This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What FONTURACETAM, (R)- does in the body
A Russian prescription thinking drug sold elsewhere as a supplement and banned in sport.
Adding a phenyl ring to piracetam changes it from a molecule with no known target into a dopamine reuptake inhibitor. Binding studies across a panel of receptors and transporters found the dopamine transporter to be the only significant hit. Blocking that transporter leaves more dopamine in the synapse, which is the same broad action as methylphenidate, though phenylpiracetam is much weaker. The two mirror-image forms of the molecule behave differently: one is the selective transporter blocker and reduces weight gain in obese animals without making them more active, while the other shows anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects in rodent models. The product sold as phenylpiracetam is the mixture of both.
What happened in people
Laboratory screening found the dopamine transporter as its only significant brain target.
✓ Reviewed first-read answer
Where this came from
A person wrote this and a reviewer approved it against this exact record. It carries no effect size.
A reviewer approved this against this record. The reviewed-claim record carrying the exact population and effect size does not exist yet.
No source is stored against this line.
The limit that matters most
Human studies are largely inaccessible outside Russian journals and have not been repeated independently.
Where it acts
Dopamine transporters in the striatum; the 2-oxopyrrolidine core distributes widely in brain
Kind of result
The kind of result is not recorded
Supervision
Not usually supervised: sold as a supplement or food ingredient where recorded. That is a legal category, not a safety judgement.
What the registries record it as
The supplement label database classes it as other, under the name phenylpiracetam.
Its recorded molecular formula is C12H14N2O2, weighing 218.25.
PubChem record · 132441 · read 2026-08-29
Where each sentence above came from
No recorded sentence describes the change this makes in a way that stands on its own. The page opens with what it is taken for instead, and the recorded explanation follows below.
Shown as the opening line on this page.
The limit a reviewer approved as the one that matters most here.
The four opening statements run to 137 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Biomarker
A biomarker is a number from a test that stands in for something about health.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A biomarker is like a fuel gauge.
Where that stops being true. A gauge is wired to the tank. Many biomarkers are only loosely tied to health.
What people get wrong. A better number is read as a better life. Several medicines improved a number and helped nobody.
A measurable indicator used as a substitute for a clinical outcome of interest.
Placebo
A placebo is a dummy treatment given so the real one can be compared with it.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A placebo is like a blank control in an experiment.
Where that stops being true. A blank does nothing. People given a placebo often do get better.
What people get wrong. A placebo effect is read as imaginary. The improvement is measured and real.
An inactive intervention matched in appearance to the test intervention, used to control for non-specific effects.
Comparator
A comparator is whatever the treatment was measured against.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like the other runner in a race.
Where that stops being true. A race has one winner. A study can show both arms improved.
What people get wrong. Results are read without asking what the other group got. Beating nothing is not beating a treatment.
The control condition against which the experimental intervention is assessed.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
Body weight gain and fat mass, with plasma glucose, leptin, glucose tolerance and open-field locomotor activity
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Zvejniece 2017 metabolic study of S-phenylpiracetam
How many people
0
Study design
Preclinical, Western-diet mice for 8 weeks and obese Zucker rats for 12 weeks
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
Measured performance
What was found
Significant decrease in body weight gain and fat mass in both species, with reduced plasma glucose and leptin and lower hyperglycaemia on glucose tolerance testing; no effect on locomotor activity in either species
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablet, 100 mg strength in the Russian registered product; capsules and bulk powder elsewhere
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Molecular target identification, brain pharmacokinetics, and inflammatory gene expression and nociception
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Zvejniece 2020 target identification and inflammation models
How many people
0
Study design
Preclinical, radioligand binding panel with mouse endotoxaemia and paw oedema models
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Dopamine transporter the only significant target in binding assays; brain concentrations of 28 ug/g intraperitoneal and 18 ug/g oral at 50 mg/kg within 15 minutes; attenuated LPS-induced hypothermia and TNF-alpha, IL-1beta and iNOS overexpression
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablet, 100 mg strength in the Russian registered product; capsules and bulk powder elsewhere
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Identification of unauthorised nootropic molecules in samples from the legal and illegal market
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Vanhee 2025 multinational market surveillance study
How many people
159
Study design
Analytical surveillance, 12 official medicines control laboratories, 2020-2024
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
166 molecular identification entries and 34 distinct molecules; 49% presented as dietary supplements and 32% as medicines; 69% collected from the illegal market; noopept, phenylpiracetam and phenibut intercepted as bulk raw material
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablet, 100 mg strength in the Russian registered product; capsules and bulk powder elsewhere
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
RNAWiki holds 3 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What it changes in the body◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
The path through the body
From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.
