; future studies should consider further languages. The second limitation relates to the methods used by the different studies, typically involving self-reporting surveys which could have introduced biases. Finally, the current study focused only on undergraduate students; however, postgraduate students, academic staff, and remaining workers should be considered by future studies.

6. Conclusions

A number of students worldwide may be willing to consider CEs’ ingestion to improve their academic performances. The attitude of university students about CEs and their possible benefits is, however, based on anecdotal, and arguably biased, information obtained from the media, the web, and friends []. Overall, it seems from this review that the topic is not being sufficiently covered in the curriculum of modern universities. Conversely, this issue should be discussed, as an inter-professional or inter-disciplinary learning opportunity, from a public health perspective [,]. CEs’ use may arguably be reduced if students’ levels of awareness were raised, emphasising that CEs’ intake may pose a risk to safety, and especially so in vulnerable individuals []. Indeed, impacts of CE drugs’ intake may include tolerance, dependence, withdrawal, cardiovascular and neurological disorders with a related risk of death due to overdose [,,]. The implementation of a harm reduction campaign, in order to bring the overall consumption down, has been proposed as well [,].
Finally, Shaw (2014) suggested that one of the most fascinating issues in the emerging field of neuroethics is pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement. Medical debate [,] has largely focused on the CEs’ potential to help those who are cognitively impaired. Hence, it is here suggested that CEs’ use by university students, seems to raise the issue of “cosmetic” neuropsychopharmacology [,].

Author Contributions

All the Authors equally contributed to the initial planning of the data collection; S.S. drafted the paper itself. A.G., S.F., and F.S. critically reviewed the final draft prior to submission. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

This article is part of S.S.’s PhD research.

Conflicts of Interest

F.S. was a previous (2011–2019) member of the ACMD UK; he is currently a member of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Psychiatry Advisory Board. S.S., A.G. and S.F. have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. Bostrom, N.; Sandberg, A. Cognitive Enhancement: Methods, Ethics, Regulatory Challenges. Sci. Eng. Ethic 2009, 15, 311–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Wesnes, K.A.; Zangara, A.; Scholey, A.; Kennedy, D. Natural Products as Cognition Enhancing Agents. In Cognitive Enhancing Drugs; Birkhäuser: Basel, Switzerland, 2004; pp. 151–178. [Google Scholar]
  3. Froestl, W.; Muhs, A.; Pfeifer, A. Cognitive Enhancers (Nootropics). Part 1: Drugs Interacting with Receptors. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. 2012, 32, 793–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Smith, M.E.; Farah, M.J. Are prescription stimulants “smart pills”? The epidemiology and cognitive neuroscience of prescription stimulant use by normal healthy individuals. Psychol. Bull. 2011, 137, 717–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Advokat, C. What are the cognitive effects of stimulant medications? Emphasis on adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2010, 34, 1256–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Davis, M.S.; National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The Concise Dictionary of Crime and Justice; National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA): North Bethesda, MD, USA, 2012; Available online: http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/the-concise-dictionary-of-crime-and-justice (accessed on 7 March 2021).
