Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29989247›Full record

ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2019

Post-marketing studies of pharmaceutical opioid abuse-deterrent formulations: a framework for research design and reporting.

Amy Peacock, Briony Larance, Raimondo Bruno, Sallie-Anne Pearson, Nicholas A Buckley, Michael Farrell, Louisa Degenhardt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Amy PeacockNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5705-2026
Briony LaranceNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Raimondo BrunoNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Sallie-Anne PearsonCentre for Big Data Research in Health, University of New South Wales, Australia.
Nicholas A BuckleyFaculty of Pharmacy, University of Sydney, Australia.
Michael FarrellNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7008-8130
Louisa DegenhardtNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8513-2218

Funding

Using existing data to understand and ameliorate risk in opioid agonist therapyR01DA044170 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES · PI DEGENHARDT, LOUISA · 2017 to 2019
$641k
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA044170
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsOpioid formulations with properties to deter abuse (abuse-deterrent formulations; ADFs) have been developed as one response to the prescription opioid 'epidemic'. As for all medicines, ADFs undergo evaluation of safety and efficacy prior to registration for marketing. However, reduced extra-medical use (the primary intended outcome of ADFs and reason for their introduction) can only be established in post-marketing observational studies, comparing them to opioid formulations without abuse-deterrent properties. This has implications for various features of study design and analysis. We discuss proposals for the design, conduct, governance and reporting of post-marketing studies on the effectiveness of pharmaceutical and opioid ADFs.

methodsA review of current guidance documents, public work-shops and forums and our own experience with post-marketing studies of ADFs. RESULTS AND

conclusionsResearch questions for post-marketing studies on ADFs of opioids should reasonably be framed around detecting any probable intended or unintended clinical and/or meaningful changes in specific aspects of extra-medical use (e.g. injection use) and harms. Outcomes reported by prevalence and frequency of occurrence and disaggregated by specific product and route of administration can illustrate the magnitude of ADF impact. We argue that a multi-faceted approach is required, using data from both general population and sentinel high-risk cohorts and from primary and secondary data sources. The comparator (historical non-ADF formulation of that opioid, equivalent current generic or similar opioid product), duration of monitoring and analytical approach require justification and should be sufficient to add weight to conclusions of causality. To maximize transparency, we recommend explicit declarations of funding and conflict of interest, establishment of an advisory committee, publication of study protocol and access to study results.

Indexed as

Abuse-Deterrent FormulationsProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingResearch DesignAnalgesics, OpioidAversive AgentsDrug Delivery SystemsHumansNarcotic AntagonistsProdrugsAbuse-Deterrent FormulationsAnalgesics, OpioidAversive AgentsNarcotic AntagonistsProdrugs

Identifiers

PMID29989247
PMCPMC6599581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.