Oral Abuse Potential, Pharmacokinetics, and Safety of Once-Daily, Single-Entity, Extended-Release Hydrocodone (HYD) in Recreational Opioid Users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives. A once-daily, extended-release hydrocodone bitartrate tablet with abuse-deterrent properties (Hysingla ER [HYD]) is available for the treatment of chronic pain in appropriate patients. This study evaluated the oral abuse potential and pharmacokinetics (PK) of HYD intact, chewed, or milled to fine particles in comparison with hydrocodone solution or placebo. Design. Single-center, double-blind, randomized, five-period, five-treatment crossover study. Subjects. Healthy adult, nondependent, recreational opioid users. Methods. Forty subjects received orally administered treatments of hydrocodone 60 mg solution, HYD 60 mg intact, HYD 60 mg chewed, HYD 60 mg milled to fine particles, or placebo, separated by a five- to seven-day washout. Assessments over 36 hours postdose included subjective measures of drug liking and willingness to take drug again (assessed using visual analog scales [VAS]), pupillometry, PK, and safety measures. Results. Following oral administration, HYD intact, HYD chewed, and HYD fine particles led to significantly lower “at this moment” drug liking compared with hydrocodone solution. HYD intact and chewed were significantly different from hydrocodone solution on overall drug liking, take drug again, and good effects. Pupil constriction, as measured by pupillometry, occurred later with HYD intact and HYD chewed than with hydrocodone solution. Across treatments (hydrocodone solution, HYD fine particles, HYD chewed, and HYD intact, respectively), mean Cmax and rate of absorption (Cmax/Tmax) values decreased, respectively, and median Tmax values increased, respectively. Safety was consistent with the known effects of opioid agonists. Conclusion. HYD demonstrated reduced oral abuse potential compared with hydrocodone solution in healthy adult, nondependent, recreational opioid users.*
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".