  7. Preta, B.D.O.C.; Miranda, V.I.A.; Bertoldi, A.D. Psychostimulant Use for Neuroenhancement (Smart Drugs) among College Students in Brazil. Subst. Use Misuse 2019, 55, 613–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rasetti, R.; Mattay, V.S.; Stankevich, B.; Skjei, K.; Blasi, G.; Sambataro, F.; Arrillaga-Romany, I.C.; Goldberg, T.E.; Callicott, J.H.; Apud, J.A.; et al. Modulatory Effects of Modafinil on Neural Circuits Regulating Emotion and Cognition. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2010, 35, 2101–2109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Carlier, J.; Giorgetti, R.; Varì, M.R.; Pirani, F.; Ricci, G.; Busardò, F.P. Use of cognitive enhancers: Methylphenidate and analogs. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2019, 23, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  10. Bisagno, V.; González, B.; Urbano, F.J. Cognitive enhancers versus addictive psychostimulants: The good and bad side of dopamine on prefrontal cortical circuits. Pharmacol. Res. 2016, 109, 108–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Steffenhagen, N.; Regenthal, R.; Bublak, P. Effects of modafinil on working memory processes in humans. Psychopharmacology 2004, 177, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Volkow, N.D.; Fowler, J.S.; Logan, J.; Alexoff, D.; Zhu, W.; Telang, F.; Wang, G.-J.; Jayne, M.; Hooker, J.M.; Wong, C.; et al. Effects of Modafinil on Dopamine and Dopamine Transporters in the Male Human Brain. JAMA 2009, 301, 1148–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Schmitt, K.C.; Reith, M.E.A. The Atypical Stimulant and Nootropic Modafinil Interacts with the Dopamine Transporter in a Different Manner than Classical Cocaine-Like Inhibitors. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e25790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. FDA (US Food and Drug Administration). Adderall, XR. Highlights of Prescribing Information; Shire US Inc.: Wayne, PA, USA, 1998; Volume 50, pp. 1–25. Available online: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/021303s026lbl.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2021).
  15. Caldwell, J.A.; Smythe, N.K.; Hall, K.K.; Norman, D.N.; Prazinko, B.F.; Estrada, A.; Johnson, P.A.; Crowley, J.S.; Brock, M.E. The Effects of Modafinil on Aviator Performance during 40 Hours of Continuous Wakefulness: A UH-60 Helicopter Simulator Study; Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory: Fort Rucker, AL, USA, 1999; Available online: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA365558.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2021).
  16. Hall, S.S. The Quest for a Smart Pill. Sci. Am. 2003, 289, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Batistela, S.; Bueno, O.F.A.; Vaz, L.J.; Galduróz, J.C.F. Methylphenidate as a cognitive enhancer in healthy young people. Dement. Neuropsychol. 2016, 10, 134–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dietz, P.; Ulrich, R.; Dalaker, R.; Striegel, H.; Franke, A.G.; Lieb, K.; Simon, P. Associations between Physical and Cognitive Doping—A Cross-Sectional Study in 2.997 Triathletes. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e78702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Barkoukis, V.; Lazuras, L.; Lucidi, F.; Tsorbatzoudis, H. Nutritional supplement and doping use in sport: Possible underlying social cognitive processes. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2015, 25, e582–e588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Maier, L.J.; Liechti, M.E.; Herzig, F.; Schaub, M.P. To Dope or Not to Dope: Neuroenhancement with Prescription Drugs and Drugs of Abuse among Swiss University Students. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e77967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Maier, L.J.; Liakoni, E.; Schildmann, J.; Schaub, M.P.; Liechti, M.E. Swiss University Students’ Attitudes toward Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0144402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Singh, I.; Bard, I.; Jackson, J. Robust Resilience and Substantial Interest: A Survey of Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement among University Students in the UK and Ireland. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e105969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Herman-Stahl, M.A.; Krebs, C.P.; Kroutil, L.A.; Heller, D.C. Risk and protective factors for methamphetamine use and nonmedical use of prescription stimulants among young adults aged 18 to 25. Addict. Behav. 2007, 32, 1003–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fowler, T. In Defence of State Directed Enhancement. J. Appl. Philos. 2015, 32, 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Greely, H.; Sahakian, B.; Harris, J.; Kessler, R.C.; Gazzaniga, M.; Campbell, P.; Farah, M.J. Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature 2008, 456, 702–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Begley, E.; McVeigh, J.; Hope, V. Lifeline Project Image and Performance Enhancing Drugs (IPEDs). Lit. Rev. 2016, p. 23. Available online: https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/26484/1/Lifeline-IPEDsReport-November2016.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2021).