Start
FONTURACETAM, (R)-
What a person takes: Oral tablet, 100 mg strength in the Russian registered product; capsules and bulk powder elsewhere.
The measurement behind this step
A conventional oral tablet where it is a registered medicine. In the markets where it is not, it appears as capsules sold as a nootropic supplement and as bulk raw material — the surveillance study intercepted it in large bulk quantities alongside noopept and phenibut, which is the supply form for a product that will be repackaged by whoever buys it.
Getting in
Taken by mouth in milligrams, not grams
Unlike piracetam, which needs grams, this works at doses roughly a hundred times smaller — because it has a target.
╌╌Measured in animals. A result in animals says what to test next. It does not say what happens in people.
The measurement behind this step
The phenyl substitution raises lipophilicity sharply relative to piracetam, giving rapid oral absorption and brain penetration. In mice, 50 mg/kg of the R-enantiomer reached brain tissue within 15 minutes with peak brain concentrations of 18 micrograms per gram after oral dosing.
The added ring makes it fat-soluble enough to cross into the brain within minutes.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
Passive diffusion across the blood-brain barrier, with a brain-to-plasma distribution that is the practical difference from piracetam. The 2-oxopyrrolidinone core is retained but the pharmacokinetic behaviour is that of a substituted aromatic small molecule.
Binds the dopamine transporter and nothing else notable
Screened against a wide panel of brain targets, only the dopamine recycling pump came up.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Radioligand binding identified the dopamine transporter as the only significant molecular target, with the S-enantiomer described as a selective DAT inhibitor without noradrenaline or serotonin activity. Blocking reuptake raises synaptic dopamine; the compound is not reported to trigger transporter-mediated release.
Dopamine signalling rises without an increase in movement
In animals, the expected metabolic and anti-inflammatory effects appear, but the animals do not become hyperactive.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
S-phenylpiracetam reduced body weight gain, fat mass, plasma glucose and leptin in Western-diet mice and obese Zucker rats without influencing open-field locomotor activity. R-phenylpiracetam attenuated lipopolysaccharide-induced hypothermia and TNF-alpha, IL-1beta and iNOS overexpression in brain. Both are enantiomer-specific findings in rodents.
Registered in Russia, prohibited in sport, unverified elsewhere
It is a real prescription drug in one country, a banned substance in sport since 1998, and an unapproved ingredient everywhere else.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
No randomised controlled trial in a healthy population exists in the indexed English-language literature, and none is registered. Its measurable footprint outside Russia is a doping prohibition dating to 1998 and its interception in bulk by twelve national medicines control laboratories.
No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.
What we know
The record describes 5 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
In Russia, patients prescribed it for asthenic and post-stroke states. Elsewhere, people buying it as a nootropic supplement, and athletes, for whom it has been prohibited since 1998.
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
Where the result stopped carrying
No randomised controlled trial of phenylpiracetam has ever been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov or published in an indexed English-language journal
No regulator outside the Commonwealth of Independent States has assessed a dossier for it in the more than two decades since it was first prohibited in sport
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states.
On this record: This is sold as a supplement, so no agency checked what is in a given tub before it was sold.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (10)
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Varies by country
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Oral tablet, 100 mg strength in the Russian registered product; capsules and bulk powder elsewhere
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
Not usually supervised: sold as a supplement or food ingredient where recorded. That is a legal category, not a safety judgement.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
The identity record classes it as a supplement ingredient; no medicines register records an approval.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
A conventional oral tablet where it is a registered medicine.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold. The rest of the recorded wording: In the markets where it is not, it appears as capsules sold as a nootropic supplement and as bulk raw material — the surveillance study intercepted it in large bulk quantities alongside noopept and phenibut, which is the supply form for a product that will be repackaged by whoever buys it.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No register entry is recorded.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
·Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page
No controlled human safety dataset exists outside the Russian registration file, which is not accessible for independent assessment. The pharmacological class it belongs to — dopamine reuptake inhibitors — carries the expected concerns about sleep disruption, appetite suppression, cardiovascular stimulation and dependence, and the rodent data notably show metabolic effects without locomotor stimulation, which does not extend to a claim about human safety. The specific documented risk in the market where it is sold as a supplement is co-formulation with undeclared unapproved drugs, which the 50-supplement survey found routinely.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Oral tablet, 100 mg strength in the Russian registered product; capsules and bulk powder elsewhere
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
A recorded note compares this form with the others that are sold. It is kept below, word for word.
§ A fixed RNAWiki sentence
Where this came from
Wording RNAWiki always uses, not a finding about this substance.
