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

J. Gudin, E. Kopecky, A. Fleming
{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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”
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 …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
An Anatomy-Informed, Novel Technique for S1 Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation Lead Placement. Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: Practical Diagnostic and Treatment Guidelines, 5th Edition. Associations Between Resting Heart Rate, Resting Blood Pressure, Psychological Variables and Pain Processing in Chronic Whiplash-Associated Disorder: A Cross-Sectional Study Preferred Self-Administered Questionnaires to Assess Resilience, Optimism, Pain Acceptance, and Social Support in People with Pain: A Modified Delphi Study Erratum to: Health-Related Quality of Life among United States Service Members with Low Back Pain Receiving Usual Care plus Chiropractic Care vs Usual Care Alone: Secondary Outcomes of a Pragmatic Clinical Trial
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1