Trends and uptake of new formulations of controlled‐release oxycodone in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated the impact of changing availability of tamper-deterrent and non-tamper-deterrent oxycodone on prescribing patterns of controlled-release oxycodone across Canada. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, serial cross-sectional study of controlled-release oxycodone dispensing from community pharmacies across Canada between October 2007 and April 2016. We calculated rates of dispensing (tablets per 100 population) and reported the relative market share of generic non-tamper-deterrent controlled-release oxycodone. All analyses were reported nationally and stratified by province. RESULTS: After the introduction of a tamper-deterrent formulation, the national rate of controlled-release oxycodone dispensing fell by 44.6% (from 26.4 to 14.6 tablets per 100 population from February 2012 to April 2016). Between December 2012 and July 2013, there was moderate uptake of generic non-tamper-deterrent controlled-release oxycodone (968 452 tablets; 16.0% in July 2013), which appeared to have little impact on the overall rate of controlled-release oxycodone dispensing in Canada. However, the uptake of generic non-tamper-deterrent oxycodone varied considerably by province. By April 2016, 55.0% of all controlled-release oxycodone tablets dispensed in Quebec were for the generic formulation. Elsewhere in Canada, this prevalence was less than 30%, ranging between 1.6% (Prince Edward Island) and 26.9% (British Columbia) at the end of our study period. CONCLUSIONS: The changing availability of tamper-deterrent and non-tamper-deterrent formulations of controlled-release oxycodone in Canada has had variable influence on the rate of use of these products across Canada. Future research should explore whether the availability of generic controlled-release oxycodone has led to measurable changes in the safety of oxycodone use in Canada.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".