Abuse potential, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of intranasally administered crushed oxycodone HCl abuse‐deterrent controlled‐release tablets in recreational opioid users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate abuse potential, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of intranasally administered, crushed reformulated OxyContin® (oxycodone HCl controlled-release) tablets (ORF), relative to crushed original OxyContin® (OC), oxycodone powder (Oxy API), and OC placebo. This randomized, double-blind, positive- and placebo-controlled crossover study enrolled healthy, adult, nonphysically dependent recreational opioid users with recent history of intranasal drug abuse (N = 27). Active treatments contained oxycodone (30 mg). Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics (e.g., Overall Drug Liking [ODL], Take Drug Again [TDA], and High Visual Analog Scales [VAS]; Subjective Drug Value [SDV]; pupillometry; intranasal irritation), and safety (e.g., adverse events, vital signs, laboratory tests) were assessed to 24 hours postdose. Crushed ORF administration yielded reduced oxycodone Cmax and increased Tmax versus crushed OC and Oxy API. Peak effects for pharmacodynamic measures were delayed with ORF (1-2 hours) versus OC and Oxy API (0.5-1 hour). ODL, TDA, High VAS, and SDV Emax values were significantly lower (P ≤ .05) and some intranasal irritation ratings were greater for ORF versus OC and Oxy API. No significant or unexpected safety findings were observed. Compared with OC and Oxy API, intranasally administered ORF was associated with lower and delayed peak plasma concentrations, decreased drug-liking, and decreased intranasal tolerability. This suggests that ORF has a decreased potential for intranasal oxycodone abuse. There were no significant or unexpected safety findings. As is true for all abuse potential studies, epidemiological or other appropriate post-marketing studies are required to assess the impact of the reduction in intranasal oxycodone abuse potential observed in the present study on real-world patterns of ORF misuse, abuse, and diversion.
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 | 0.000 | 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".