The recorded note, unchanged: In the markets where it is not, it appears as capsules sold as a nootropic supplement and as bulk raw material — the surveillance study intercepted it in large bulk quantities alongside noopept and phenibut, which is the supply form for a product that will be repackaged by whoever buys it.
No source is stored against this line.
What is recorded as being sold
5 marketed supplement labels list this ingredient, classed as non-nutrient/non-botanical, other combinations and other.
Those labels carry all other, no claim and structure/function claims. A claim of that kind is written by the manufacturer and is not assessed by any regulator, so its presence says nothing about whether it is true.
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
Watching one thing carefully can tell you whether it moved. It cannot tell you what moved it.
This is sold without a prescription, so a person can sensibly watch one thing and see whether it moves.
Pick one goal. One goal only. Two at once cannot be told apart afterwards.
Pick one thing to watch. No registered study lists a measure RNAWiki could read for this.
Measure before you start. Take the same measurement several times first. One reading is not a starting point.
Know the swing. Write down how much it moves on its own across a normal week.
Change one thing. Change nothing else at the same time, including training and sleep.
Give it the study length. No finished study window is recorded, so no length is suggested here.
Track whether you took it. Missed days are the most common reason a home test shows nothing.
Read the trend. Look at the line across weeks. A single reading tells you almost nothing.
What not to measure
Anything that swings more day to day than the change you are looking for.
A wearable estimate of sleep stages, which is an estimate and not a measurement.
Weight on one morning, which mostly records water.
A feeling you did not write down before starting.
When to stop
Stop if something new and unpleasant starts, and ask a pharmacist or doctor.
Stop if you cannot keep everything else steady, because the result will not mean anything.
Stop at the end of the window you set, and read the trend then.
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki does not work out an amount for anyone.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Claims that go past the evidence
Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.
✗Goes past the evidence
That rodent dopamine transporter pharmacology predicts improved attention, endurance or motivation in a healthy human, which no trial has tested
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That a Russian marketing authorisation constitutes evidence a reader elsewhere can examine, when the supporting trials are unindexed in English and unregistered
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That a product labelled phenylpiracetam contains a known enantiomer ratio, when the two enantiomers have different pharmacology and labels do not state it
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That being a racetam makes it comparable to piracetam; it is a dopamine reuptake inhibitor and piracetam is not
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of FONTURACETAM, (R)- are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.
The dopamine transporter is the only target that came up
In plain words
When phenylpiracetam was screened against a broad panel of brain receptors and transporters, the dopamine transporter was the only significant hit.
What was measured
Radioligand binding panel result, brain concentration time course, and inflammatory gene expression in an endotoxaemia model
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Zvejniece et al. reported that in radioligand binding assays, the dopamine transporter was the only significant molecular target found for R-phenylpiracetam. Pharmacokinetically, R-phenylpiracetam at 50 mg/kg reached brain tissue within 15 minutes of intraperitoneal or oral administration in mice, with maximal brain concentrations of 28 micrograms per gram after intraperitoneal and 18 micrograms per gram after oral dosing. A single intraperitoneal injection attenuated lipopolysaccharide-induced body temperature reduction and overexpression of TNF-alpha, IL-1beta and inducible nitric oxide synthase in brain, and seven-day oral pretreatment dose-dependently reduced carrageenan-induced paw oedema and the nociceptive response. This is the clearest target identification anywhere in the racetam family, and it places the compound in the same broad pharmacological class as methylphenidate rather than with piracetam, which has no identified target at all.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
One enantiomer cuts weight gain without stimulating movement
In plain words
In obese rats and mice, the S form reduced body weight gain, fat mass, blood glucose and leptin — and did not make the animals more active, which is unusual for a dopamine drug.
What was measured
Body weight gain, fat mass, plasma glucose and leptin, glucose tolerance and open-field locomotor activity
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Zvejniece et al. treated Western-diet-fed mice for eight weeks and obese Zucker rats for twelve weeks with daily oral S-phenylpiracetam, an optical isomer of phenotropil previously shown to be a selective dopamine transporter inhibitor with no effect on noradrenaline or serotonin. Treatment significantly decreased body weight gain and fat mass increase in both species, reduced plasma glucose and leptin, and lowered hyperglycaemia in a glucose tolerance test. It did not influence locomotor activity in an open-field test in either species. The dissociation matters: anorectic effect without locomotor stimulation is the profile the authors propose could make selective dopamine transporter inhibitors useful in metabolic disease. It is also an animal result, in obesity models, for one enantiomer of a racemic product.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The first nootropic ever banned in sport
In plain words
Carphedon — phenylpiracetam — was added to the sports prohibited list in 1998, before any other compound in this category.
