ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025
Abuse-deterrent formulations and opioid-related harms in North Carolina, 2010-2018.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Abuse-deterrent formulations of opioid analgesics (ADFs) were introduced to reduce opioid-related harms among pain patients, but postmarketing study results have been mixed. However, these studies may be subject to bias from selection criteria, comparator choice, and potential confounding by "indication," highlighting the need for thorough study design considerations. In a sample of privately insured patients prescribed ADF or non-ADF extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) opioids in North Carolina, we implemented a version of the prevalent new-user design to evaluate the relationship between ADFs and opioid use disorder (OUD, n = 235) and opioid overdose (n = 18) through 6 months of follow-up using inverse probability-weighted cumulative incidence functions and Fine-Gray models. The weighted hazard ratio (HRw) of opioid overdose among patients initiating ADFs was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.23-3.24) times as high as among patients who initiated, restarted, or continued non-ADF ER/LA opioids. We observed a short-term benefit of ADFs for incident OUD (HRw = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35-0.93) compared to non-ADF ER/LA opioids in the first 6 weeks of follow-up, but this benefit disappeared later in follow-up (HRw = 1.30; 95% CI, 0.86-1.95). In summary, our findings add to the expanding body of evidence that there is no clear long-term reduction in harm from ADF opioids among patients in outpatient use. This article is part of a Special Collection on Pharmacoepidemiology.
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.