ReviewClinical pharmacokinetics2016
Abuse-Deterrent Opioid Formulations: Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Considerations.
Review in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global Trends and Insights Into Opioid Utilization for Postoperative Pain Management: A Bibliometric Analysis (2014-2024).Pain research & management · 2025Article
- Updated Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Oxycodone.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2019Review
- Abuse-Deterrent Opioid Formulations: A Key Ingredient in the Recipe to Prevent Opioid Disasters?Clinical drug investigation · 2018Review
- Suppression of RGSz1 function optimizes the actions of opioid analgesics by mechanisms that involve the Wnt/β-catenin pathway.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Article
- Article
- Non-Prescribed Buprenorphine Use Mediates the Relationship between Heroin Use and Kratom Use among a Sample of Polysubstance Users.Journal of psychoactive drugsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abuse-deterrent formulations (ADFs) are technologically sophisticated pharmaceutical formulations that impede manipulation and extraction of opioids and/or provoke unpleasant effects when they are taken in excessive quantity. This is implemented by creating physical barriers, inseparably combining the opioid with an opioid antagonist or adding aversive agents to the formulation. These pharmaceutical changes may potentially alter the pharmacokinetics and consequently the pharmacodynamics of the opioid. In this review, comparative evidence on pharmacokinetic differences between abuse-deterrent and classical formulations of the same opioids is summarized; furthermore, pharmacodynamic differences, with a focus on analgesia and abuse-related symptoms, are addressed. Most of the 12 studies comparing opioid pharmacokinetics have judged the physically intact ADF as being bioequivalent to the corresponding classical formulation. Pharmacokinetic differences have, however, been reported with physically manipulated ADFs and have ranged from moderate deviations from bioequivalence to complete changes in the pharmacokinetic profile (e.g. from a sustained-release formulation to a fast-release formulation). Pharmacodynamic effects were assessed in 14 comparative studies, which reported that intact ADFs usually provided clinically equivalent analgesia and clear advantages with respect to their addiction potential. However, withdrawal symptoms could be induced by the ADFs, although rarely and, in particular, when the ADFs had been physically altered. This evidence suggests that opioid ADFs are a working concept resulting in mostly minor pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences in comparison with classical formulations; however, they may deviate from this equivalence when physically altered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26719075What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.