Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27651510›Full record

Trial reportPain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2017

Human Abuse Potential of an Abuse-Deterrent (AD), Extended-Release (ER) Morphine Product Candidate (Morphine-ADER Injection-Molded Tablets) vs Extended-Release Morphine Administered Intranasally in Nondependent Recreational Opioid Users.

Lynn R Webster, Michael D Smith, John Lawler, Karsten Lindhardt, Jeffrey M Dayno

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Interpol review of controlled substances 2016-2019.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2020
    Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lynn R WebsterPRA Health Sciences, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Michael D SmithPRA Health Sciences, Salt Lake City, Utah.
John LawlerEgalet Corporation, Wayne, Pennsylvania, USA.
Karsten LindhardtEgalet Corporation, Wayne, Pennsylvania, USA.
Jeffrey M DaynoEgalet Corporation, Wayne, Pennsylvania, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the relative human abuse potential after insufflation of manipulated morphine abuse-deterrent, extended-release injection-molded tablets (morphine-ADER-IMT) with that of marketed morphine ER tablets.

methodsA randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active- and placebo-controlled five-way crossover study was performed with adult volunteers who were experienced, nondependent, recreational opioid users. After intranasal (IN) administration of manipulated high-volume (HV) morphine-ADER-IMT (60 mg), participants were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive IN manipulated low-volume (LV) morphine ER (60 mg), IN manipulated LV morphine-ADER-IMT, intact oral morphine-ADER-IMT (60 mg), and placebo in crossover fashion. Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic assessments included peak effect of drug liking (E max ; primary endpoint) using drug liking visual analog scale (VAS) score, E max using overall drug liking, and take drug again (TDA) VASs scores, and mean abuse quotient (AQ), a pharmacokinetic parameter associated with drug liking.

resultsForty-six participants completed the study. After insufflation of HV morphine-ADER-IMT and LV morphine-ADER-IMT, drug liking E max was significantly lower ( P  <   0.0001) compared with IN morphine ER. Overall drug liking and TDA E max values were significantly lower ( P  <   0.0001) after insufflation of HV morphine-ADER-IMT and LV morphine-ADER-IMT compared with IN morphine ER. Mean AQ was lower after insufflation of HV (9.2) and LV (2.3) morphine-ADER-IMT or ingestion of oral morphine-ADER-IMT (5.5) compared with insufflation of LV morphine ER (37.2).

conclusionsAll drug liking, take drug again, and abuse quotient endpoints support a significantly lower abuse potential with insufflation of manipulated morphine-ADER-IMT compared with manipulated and insufflated non-AD ER morphine.

Indexed as

Abuse-Deterrent FormulationsAdministration, IntranasalAdministration, OralAdultAnalgesics, OpioidCross-Over StudiesDelayed-Action PreparationsDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMorphineOpioid-Related DisordersTabletsAbuse-Deterrent FormulationsAnalgesics, OpioidDelayed-Action PreparationsMorphineTabletsAbuse-DeterrentAbuse PotentialExtended-ReleaseHuman Abuse PotentialIntranasalMorphine

Identifiers

PMID27651510
PMCPMC5939830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.