In Vitro Drug Release After Crushing: Evaluation of Xtampza® ER and Other ER Opioid Formulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extended-release (ER) opioids are associated with high rates of abuse. Recreational opioid users often manipulate ER formulations to achieve a high plasma concentration in a short amount of time, resulting in a more rapid and intense high. Patients may also manipulate ER tablets to facilitate swallowing, without recognizing that manipulation could increase release rate. The goal of this study was to assess the ability of oxycodone DETERx (Xtampza ® ER, Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc., Canton, MA, USA) and other commercially available ER opioid formulations with and without physicochemical abuse-deterrent characteristics to be manipulated by crushing in an in vitro setting. In vitro dissolution techniques were used to compare the opioid release from a variety of ER opioid formulations. Dissolution was assessed for intact and crushed dosage forms. Opioid release was quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography. Intact formulations exhibited drug release rates characteristic of 12- or 24-h dosage forms. After crushing using commonly available household tools, only Xtampza ER maintained ER of opioid. Xtampza ER maintained its ER characteristics after crushing, unlike many other commercially available opioid formulations, including some formulated with abuse-deterrent properties. As such, Xtampza ER may be less appealing to abusers and offer a margin of safety for patients who manipulate dosage forms to facilitate swallowing.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".