Response to Crudele et al. Commentary on Gudin et al. “Comparing the Effect of Tampering on the Oral Pharmacokinetic Profiles of Two Extended-Release Oxycodone Formulations with Abuse-Deterrent Properties”

J. Gudin, E. Kopecky, A. Fleming
{"title":"Response to Crudele et al. Commentary on Gudin et al. “Comparing the Effect of Tampering on the Oral Pharmacokinetic Profiles of Two Extended-Release Oxycodone Formulations with Abuse-Deterrent Properties”","authors":"J. Gudin, E. Kopecky, A. Fleming","doi":"10.1093/pm/pnw279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dear Editor,\n\nWe appreciate Crudele and colleagues taking the time to read our publication “Comparing the Effect of Tampering on the Oral Pharmacokinetic Profiles of Two Extended-Release Oxycodone Formulations with Abuse-Deterrent Properties” [1], in which the pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of manipulated Xtampza extended release (ER) were compared with manipulated reformulated OxyContin. We are grateful to the editors for a chance to respond to their comments.\n\nCrudele states that the paper “implies that these PK results are supported by comparative pharmacodynamic (drug liking effects) or human abuse potential study data, when such is not the case.” The study in reference (Gudin et al. 2015) [1] did not collect comparative pharmacodynamic data as the differences of the PK results of the manipulated treatment groups were quite compelling and stand on their own: Crushed Xtampza ER (oxycodone) had a PK profile that was bioequivalent to Xtampza ER taken intact (Figure 1A) [1]. This was in contrast to the crushed OxyContin (oxycodone HCl) profile, which was significantly different than OxyContin taken intact and bioequivalent to crushed immediate-release oxycodone tablets (Figure 1B) [1]. The data presented in the referenced study have been recently duplicated in a second study [2] and are …","PeriodicalId":19909,"journal":{"name":"Pain Medicine: The Official Journal of the American Academy of Pain Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Medicine: The Official Journal of the American Academy of Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnw279","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Dear Editor, We appreciate Crudele and colleagues taking the time to read our publication “Comparing the Effect of Tampering on the Oral Pharmacokinetic Profiles of Two Extended-Release Oxycodone Formulations with Abuse-Deterrent Properties” [1], in which the pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of manipulated Xtampza extended release (ER) were compared with manipulated reformulated OxyContin. We are grateful to the editors for a chance to respond to their comments. Crudele states that the paper “implies that these PK results are supported by comparative pharmacodynamic (drug liking effects) or human abuse potential study data, when such is not the case.” The study in reference (Gudin et al. 2015) [1] did not collect comparative pharmacodynamic data as the differences of the PK results of the manipulated treatment groups were quite compelling and stand on their own: Crushed Xtampza ER (oxycodone) had a PK profile that was bioequivalent to Xtampza ER taken intact (Figure 1A) [1]. This was in contrast to the crushed OxyContin (oxycodone HCl) profile, which was significantly different than OxyContin taken intact and bioequivalent to crushed immediate-release oxycodone tablets (Figure 1B) [1]. The data presented in the referenced study have been recently duplicated in a second study [2] and are …
对Crudele等人的回应。对Gudin等人“篡改对两种具有防滥用特性的羟考酮缓释制剂口服药代动力学特征的影响的比较”的评论
尊敬的编辑,我们感谢Crudele和同事花时间阅读我们的出版物“比较篡改对两种具有抗滥用特性的羟考酮缓释制剂的口服药代动力学特征的影响”[1],其中比较了操纵Xtampza缓释(ER)和操纵重新配制的奥施康定的药代动力学(PK)特征。我们非常感谢编辑们给我们一个回复他们评论的机会。Crudele指出,这篇论文“暗示这些PK结果得到了比较药效学(药物喜欢效应)或人类滥用潜力研究数据的支持,而事实并非如此。”参考文献中的研究(Gudin et al. 2015)[1]没有收集比较药效学数据,因为操纵处理组的PK结果差异非常明显,并且是独立的:粉碎的Xtampza ER(羟考酮)的PK谱与完整的Xtampza ER具有生物等效性(图1A)[1]。这与压碎后的奥施康定(盐酸羟考酮)的情况形成对比,后者与压碎后的奥施康定完全不同,与压碎后的羟考酮片具有生物等效性(图1B)[1]。参考研究中提供的数据最近在第二项研究中得到了重复[2],并且是…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信