Explore the vast range of titles available.

This trial aimed to identify the effects of providing pharmacogenomic (PGx) results and recommendations for patients with chronic pain treated in primary care practices compared to standard care. An open‐label, prospective, largely virtual, type‐2 hybrid effectiveness trial randomized participants to PGx or standard care arms. Adults with pain ≥ 3 months who were treated with tramadol, codeine, or hydrocodone enrolled. Alternative analgesics were recommended for CYP2D6 intermediate or poor metabolizers (IM/PMs). Prescribing decisions were at providers' discretion. The trial randomized 253 participants. A modified intent‐to‐treat primary analysis assessed change in pain intensity over 3 months among IM/PMs (PGx: 49; Standard care: 57). The PGx and standard care arms showed no difference in pain intensity change (−0.10 ± 0.63 vs. −0.21 ± 0.75 standard deviation; p = 0.74) or PGx‐aligned care (69% vs. 63%; standardized difference [SD] = 0.13). In IM/PMs, secondary analyses of pain intensity change suggested improvements with PGx‐aligned (n = 70; −0.21 ± 0.70) vs. unaligned care (n = 36; −0.06 ± 0.69) (SD = −0.22), with this difference increasing when examining IM/PMs with an analgesic change (aligned: n = 31, −0.28 ± 0.76; unaligned: n = 36, −0.06 ± 0.69; SD = −0.31). This approach to PGx implementation for chronic pain was not associated with different prescribing (i.e., similar proportions of PGx‐aligned care) or clinical outcomes. Secondary analyses suggest that prescribing aligned with PGx recommendations showed a small improvement in pain intensity. However, the proportion of patients with a clinically meaningful improvement (≥ 30%) in pain intensity was similar. Future efforts should identify effective implementation methods.

Opioid prescribing for postoperative pain management is challenging because of inter‐patient variability in opioid response and concern about opioid addiction. Tramadol, hydrocodone, and codeine depend on the cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) enzyme for formation of highly potent metabolites. Individuals with reduced or absent CYP2D6 activity (i.e., intermediate metabolizers [IMs] or poor metabolizers [PMs], respectively) have lower concentrations of potent opioid metabolites and potentially inadequate pain control. The primary objective of this prospective, multicenter, randomized pragmatic trial is to determine the effect of postoperative CYP2D6‐guided opioid prescribing on pain control and opioid usage. Up to 2020 participants, age ≥8 years, scheduled to undergo a surgical procedure will be enrolled and randomized to immediate pharmacogenetic testing with clinical decision support (CDS) for CYP2D6 phenotype‐guided postoperative pain management (intervention arm) or delayed testing without CDS (control arm). CDS is provided through medical record alerts and/or a pharmacist consult note. For IMs and PM in the intervention arm, CDS includes recommendations to avoid hydrocodone, tramadol, and codeine. Patient‐reported pain‐related outcomes are collected 10 days and 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery. The primary outcome, a composite of pain intensity and opioid usage at 10 days postsurgery, will be compared in the subgroup of IMs and PMs in the intervention (n = 152) versus the control (n = 152) arm. Secondary end points include prescription pain medication misuse scores and opioid persistence at 6 months. This trial will provide data on the clinical utility of CYP2D6 phenotype‐guided opioid selection for improving postoperative pain control and reducing opioid‐related risks.