  27. Schifano, F.; Napoletano, F.; Chiappini, S.; Guirguis, A.; Corkery, J.M.; Bonaccorso, S.; Ricciardi, A.; Scherbaum, N.; Vento, A. New/emerging psychoactive substances and associated psychopathological consequences. Psychol. Med. 2021, 51, 30–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Schifano, F.; Orsolini, L.; Papanti, G.D.; Corkery, J.M. Novel psychoactive substances of interest for psychiatry. World Psychiatry 2015, 14, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. McDermott, H.; Lane, H.; Alonso, M. Working smart: The use of ‘cognitive enhancers’ by UK university students. J. Further Higher Educ. 2020, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Champagne, J.; Gardner, B.; Dommett, E.J. Modelling predictors of UK undergraduates’ attitudes towards smart drugs. Trends Neurosci. Educ. 2019, 14, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Steward, A.; Pickersgill, M. Developing expertise, customising sleep, enhancing study practices: Exploring the legitimisation of modafinil use within the accounts of UK undergraduate students. Drugs Educ. Prev. Policy 2019, 26, 347–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mousavi, F.; Shojaei, P.; Markeh, H.P. The Use of Cognitive Enhancers Among Medical Students. Int. J. High Risk Behav. Addict. 2019, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Javed, N.; Ahmed, F.; Saeed, S.; Amir, R.; Khan, H.Y.; Iqbal, S.P. Prevalence of Methylphenidate Misuse in Medical Colleges in Pakistan: A Cross-sectional Study. Cureus 2019, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Cândido, R.C.F.; Perini, E.; De Pádua, C.M.; Junqueira, D.R. Prevalence of and factors associated with the use of methylphenidate for cognitive enhancement among university students. Einstein 2019, 18, eAO4745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. De Bruyn, S.; Wouters, E.; Ponnet, K.; Van Hal, G. Popping smart pills in medical school: Are competition and stress associated with the misuse of prescription stimulants among students? Subst. Use Misuse 2019, 54, 1191–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. London-Nadeau, K.; Chan, P.; Wood, S. Building Conceptions of Cognitive Enhancement: University Students’ Views on the Effects of Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancers. Subst. Use Misuse 2019, 54, 908–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Pighi, M.; Pontoni, G.; Sinisi, A.; Ferrari, S.; Mattei, G.; Pingani, L.; Simoni, E.; Galeazzi, G.M. Use and Propensity to Use Substances as Cognitive Enhancers in Italian Medical Students. Brain Sci. 2018, 8, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Fallah, G.; Moudi, S.; Hamidia, A.; Bijani, A. Stimulant use in medical students and residents requires more careful attention. Casp. J. Int. Med. 2018, 9, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Maier, L.J.; Ferris, J.A.; Winstock, A.R. Pharmacological cognitive enhancement among non-ADHD individuals—A cross-sectional study in 15 countries. Int. J. Drug Policy 2018, 58, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lucke, J.; Jensen, C.; Dunn, M.; Chan, G.; Forlini, C.; Kaye, S.; Partridge, B.; Farrell, M.; Racine, E.; Hall, W. Non-medical prescription stimulant use to improve academic performance among Australian university students: Prevalence and correlates of use. BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Dietz, P.; Iberl, B.; Schuett, E.; Van Poppel, M.; Ulrich, R.; Sattler, M.C. Prevalence Estimates for Pharmacological Neuroenhancement in Austrian University Students: Its Relation to Health-Related Risk Attitude and the Framing Effect of Caffeine Tablets. Front. Pharmacol. 2018, 9, 494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Riddell, C.; Jensen, C.; Carter, O. Cognitive Enhancement and Coping in an Australian University Student Sample. J. Cogn. Enhanc. 2017, 2, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hanna, L.; Rainey, J.; Hall, M. A Questionnaire Study Investigating Future Pharmacists’ Use of, and Views on Cognitive Enhancers. Pharm. Educ. 2018, 18, 76–84. [Google Scholar]
