Pharmacokinetics, Tolerability, and Safety of Intranasal Administration of Reformulated OxyContin® Tablets Compared with Original OxyContin® Tablets in Healthy Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Reformulated OxyContin(®) (oxycodone-HCl controlled release) tablets (ORF) became available in the United States in August 2010. The original formulation of OxyContin(®) (oxycodone-HCl controlled release) tablets (OC) used a delivery system that did not provide inherent resistance to crushing and dissolving. The objective of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics, tolerability, and safety of finely crushed ORF tablets, coarsely crushed ORF tablets, and finely crushed OC tablets. METHODS: This randomized, single-blind, single-dose, single-center, six-sequence, triple-treatment, triple-period crossover study enrolled eligible healthy adults (aged 18-55 years inclusive). The study evaluated the pharmacokinetics, tolerability, and safety of intranasally administered ORF, both finely crushed and coarsely crushed, as well as finely crushed OC tablets. Plasma oxycodone concentrations were quantified and analyzed to determine the maximum observed plasma concentration (C max), time to maximum plasma concentration (t max), area under the plasma concentration-time curve from hour 0 to the last measurable plasma concentration (AUC(last)), and area under the plasma concentration-time curve extrapolated to infinity (AUC(∞)). The abuse quotient (AQ), calculated as C(max)/t(max), served as an index of the average rate of increase in drug concentration from dosing to t max. Intranasal tolerability rating scales (discomfort, itching, burning, pain, runny nose, and stuffiness) and intranasal endoscopy were conducted. Safety assessments included adverse events, vital signs, pulse oximetry (SpO2), and electrocardiograms. RESULTS: Of 83 subjects screened and enrolled, 30 were randomized to period 1, with 1 subject subsequently discontinuing due to the subject's choice. Mean C max values for finely crushed ORF (17.1 ng/mL) and coarsely crushed ORF (15.5 ng/mL) were lower than that for finely crushed OC (22.2 ng/mL). Median t max for finely crushed OC (1.0 h) was shorter than that for either finely crushed ORF (2.0 h) or coarsely crushed ORF (3.0 h). Mean AQ values were approximately 66 and 80 % lower, respectively, for finely crushed ORF and coarsely crushed ORF than that for finely crushed OC. Finely crushed ORF, coarsely crushed ORF, and finely crushed OC demonstrated similar total oxycodone exposures (AUC(∞)). Insufflation of ORF produced greater nasal discomfort and stuffiness than finely crushed OC, although the latter produced higher runny nose scores. No significant difference was found in other nasal tolerability measures. The overall safety profile was as expected following opioid administration in healthy subjects. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to OC, both finely and coarsely crushed ORF retained some control of oxycodone release. Reduced C(max) and increased t max for ORF resulted in lower AQ scores for ORF compared with OC. ORF was associated with greater intranasal irritation than OC. These data suggest that ORF has a lower intranasal abuse potential than OC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".