Rationale Nonmedical use and abuse of prescription opioids is an increasing public health problem. Intravenous (IV) administration of opioid analgesics intended for oral use is not uncommon; yet, little is known about the relative abuse potential of these drugs when administered intravenously to recreational opioid abusers without physical dependence. Methods This inpatient study employed a double-blind, randomized, within-subject, placebo-controlled design to examine the relative abuse potential of IV doses of oxycodone, hydrocodone, and morphine. Nine healthy adult participants reporting recreational opioid use and histories of IV opioid use completed 11 experimental sessions, including one active-dose practice session. IV doses were infused over 5 min and included three identical doses of each opioid (5, 10, and 20 mg/10 ml) and saline placebo. Physiological, subjective, and performance effects were collected before and for 6 h after drug administration. Results All three opioids produced prototypical mu agonist effects (e.g., miosis; increased ratings of liking) that were generally dose-related. Pharmacodynamic effects were observed within 5 min of IV administration. Physiological effects were more prolonged than subjective effects for all three drugs. While the magnitude of effects was generally comparable across drugs and qualitatively similar, valid potency assays indicated the following potency relationship: oxycodone > morphine > hydrocodone. Conclusions There were modest potency differences between oxycodone, hydrocodone, and morphine, but their overall profile of effects was similar, indicating significant abuse potential when administered intravenously.

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.*

Objective. To compare the oral abuse potential of hydrocodone extended-release (ER) tablet developed with CIMA® Abuse-Deterrence Technology with that of hydrocodone immediate release (IR). Design. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Setting and Patients. One study site in the United States; adult nondependent, recreational opioid users. Methods. After confirming their ability to tolerate and discriminate hydrocodone IR 45 mg from placebo, eligible participants were randomized to receive each of the following oral treatments once: finely crushed placebo, hydrocodone IR 45-mg powder, intact hydrocodone ER 45-mg tablet, and finely crushed hydrocodone ER 45-mg tablet. Primary pharmacodynamic measure was “at the moment” drug liking. Secondary measures included overall drug liking, drug effects (e.g., balance, positive, negative, sedative), pupillometry, pharmacokinetics, and safety. Results. Mean maximum effect (Emax) for “at the moment” drug liking was significantly lower for intact (53.9) and finely crushed hydrocodone ER (66.9) vs. hydrocodone IR (85.2; P < 0.001). Drug liking for intact hydrocodone ER was comparable to placebo (Emax: 53.9 vs. 53.2). Secondary measures were consistent with these results, indicating that positive, negative, and sedative drug effects were diminished with intact and crushed hydrocodone ER tablet vs. hydrocodone IR. The 72-hour plasma concentration-time profile for each treatment mimicked its respective “at the moment” drug-liking-over-time profile. Incidence of adverse events was lower with intact hydrocodone ER (53%) vs. hydrocodone IR (79%) and finely crushed hydrocodone ER (73%). Conclusions. The oral abuse potential of hydrocodone ER (intact and finely crushed) was significantly lower than hydrocodone IR in healthy, nondependent, recreational opioid users. Hydrocodone ER was generally well tolerated.

A single-entity, once-daily, extended-release formulation of hydrocodone bitartrate (HYD) has been developed for the management of moderate to severe chronic pain. Hydrocodone undergoes cytochrome P-450 (CYP)-mediated metabolism involving the CYP3A4 and CYP2D6 isozymes. CYP3A4 yields norhydrocodone, a major inactive metabolite, whereas CYP2D6 yields hydromorphone, a minor active metabolite. This study examined the influence of the coadministration of paroxetine, a strong selective CYP2D6 inhibitor, on the pharmacokinetic properties of hydrocodone (and hydromorphone) in healthy adults. In this randomized, double-blind, 2-period, 2-treatment crossover study, 24 healthy subjects received paroxetine 20 mg or placebo once daily for 12 days and an HYD 20-mg tablet on day 10 of each period. Hydrocodone mean Cmax and t½ and median Tmax values were similar with paroxetine or placebo coadministration (16.8 vs 15.9 ng/mL, 8.5 vs 8.4 hours, and 18.0 vs 18.0 hours, respectively), as were mean AUC0–t and AUC0–∞ values (342.9 vs 325.3 ng · h/mL and 346.3 vs 328.5 ng · h/mL). The 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios of the hydrocodone AUC and Cmax values were fully within the predetermined range of 80% to 125%, suggesting that there was no effect of multiple doses of paroxetine on systemic exposure to hydrocodone. Mean hydromorphone AUC0–t and Cmax values were decreased with paroxetine versus placebo (0.64 vs 3.8 ng · h/mL and 0.06 vs 0.19 ng/mL), whereas Tmax values remained similar (18.0 vs 16.1 hours, respectively). The mean hydromorphone AUC0–∞ value could not be calculated. Both regimens were well tolerated; after HYD administration, the numbers of adverse events were similar between the 2 treatment regimens, and all adverse events were mild. In this study, the coadministration of single-dose HYD with paroxetine at steady state did not alter systemic exposure to hydrocodone, suggesting that HYD can be coadministered with CYP2D6 inhibitors at therapeutic doses, without dosage modification.