  45. Papazisis, G.; Tsakiridis, I.; Siafis, S. Nonmedical Use of Prescription Drugs among Medical Students and the Relationship with Illicit Drug, Tobacco, and Alcohol Use. Subst. Abus. Res. Treat. 2018, 12, 1178221818802298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Ram, S.; Hussainy, S.; Henning, M.; Stewart, K.; Jensen, M.; Russell, B. Attitudes Toward Cognitive Enhancer Use Among New Zealand Tertiary Students. Subst. Use Misuse 2017, 52, 1387–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lazuras, L.; Ypsilanti, A.; Lamprou, E.; Kontogiorgis, C. Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancement in Greek University Students: Differences Between Users and Non-Users in Social Cognitive Variables, Burnout, and Engagement. Subst. Use Misuse 2017, 52, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  48. Jain, R.; Chang, C.C.; Koto, M.; Geldenhuys, A.; Nichol, R.; Joubert, G. Non-medical use of methylphenidate among medical students of the University of the Free State. S. Afr. J. Psychiatry 2017, 23, 1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  49. Vagwala, M.K.; Bicquelet, A.; Didziokaite, G.; Coomber, R.; Corrigan, O.; Singh, I. Towards a Moral Ecology of Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement in British Universities. Neuroethics 2017, 10, 389–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Jensen, C.; Forlini, C.; Partridge, B.; Hall, W. Australian university students’ coping strategies and use of pharmaceutical stimulants as cognitive enhancers. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Al Ghali, R.M.; Al Shaibi, H.; Al Majed, H.; Haroun, D. Caffeine Consumption among Zayed University Students in Dubai, United Arab Emirates: A Cross-Sectional Study. Arab. J. Nutr. Exerc. (AJNE) 2017, 1, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gudmundsdottir, B.G.; Weyandt, L.; Ernudottir, G.B. Prescription Stimulant Misuse and ADHD Symptomatology Among College Students in Iceland. J. Atten. Disord. 2016, 24, 384–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Fond, G.; Gavaret, M.; Vidal, C.; Brunel, L.; Riveline, J.-P.; Micoulaud-Franchi, J.-A.; Domenech, P. (Mis)use of Prescribed Stimulants in the Medical Student Community. Medicine. 2016, 95, e3366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lengvenytė, A.; Strumila, R. Do medical students use cognitive enhancers to study? Prevalence and correlates from Lithuanian medical students sample. Eur. Psychiatry 2016, 33, S304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hupli, A.; Didžiokaitė, G.; Ydema, M. Toward the Smarter Use of Smart Drugs. Contemp. Drug Probl. 2016, 43, 242–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Schelle, K.J.; Olthof, B.M.J.; Reintjes, W.; Bundt, C.; Gusman-Vermeer, J.; Van Mil, A.C.C.M. A survey of substance use for cognitive enhancement by university students in the Netherlands. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 2015, 9, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Abbasi-Ghahramanloo, A.; Fotouhi, A.; Zeraati, H.; Rahimi-Movaghar, A. Prescription Drugs, Alcohol, and Illicit Substance Use and Their Correlations Among Medical Sciences Students in Iran. Int. J. High Risk Behav. Addict. 2015, 4, 21945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Vargo, E.J.; James, R.A.; Agyeman, K.; MacPhee, T.; McIntyre, R.; Ronca, F.; Petróczi, A. Perceptions of assisted cognitive and sport performance enhancement among university students in England. Perform. Enhanc. Health 2014, 3, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ott, R.; Biller-Andorno, N. Neuroenhancement among Swiss Students—A Comparison of Users and Non-Users. Pharmacopsychiatry 2013, 47, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Micoulaud-Franchi, J.