Trial reportPain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2018
Evaluation of the Relative Intranasal Abuse Potential of a Hydrocodone Extended-Release Tablet Formulated with Abuse-Deterrence Technology in Nondependent, Recreational Opioid Users.
Trial report in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the intranasal abuse potential of hydrocodone extended-release (ER) tablets developed with CIMA Abuse-Deterrence Technology compared with hydrocodone powder and hydrocodone bitartrate ER capsules (Zohydro ER, original formulation [HYD-OF]). Design: Single-dose, randomized, double-blind, quadruple-dummy, active- and placebo-controlled, crossover study. Setting: One US site. Subjects: Healthy, adult, nondependent, recreational opioid users. Methods: Subjects able to tolerate intranasal hydrocodone and discriminate hydrocodone from placebo were eligible for study enrollment. Eligible participants randomly received intranasal hydrocodone ER, intranasal hydrocodone powder, intranasal HYD-OF, intact oral hydrocodone ER, and placebo. Coprimary pharmacodynamic end points were a maximum effect on "at the moment" Drug Liking visual analog scale and Overall Drug Liking visual analog scale. Pharmacokinetics and safety were assessed. Results: Mean maximum effect for "at the moment" Drug Liking was significantly (P < 0.01) lower for intranasal hydrocodone ER (72.8) compared with hydrocodone powder (80.2) and HYD-OF (83.2). Similar results were observed for Overall Drug Liking maximum effect (68.5 vs 77.1 and 79.8, respectively; P < 0.01). Secondary end points, including balance of effects and positive, sedative, and other effects, were consistent with these results. Intranasal treatments showed significantly greater effects vs placebo, while intact oral hydrocodone ER was similar to placebo. For each treatment, plasma concentration-time profiles paralleled "at the moment" Drug Liking over time. Incidences of adverse events for intranasal treatments were 52% for hydrocodone ER, 53% for hydrocodone powder, and 61% for HYD-OF. Conclusions: The statistically significant differences between hydrocodone ER vs hydrocodone powder and HYD-OF for the primary drug liking end points indicate a lower intranasal abuse potential with hydrocodone ER in healthy, nondependent, recreational opioid users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.