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 intranasal abuse potential and pharmacokinetics of HYD coarse and fine particles vs hydrocodone powder or placebo. Design. Single-center, double-blind, positive- and placebo-controlled, randomized, four-treatment crossover study. Subjects. Healthy adult, nondependent, recreational opioid users with a history of intranasal abuse. Methods. During four treatment periods, subjects (N = 31) received hydrocodone powder 60 mg, HYD coarse particles 60 mg, HYD fine particles 60 mg, or placebo, with five-to-seven-day washouts between treatments. Measures over 36 hours postdose included drug-liking and willingness to take drug again, assessed using visual analog scales (VASs), pupillometry, intranasal irritation, and pharmacokinetics. Results. Insufflation of both HYD coarse and fine particles led to lower “At this Moment” Drug Liking VAS peak values compared with hydrocodone powder, but higher values compared with placebo (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Similar results were observed for Overall Drug Liking VAS, Take Drug Again VAS, and Subjective Drug Value. Compared with hydrocodone, insufflation of HYD particles led to reduced miosis and increased nasal irritation. Mean hydrocodone Cmax following insufflation of HYD coarse particles, HYD fine particles, and hydrocodone powder was 27.5, 36.5, and 105.8 ng/mL, respectively; median Tmax was ≥2-fold longer with either HYD particle size than hydrocodone powder; and (Cmax/Tmax) was 9.5, 13.4, and 82.0 ng/mL/h, respectively. Safety was consistent with that of opioid agonists. Conclusions. HYD demonstrated reduced intranasal abuse potential compared with hydrocodone powder.

Use/misuse of the opioid combination hydrocodone-acetaminophen has been associated with permanent hearing loss. Although reports have been rare, this potential effect can have significant detrimental effect on patients' overall quality of life. To date, the ototoxic effect of hydrocodone alone has not been systematically investigated. In this report, we aimed to evaluate the potential ototoxicity of a novel, single-entity, once-daily, extended-release hydrocodone tablet (Hysingla® ER; HYD). Clinical study. Audiology clinics in US. Results from 1207 patients in two phase 3 clinical studies were evaluated: A placebo-controlled study with an enriched enrollment, randomized withdrawal design in patients with chronic low back pain, and an open-label, long-term, safety study in patients with chronic nonmalignant and non-neuropathic pain. Comprehensive audiologic assessments (comprising pure-tone air-conduction audiometry in the conventional [0.25-8 kHz] and ultra-high [10-16 kHz] frequencies, pure-tone bone-conduction audiometry, tympanometry, speech reception thresholds, and word recognition) were conducted at baseline and end-of-studies; air-conduction audiometry was conducted periodically during the studies. All audiologic assessments were performed in audiology clinics in the United States by licensed audiologists. The primary endpoint was changes from baseline in pure-tone air-conduction thresholds in the conventional frequencies during the studies. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, identifiers NCT01400139 and NCT01452529. During the studies, mean changes from baseline in air-conduction thresholds were clinically unremarkable. Bidirectional variability across all test frequencies was observed; 82% of patients did not experience significant threshold changes during the studies, 7% had potential hearing decrement, and 10% experienced hearing sensitivity improvement. No notable differences were observed between patients receiving HYD and placebo or between different HYD doses. No ototoxic signal was observed for single-entity hydrocodone tablets at the dosages and treatment durations investigated. Key words: Audiologic monitoring, clinical trials, hydrocodone, opioids, ototoxicity monitoring, sensorineural hearing loss.