-A.; MacGregor, A.; Fond, G. A preliminary study on cognitive enhancer consumption behaviors and motives of French Medicine and Pharmacology students. Eur. Rev. Med Pharmacol. Sci. 2014, 18, 1875–1878. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  61. McCabe, S.E.; West, B.T.; Teter, C.J.; Boyd, C.J. Trends in medical use, diversion, and nonmedical use of prescription medications among college students from 2003 to 2013: Connecting the dots. Addict. Behav. 2014, 39, 1176–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Hildt, E.; Lieb, K.; Franke, A.G. Life context of pharmacological academic performance enhancement among university students—A qualitative approach. BMC Med Ethic 2014, 15, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Emanuel, R.M.; Frellsen, S.L.; Kashima, K.J.; Sanguino, S.M.; Sierles, F.S.; Lazarus, C.J. Cognitive Enhancement Drug Use Among Future Physicians: Findings from a Multi-Institutional Census of Medical Students. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2013, 28, 1028–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Hanson, C.L.; Burton, S.H.; Giraud-Carrier, C.; West, J.H.; Barnes, M.D.; Hansen, B. Tweaking and Tweeting: Exploring Twitter for Nonmedical Use of a Psychostimulant Drug (Adderall) Among College Students. J. Med Internet Res. 2013, 15, e62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Dietz, P.; Striegel, H.; Franke, A.G.; Lieb, K.; Simon, P.; Ulrich, R. Randomized Response Estimates for the 12-Month Prevalence of Cognitive-Enhancing Drug Use in University Students. Pharmacother. J. Hum. Pharmacol. Drug Ther. 2013, 33, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bossaer, J.B.; Gray, J.A.; Miller, S.E.; Enck, G.; Gaddipati, V.C.; Enck, R.E. The Use and Misuse of Prescription Stimulants as “Cognitive Enhancers” by Students at One Academic Health Sciences Centre. Acad. Med. 2013, 88, 967–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kudlow, P.A.; Treurnicht Naylor, K.; Xie, B.; McIntyre, R.S. Cognitive Enhancement in Canadian Medical Students. J. Psychoact. Drugs 2013, 45, 360–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Holloway, K.; Bennett, T. Prescription drug misuse among university staff and students: A survey of motives, nature and extent. Drugs: Educ. Prev. Policy 2011, 19, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Castaldi, S.; Gelatti, U.; Orizio, G.; Hartung, U.; Moreno-Londono, A.M.; Nobile, M.; Schulz, P.J. Use of Cognitive Enhancement Medication Among Northern Italian University Students. J. Addict. Med. 2012, 6, 112–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Ghabili, K.; Habibzadeh, A.; Alizadeh, M.; Malek, A.; Maghbooli, L.; Shoja, M.M. Illicit methylphenidate use among Iranian medical students: Prevalence and knowledge. Drug Des. Dev. Ther. 2011, 5, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Franke, A.G.; Bonertz, C.; Christmann, M.; Huss, M.; Fellgiebel, A.; Hildt, E.; Lieb, K. Non-Medical Use of Prescription Stimulants and Illicit Use of Stimulants for Cognitive Enhancement in Pupils and Students in Germany. Pharmacopsychiatry 2010, 44, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Teter, C.J.; McCabe, S.E.; Lagrange, K.; Cranford, J.A.; Boyd, C.J. Illicit Use of Specific Prescription Stimulants Among College Students: Prevalence, Motives, and Routes of Administration. Pharmacother. J. Hum. Pharmacol. Drug Ther. 2006, 26, 1501–1510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Teter, C.J.; McCabe, S.E.; Cranford, J.A.; Boyd, C.J.; Guthrie, S.K. Prevalence and Motives for Illicit Use of Prescription Stimulants in an Undergraduate Student Sample. J. Am. Coll. Health 2005, 53, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Low, K.G.; Gendaszek, A.E. Illicit use of psychostimulants among college students: A preliminary study. Psychol. Heal. Med. 2002, 7, 283–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Benson, K.; Flory, K.; Humphreys, K.L.; Lee, S.S. Misuse of Stimulant Medication Among College Students: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-analysis. Clin. Child Fam. Psychol. Rev. 2015, 18, 50–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Weyandt, L.L.; Marraccini, M.E.; Gudmundsdottir, B.G.; Zavras, B.M.; Turcotte, K.D.; Munro, B.A.; Amoroso, A.J. Misuse of prescription stimulants among college students: A review of the literature and implications for morphological and cognitive effects on brain functioning. Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 2013, 21, 385–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lengvenyte, A.; Strumila, R.; Grikiniene, J. Use of cognitive enhancers among medical students in Lithuania. Nord. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 2016, 33, 173–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Cappelletti, S.; Daria, P.; Sani, G.; Aromatario, M. Caffeine: Cognitive and Physical Performance Enhancer or Psychoactive Drug? Curr. Neuropharmacol. 2015, 13, 71–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Schleim, S. Neuroenhancement as Instrumental Drug Use: Putting the Debate in a Different Frame. Front. Psychiatry 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Repantis, D.; Schlattmann, P.; Laisney, O.; Heuser, I. Modafinil and methylphenidate for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Pharmacol. Res. 2010, 62, 187–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Sharp, C. Cognitive enhancers—performance or problem? Occup. Med. 2016, 66, 88–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Konstantinos, F.; Heun, R. The effects of Guarana (Paullinia cupana) supplementation on the cognitive performance of young healthy adults—A Systematic Review. Glob. Psychiatry 2019, 2, 171–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Haskell, C.F.; Kennedy, D.O.; Wesnes, K.A.; Milne, A.L.; Scholey, A.B. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-dose evaluation of the acute behavioural effects of guarana in humans. J. Psychopharmacol. 2006, 21, 65–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Marques, L.L.M.; Ferreira, E.D.F.; De Paula, M.N.; Klein, T.; De Mello, J.C.P. Paullinia cupana: A multipurpose plant—A review. Rev. Bras. Farm. 2019, 29, 77–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Garasic, M.D.; Lavazza, A. Moral and social reasons to acknowledge the use of cognitive enhancers in competitive-selective contexts. BMC Med Ethic 2016, 17, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Deline, S.; Baggio, S.; Studer, J.; N’Goran, A.A.; Dupuis, M.; Henchoz, Y.; Mohler-Kuo, M.; Daeppen, J.-B.; Gmel, G. Use of Neuroenhancement Drugs: Prevalence, Frequency and Use Expectations in Switzerland. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 3032–3045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Sparrow, R. Enhancement and Obsolescence: Avoiding an “Enhanced Rat Race”. Kennedy Inst. Ethic- J. 2015, 25, 231–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Spencer, R.C.; Devilbiss, D.M.; Berridge, C.W. The Cognition-Enhancing Effects of Psychostimulants Involve Direct Action in the Prefrontal Cortex. Biol. Psychiatry 2015, 77, 940–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Department of Health Western Australian Stimulant Regulatory Scheme. 2014 Annual Report, Pharmaceutical Services Branch; Department of Health Western Australian Stimulant Regulatory Scheme: Perth, WA, Australia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  90. Nelson, A.M.; Lenton, S. Drug Trends Bulletin Ecstasy And Related Drugs. Illicit Use of Prescription Cognitive Enhancing (CE) Drugs among Regular Psychostimulant Users. 2017. Available online: http://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/fapi/datastream/unsworks:60268/SOURCE01?view=true (accessed on 7 March 2021).