What was measured
Year of first prohibition in sport, and the composition of 50 surveyed nootropic dietary supplements
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Jedrejko et al., reviewing unauthorised ingredients in nootropic dietary supplements twenty-five years later, record that the first nootropic prohibited in sport was fonturacetam, also called 4-phenylpiracetam or carphedon, in 1998. Their broader survey of 50 supplements marketed as cognitive enhancers or brain boosters found unauthorised food and supplement ingredients including huperzine A, yohimbine and dimethylaminoethanol; unapproved pharmaceuticals such as phenibut and emoxypine; previously registered drugs such as meclofenoxate and reserpine; EU-authorised pharmaceuticals such as piracetam and vinpocetine; and known doping agents such as methylhexaneamine. They note that several of these are legal supplement ingredients in the United States, producing substantial global variation in what counts as a lawful nootropic, and that nootropics are frequently stacked with prohibited stimulants and beta-2 agonists in pre-workout and thermogenic products.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Intercepted as bulk raw material by twelve national laboratories
In plain words
A European and Australian market surveillance study found phenylpiracetam among prescription-only Russian drugs being imported in bulk raw form, mostly from the illegal market.
What was measured
Number of samples, distinct molecules, market source and presentation across a four-year multinational surveillance programme
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Vanhee et al. report a market surveillance study organised by the General European Official Medicines Control Laboratory Network with Australia, covering January 2020 to September 2024. It documented 159 samples yielding 166 molecular identification entries and 34 distinct molecules. Most samples were sold as dietary supplements (49%) or as medicines (32%), and 69% were collected from the illegal market. Prescription drugs and drugs available only on prescription in Russia were found in pharmacological quantities, and three of them — noopept, phenylpiracetam and phenibut — were intercepted as large bulk quantities of raw material. The study also found unauthorised novel foods, prescription-level or higher amounts of melatonin, and clinically uncharacterised research molecules. Bulk raw material is a distinct finding from an adulterated capsule: it is the input to a manufacturing chain that has no manufacturer of record.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The Russian clinical literature is not accessible to independent checking
In plain words
The trials supporting its registered use are published in Russian journals, largely without English abstracts, and have not been replicated outside Russia.
What was measured
That a Russian marketing authorisation for asthenia and post-stroke states establishes efficacy on evidence a reader outside Russia can examine
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Phenylpiracetam holds a Russian marketing authorisation and the studies underpinning it — in post-stroke rehabilitation, asthenia and cerebrovascular disease — appear predominantly in Zhurnal Nevrologii i Psikhiatrii imeni S.S. Korsakova and comparable Russian-language journals. A 2024 pharmacological review of fonturacetam published in that journal sets out the case for its clinical use. No randomised controlled trial of phenylpiracetam has been published in a peer-reviewed English-language journal, none has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, and no regulator outside the Commonwealth of Independent States has assessed the dossier. A 2026 analysis of nootropic regulatory positions across CIS countries treats this divergence as the substantive fact about the whole class. This page states that the clinical claims exist and that they have not been independently verified, which is the accurate position and not a dismissal.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
No human trial of the thing it is actually taken for
In plain words
People take phenylpiracetam for focus and stamina in healthy life. No controlled trial has measured either in a healthy person.
What was measured
That dopamine transporter inhibition in rodents predicts improved attention or endurance in healthy humans, which no trial has tested
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The registered indications are clinical conditions in patients. The claims made for it in the supplement market — sustained attention, physical endurance, cold tolerance, motivation — have no randomised placebo-controlled evidence in healthy volunteers in the indexed literature. What is measured is a rodent pharmacology: dopamine transporter binding, brain penetration within fifteen minutes, anti-inflammatory effects in an endotoxaemia model, and metabolic effects in obese animals without locomotor stimulation. Extending that to focus in a healthy adult is the same move this file catalogues throughout, and it should be labelled as such regardless of how plausible the mechanism is.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
8 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
What was measured, goal by goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How close this is to real life — found nothing in the sources checked.
Felt, measured, or meaningful — found nothing in the sources checked.
How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How this medicine reached us — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record
Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.
The one racetam with a demonstrated molecular target — radioligand binding found the dopamine transporter to be the only significant one — registered as a prescription drug in Russia, prohibited in sport since 1998, and intercepted as bulk raw material by European medicines control laboratories.
Recorded evidence blocks (0)
Where it is registeredIdentifiers, relations and other names
✗ required summary fields resolved: 4 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 1 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.