Abstract Objectives Benzhydrocodone is a hydrocodone prodrug that has been combined with acetaminophen (APAP) in a novel immediate-release analgesic. This study evaluated the relative bioavailability, intranasal abuse potential, and safety of benzhydrocodone/APAP compared with commercially available hydrocodone bitartrate (HB)/APAP. Design Single-center, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, two-part study comprising a Dose Selection (Part A) phase and a Main Study (Part B) phase. Setting Clinical research site. Subjects Healthy adult, nondependent, recreational opioid users with a history of intranasal abuse. Methods Subjects (N = 42) in Part B received five in-clinic treatments consisting of intranasal and oral benzhydrocodone/APAP (13.34/650 mg), intranasal and oral hydrocodone/APAP (15/650 mg), and placebo, with four or more days of washout between treatments. Pharmacodynamic assessments included subjective effects of Drug Liking, Overall Drug Liking, and Take Drug Again (assessed on visual analog scale [VAS]), as well as nasal irritation. Pharmacokinetics and safety were also assessed. Results Hydrocodone Cmax was 11% lower for intranasal benzhydrocodone/APAP vs intranasal HB/APAP (P = 0.0027). Early cumulative hydrocodone exposures for intranasal benzhydrocodone/APAP through 0.5, 1, and 2 hours were reduced by approximately 50%, 29%, and 15%, respectively (P ≤ 0.0024). Correspondingly, Drug Liking VAS values up to two hours postdose were significantly lower for intranasal benzhydrocodone/APAP vs intranasal HB/APAP (P ≤ 0.0079), although peak Drug Liking VAS (Emax) scores were not different (P = 0.2814). Adverse nasal effects were more frequent for intranasal benzhydrocodone/APAP vs intranasal HB/APAP. Conclusions Reduced hydrocodone exposure and drug liking at early time intervals, coupled with adverse nasal effects, can be expected to provide a level of deterrence to the intranasal route of abuse for benzhydrocodone/APAP.

Abstract Objective To assess the intranasal abuse potential of hydrocodone extended-release (ER) tablets developed with CIMA Abuse-Deterrence Technology compared with hydrocodone powder and hydrocodone bitartrate ER capsules (Zohydro ER, original formulation [HYD-OF]). Design Single-dose, randomized, double-blind, quadruple-dummy, active- and placebo-controlled, crossover study. Setting One US site. Subjects Healthy, adult, nondependent, recreational opioid users. Methods Subjects able to tolerate intranasal hydrocodone and discriminate hydrocodone from placebo were eligible for study enrollment. Eligible participants randomly received intranasal hydrocodone ER, intranasal hydrocodone powder, intranasal HYD-OF, intact oral hydrocodone ER, and placebo. Coprimary pharmacodynamic end points were a maximum effect on “at the moment” Drug Liking visual analog scale and Overall Drug Liking visual analog scale. Pharmacokinetics and safety were assessed. Results Mean maximum effect for “at the moment” Drug Liking was significantly (P < 0.01) lower for intranasal hydrocodone ER (72.8) compared with hydrocodone powder (80.2) and HYD-OF (83.2). Similar results were observed for Overall Drug Liking maximum effect (68.5 vs 77.1 and 79.8, respectively; P < 0.01). Secondary end points, including balance of effects and positive, sedative, and other effects, were consistent with these results. Intranasal treatments showed significantly greater effects vs placebo, while intact oral hydrocodone ER was similar to placebo. For each treatment, plasma concentration-time profiles paralleled “at the moment” Drug Liking over time. Incidences of adverse events for intranasal treatments were 52% for hydrocodone ER, 53% for hydrocodone powder, and 61% for HYD-OF. Conclusions The statistically significant differences between hydrocodone ER vs hydrocodone powder and HYD-OF for the primary drug liking end points indicate a lower intranasal abuse potential with hydrocodone ER in healthy, nondependent, recreational opioid users.