  91. Abelman, D.D. Mitigating risks of students use of study drugs through understanding motivations for use and applying harm reduction theory: A literature review. Harm Reduct. J. 2017, 14, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Ilieva, I.P.; Hook, C.J.; Farah, M.J. Prescription stimulants’ effects on healthy inhibitory control, working memory, and episodic memory: a meta-analysis. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2015, 27, 1069–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Volkow, N.D.; Fowler, J.S.; Wang, G.-J.; Telang, F.; Logan, J.; Wong, C.; Ma, J.; Pradhan, K.; Benveniste, H.; Swanson, J.M. Methylphenidate Decreased the Amount of Glucose Needed by the Brain to Perform a Cognitive Task. PLoS ONE 2008, 3, e2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Volkow, N.D.; Insel, T.R. What are the long-term effects of methylphenidate treatment? Biol. Psychiatry 2003, 54, 1307–1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Franke, A.G.; Bagusat, C. Chapter 80—Use of Caffeine for Cognitive Enhancement; Preedy, V.R.B.T.-C.H., Prevention, D., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2015; pp. 721–727. ISBN 978-0-12-409517-5. [Google Scholar]
  96. Ruxton, C.H.S. The impact of caffeine on mood, cognitive function, performance and hydration: A review of benefits and risks. Nutr. Bull. 2008, 33, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Brunton, G.; Khouja, C.; Aine, G.; Stansfield, C.; Kwan, I.; Sowden, A.; Sutcliie, K.; Thomas, J. Caffeinated Energy Drink Use and Reported Effects in Young People: A Rapid Overview of Systematic Reviews; EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, University College London: London, UK, 2019; ISBN 978-1-911605-10-2. [Google Scholar]
  98. Ontario, H.Q. Vitamin B12 and Cognitive Function: An Evidence-Based Analysis. Ont. Health Technol. Assess. Ser. 2013, 13, 1–45. [Google Scholar]
  99. Gröber, U.; Kisters, K.; Schmidt, J. Neuroenhancement with Vitamin B12—Underestimated Neurological Significance. Nutrients 2013, 5, 5031–5045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Kennedy, D.; Haskell, C.; Wesnes, K.; Scholey, A. Improved cognitive performance in human volunteers following administration of guarana (Paullinia cupana) extract: Comparison and interaction with Panax ginseng. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 2004, 79, 401–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Bogle, K.; Smith, B. Illicit Methylphenidate Use: A Review of Prevalence, Availability, Pharmacology, and Consequences. Curr. Drug Abus. Rev. 2009, 2, 157–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Giurgea, C.; Salama, M. Nootropic drugs. Prog. Neuro-Psychopharmacol. 1977, 1, 235–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Robbins, T.W. Special issue on cognitive enhancers. Psychopharmacology 2008, 202, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Wilms, W.; Woźniak-Karczewska, M.; Corvini, P.F.-X.; Chrzanowski, Ł. Nootropic drugs: Methylphenidate, modafinil and piracetam—Population use trends, occurrence in the environment, ecotoxicity and removal methods—A review. Chemosphere 2019, 233, 771–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Husain, M.; Mehta, M.A. Cognitive enhancement by drugs in health and disease. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2011, 15, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Abo-Elmatty, D.M.; Elshazly, S.M.; Zaitone, S.A. Piracetam and vinpocetine ameliorate rotenone-induced Parkinsonism in rats. Indian J. Pharmacol. 2012, 44, 774–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Ford, A.H.; Almeida, O.P. Effect of Vitamin B Supplementation on Cognitive Function in the Elderly: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Drugs Aging 2019, 36, 419–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Solomon, T.M.; Leech, J.; Murphy, C.; Debros, G.; Budson, A.; Solomon, P. A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, parallel group, efficacy study of alpha BRAIN® administered orally. J. Int. Soc. Sports Nutr. 2015, 12, P54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Malouf, R.; Evans, J.G. Vitamin B6 for cognition. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2003, 93, CD004393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Seneca CHAPTER 2—Alkaloid Chemistry; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 61–139. ISBN 978-0-444-52736-3.
  111. Ogunrin, A. Effect of vinpocetine (cognitol™) on cognitive performances of a Nigerian population. Ann. Med. Health Sci. Res. 2014, 4, 654–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Morton, F.; Tighe, B. Prevalence of, and factors influencing, binge drinking in young adult university under-graduate students. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 2011, 24, 266–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. McNiel, A.D.; Muzzin, K.B.; Dewald, J.P.; McCann, A.L.; Schneiderman, E.D.; Scofield, J.; Campbell, P.R. The Nonmedical Use of Prescription Stimulants among Dental and Dental Hygiene Students. J. Dent. Educ. 2011, 75, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. DuPaul, G.J.; Weyandt, L.L.; O’Dell, S.M.; Varejao, M. College students with ADHD: Current status and future directions. J. Atten. Disord. 2009, 13, 234–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Shiers, J. Men and Drugs—The Facts; UK Addiction Treatment Centres: Borehamwood, UK, 2018; Available online: https://www.ukat.co.uk/drugs/men-and-drugs-the-facts/ (accessed on 7 March 2021).
