Relative abuse potential of opioid formulations in Canada: A structured field study

Edward M. Sellers, MD, PhD, FRCPC; Reinhard Schuller, MSc; Myroslava K. Romach, MD; G. L. A. Horbay, PhD

doi:10.5055/jom.2006.0034

Authors

Edward M. Sellers, MD, PhD, FRCPC
Reinhard Schuller, MSc
Myroslava K. Romach, MD
G. L. A. Horbay, PhD

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5055/jom.2006.0034

Keywords:

opioid, abuse, risk, matrix patch, formulation, tampering

Abstract

Introduction: While prescription opioids can improve quality of life through pain relief, they are susceptible to misuse. This field study characterizes the relative susceptibility and attractiveness of a new analgesic patch, with fentanyl embedded in a matrix material, compared to other opioid dose formulations.
Methods: Recreational opioid abusers (N = 42; 31 male, 11 female) from three Canadian sites participated in structured interviews. They were presented with nine products, some of which were hypothetical (fentanyl [F], hydromorphone [H], and oxycodone [O] in each of three formulations: matrix patch [M], reservoir-type gel patch [G], and tablet [T]). The attractiveness and tampering potential of each product was ranked using two 7-point Likert scales (Value of Product and Likelihood to Tamper), an index representing the product of the two scales, a 17-item Opiate Attractiveness Scale (OAS), relative street value, and rank order of overall desirability. Non-parametric analyses were used to compare each product to the FM.
Results: The FT, HT, and FM were highly valued and most likely to be tampered with. The products were ranked in decreasing order of desirability as follows: FT > HT > FM > FG > OT > HM > HG > OM > OG. On the OAS, FM was more attractive than all gel-patch products (p < 0.001), and OT was most attractive overall. FM was statistically similar to OT, FT, OM, and HT. Of the 42 subjects, 25 (60 percent) preferred the matrix patch to the gel patch. Of the 17 subjects who preferred the gel patch, 10 (59 percent) were from a region generally unfamiliar with that formulation.
Conclusions: Fentanyl is attractive to opioid abusers regardless of formulation. In Canada, a fentanyl matrix patch may be at higher risk for diversion, tampering, and abuse than other transdermal opioid formulations. These findings should be confirmed by epidemiological studies. Comparative risk management programs should be part of the development of any new narcotic delivery system.

Author Biographies

Edward M. Sellers, MD, PhD, FRCPC

Ventana Clinical Research Corporation; Departments of Pharmacology, Medicine and Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Reinhard Schuller, MSc

Ventana Clinical Research Corporation, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Myroslava K. Romach, MD

Ventana Clinical Research Corporation; Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

G. L. A. Horbay, PhD

Clinical Affairs, Janssen-Ortho, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

References

Sajan A, Corneil T, Grzybowski S: The street value of prescription drugs. CMAJ. 1998; 159(2): 139-142.

Cooper JR, Czechowicz DJ, Petersen RC, et al.: Prescription drug diversion control and medical practice. JAMA. 1992; 268(10): 1306-1310.

Abramowicz M: Oxycodone and OxyContin. Med Lett Drugs Ther. 2001; 43: 80-81.

Reeves MD, Ginifer CJ: Fatal intravenous misuse of transdermal fentanyl. Med J Aust. 2002; 177(10): 552-553.

Tharp AM, Winecker RE, Winston DC: Fatal intravenous fentanyl abuse: Four cases involving extraction of fentanyl from transdermal patches. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2004; 25(2): 178-181.

DeSio JM, Bacon DR, Peer G, et al.: Intravenous abuse of transdermal fentanyl therapy in a chronic pain patient. Anesthesiology. 1993; 79(5): 1139-1141.

Kramer C, Tawney M: A fatal overdose of transdermally administered fentanyl. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1998; 98(7): 385-386.

Purucker M, Swann W: Potential for duragesic patch abuse. Ann Emerg Med. 2000; 35(3): 314.

Duragesic product monograph. In Repchinsky C (ed.): Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Pharmacists Association, 2006, pp. 719-723.

Cone EJ: Ephemeral profiles of prescription drug and formulation tampering: Evolving pseudoscience on the Internet. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006; 83(Suppl 1): S31-S39.

Mansbach RS, Moore RA Jr: Formulation considerations for the development of medications with abuse potential. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006; 83(Suppl 1): S15-S22.

Mansbach RS, Feltner DE, Gold LH, et al.: Incorporating the assessment of abuse liability into the drug discovery and development process. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2003; 70(Suppl 3): S73-S85.

Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse: Canadian Addiction Survey: Prevalence of use and related harms. Available at www.ccsa.ca/NR/rdonlyres/B2C820A2-C987-4F08-8605-2BE999FE4DFC/0/ccsa0048042004.pdf. Accessed January 25, 2006.

Vega WA, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Andrade L, et al.: Prevalence and age of onset for drug use in seven international sites: Results from the international consortium of psychiatric epidemiology. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002; 68(3): 285-297.

Butler S, Katz N, Benoit C, et al.: Development and validation of a scale to measure attractiveness of prescription opioid products to potential prescription opioid abusers. J Pain. 2005; 6(Suppl 1): 902.

Butler SF, Benoit CM, Budman SH, et al.: Development and validation of an opioid attractiveness scale: A novel measure of the attractiveness of opioid products to potential abusers. Harm Reduct J. 2006; 3(1): 5.