Oxidative stress is the subject of numerous studies, most of them focusing on the negative effects exerted at both molecular and cellular levels, ignoring the possible benefits of free radicals. More and more people admit to having heard of the term “oxidative stress”, but few of them understand the meaning of it. We summarized and analyzed the published literature data in order to emphasize the importance and adaptation mechanisms of basal oxidative stress. This review aims to provide an overview of the mechanisms underlying the positive effects of oxidative stress, highlighting these effects, as well as the risks for the population consuming higher doses than the recommended daily intake of antioxidants. The biological dose–response curve in oxidative stress is unpredictable as reactive species are clearly responsible for cellular degradation, whereas antioxidant therapies can alleviate senescence by maintaining redox balance; nevertheless, excessive doses of the latter can modify the redox balance of the cell, leading to a negative outcome. It can be stated that the presence of oxidative status or oxidative stress is a physiological condition with well-defined roles, yet these have been insufficiently researched and explored. The involvement of reactive oxygen species in the pathophysiology of some associated diseases is well-known and the involvement of antioxidant therapies in the processes of senescence, apoptosis, autophagy, and the maintenance of cellular homeostasis cannot be denied. All data in this review support the idea that oxidative stress is an undesirable phenomenon in high and long-term concentrations, but regular exposure is consistent with the hormetic theory.

Nowadays, more and more young people want to experience illegal, psychoactive substances, without knowing the risks of exposure. Besides affecting social life, psychoactive substances also have an important effect on consumer health. We summarized and analyzed the published literature data with reference to the mechanism of free radical generation and the link between chemical structure and oxidative stress related to dopaminergic neurotransmission. This review presents data on the physicochemical properties, on the ability to cross the blood brain barrier, the chemical structure activity relationship (SAR), and possible mechanisms by which neuronal injuries occur due to oxidative stress as a result of drug abuse such as “bath salts”, amphetamines, or cocaine. The mechanisms of action of ingested compounds or their metabolites involve intermediate steps in which free radicals are generated. The brain is strongly affected by the consumption of such substances, facilitating the induction of neurodegenerative diseases. It can be concluded that neurotoxicity is associated with drug abuse. Dependence and oxidative stress are linked to inhibition of neurogenesis and the onset of neuronal death. Understanding the pathological mechanisms following oxidative attack can be a starting point in the development of new therapeutic targets.

Off-label use of drugs is widely known as unapproved use of approved drugs, and it can be perceived as a relatively simple concept. Even though it has been in existence for many years, prescribing and dispensing of drugs in an off-label regimen is still a current issue, triggered especially by unmet clinical needs. Several therapeutic areas require off-label approaches; therefore, this practice is challenging for prescribing physicians. Meanwhile, the regulatory agencies are making efforts in order to ensure a safe practice. The present paper defines the off-label concept, and it describes its regulation, together with several complex aspects associated with clinical practices regarding rare diseases, oncology, pediatrics, psychiatry therapeutic areas, and the safety issues that arise. A systematic research of the literature was performed, using terms, such as “off-label”, ”prevalence”, ”rare diseases”, ”oncology”, ”psychiatry”, ”pediatrics”, and ”drug repurposing”. There are several reasons for which off-label practice remains indispensable in the present; therefore, efforts are made worldwide, by the regulatory agencies and governmental bodies, to raise awareness and to ensure safe practice, while also encouraging further research.

Caffeine is the most frequently used substance with a central nervous system stimulant effect, but its consumption is most often due to the intake of foods and drinks that contain it (coffee, tea, chocolate, food supplements with plant extracts of Guarana, Mate herba, Cola nuts). Due to its innocuity, caffeine is a safe xanthine alkaloid for human consumption in a wide range of doses, being used for its central nervous stimulating effect, lipolytic and diuresis-enhancing properties, but also as a permitted ergogenic compound in athletes. In addition to the mechanisms that explain the effects of caffeine on the targeted organ, there are many proposed mechanisms by which this substance would have antioxidant effects. As such, its consumption prevents the occurrence/progression of certain neurodegenerative diseases as well as other medical conditions associated with increased levels of reactive oxygen or nitrogen species. However, most studies that have assessed the beneficial effects of caffeine have used pure caffeine. The question, therefore, arises whether the daily intake of caffeine from food or drink has similar benefits, considering that in foods or drinks with a high caffeine content, there are other substances that could interfere with this action, either by potentiating or decreasing its antioxidant capacity. Natural sources of caffeine often combine plant polyphenols (phenol-carboxylic acids, catechins) with known antioxidant effects; however, stimulant drinks and dietary supplements often contain sugars or artificial sweeteners that can significantly reduce the effects of caffeine on oxidative stress. The objective of this review is to clarify the effects of caffeine in modulating oxidative stress and assess these benefits, considering the source and the dose administered.

The literature provides scientific evidence for the beneficial effects of cannabidiol (CBD), and these effects extend beyond epilepsy treatment (e.g., Lennox–Gastaut and Dravet syndromes), notably the influence on oxidative status, neurodegeneration, cellular protection, cognitive function, and physical performance. However, products containing CBD are not allowed to be marketed everywhere in the world, which may ultimately have a negative effect on health as a result of the uncontrolled CBD market. After the isolation of CBD follows the discovery of CB1 and CB2 receptors and the main enzymatic components (diacylglycerol lipase (DAG lipase), monoacyl glycerol lipase (MAGL), fatty acid amino hydrolase (FAAH)). At the same time, the antioxidant potential of CBD is due not only to the molecular structure but also to the fact that this compound increases the expression of the main endogenous antioxidant systems, superoxide dismutase (SOD), and glutathione peroxidase (GPx), through the nuclear complex erythroid 2-related factor (Nrf2)/Keep1. Regarding the role in the control of inflammation, this function is exercised by inhibiting (nuclear factor kappa B) NF-κB, and also the genes that encode the expression of molecules with a pro-inflammatory role (cytokines and metalloproteinases). The other effects of CBD on cognitive function and physical performance should not be excluded. In conclusion, the CBD market needs to be regulated more thoroughly, given the previously listed properties, with the mention that the safety profile is a very good one.