  116. Maher, B. Poll results: Look who’s doping. Nat. Cell Biol. 2008, 452, 674–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Napoletano, F.; Schifano, F.; Corkery, J.M.; Guirguis, A.; Arillotta, D.; Zangani, C.; Vento, A. The Psychonauts’ World of Cognitive Enhancers. Front. Psychiatry Addict. Disord. 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Marsh, S. Universities Must do More to Tackle Use of Smart Drugs, Say Experts. 2017. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/10/universities-do-more-tackle-smart-drugs-say-experts-uk-exams/ (accessed on 10 March 2021).
  119. Dennehy, C.E.; Tsourounis, C.; Miller, A.E. Evaluation of Herbal Dietary Supplements Marketed on the Internet for Recreational Use. Ann. Pharmacother. 2005, 39, 1634–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. D’Angelo, L.-S.C.; Savulich, G.; Sahakian, B.J. Lifestyle use of drugs by healthy people for enhancing cognition, creativity, motivation and pleasure. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2017, 174, 3257–3267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Beddington, J.; Cooper, C.L.; Field, J.; Goswami, U.; Huppert, F.A.; Jenkins, R.; Jones, H.S.; Kirkwood, T.B.L.; Sahakian, B.J.; Thomas, S.M. The mental wealth of nations. Nat. Cell Biol. 2008, 455, 1057–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Franke, A.G.; Dietz, P.; Ranft, K.; Balló, H.; Simon, P.; Lieb, K. The Use of Pharmacologic Cognitive Enhancers in Competitive Chess. Epidemiology 2017, 28, e57–e58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Maslen, H.; Faulmüller, N.; Savulescu, J. Pharmacological cognitive enhancement how neuroscientific research could advance ethical debate. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 2014, 8, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Vrecko, S. Just How Cognitive Is “Cognitive Enhancement”? On the Significance of Emotions in University Students’ Experiences with Study Drugs. AJOB Neurosci. 2013, 4, 4–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Dunning, D. Chapter five—The Dunning–Kruger Effect: On Being Ignorant of One’s Own Ignorance. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Olson, J.M., Zanna, M.P., Eds.; Elsevier Academic Press Inc.: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011; Volume 44, pp. 247–296. ISBN 0065-2601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Morton, W.A.; Stockton, G.G. Methylphenidate Abuse and Psychiatric Side Effects. Prim. Care Companion J. Clin. Psychiatry 2000, 2, 159–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Chary, K.V.; Krishnan, R. A rare case modafinil dependence. J. Pharmacol. Pharmacother. 2015, 6, 49–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Home Office. Review of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016; Home Office: London, UK, 2016; ISBN 978-1-5286-0863-3. [Google Scholar]
  129. Lane, J.D.; Pieper, C.F.; Phillips-Bute, B.G.; Bryant, J.E.; Kuhn, C.M. Caffeine Affects Cardiovascular and Neuroendocrine Activation at Work and Home. Psychosom. Med. 2002, 64, 595–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Finger, G.; Da Silva, E.R.; Falavigna, A. Use of methylphenidate among medical students: A systematic review. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira 2013, 59, 285–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Schifano, F. Analyzing the Open/Deep Web to Better Understand the New/Novel Psychoactive Substances (NPS) Scenarios: Suggestions from CASSANDRA and NPS.Finder Research Projects. Brain Sci. 2020, 10, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Schelle, K.J.; Faulmüller, N.; Caviola, L.; Hewstone, M. Attitudes toward pharmacological cognitive enhancement—A review. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 2014, 8, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Shaw, D.M. Neuroenhancing public health. J. Med. Ethic 2013, 40, 389–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Zaami, S.; Tagliabracci, A.; Berretta, P.; Busardò, F.P.; Marinelli, E. Use of Methylphenidate Analogues as Cognitive Enhancers: The Prelude to Cosmetic Neurology and an Ethical Issue. Front. Psychiatry 2020, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.