Tapentadol PR (100-250 mg twice daily) was efficacious and provided efficacy that was similar to oxycodone HCl CR (20-50 mg twice daily) for the management of chronic osteoarthritis knee and low back pain, with a superior gastrointestinal tolerability profile and fewer treatment discontinuations.

The purpose of this review is to illustrate the utility and value of employing human self-administration procedures in medication development, including abuse liability assessments of novel medications and evaluation of potential pharmacotherapies for substance use disorders. Traditionally, human abuse liability testing has relied primarily on subjective reports describing drug action by use of questionnaires; similarly, drug interactions between putative treatment agents and the drugs of abuse have relied on these measures. Subjective reports are highly valued because they provide qualitative and quantitative information about the characteristics of central and peripheral pharmacodynamic effects as well as safety and tolerability. However, self-administration procedures directly examine the behavior of interest -that is, drug taking. The present paper 1) reviews the most commonly used human self-administration procedures, 2) discusses the concordance of subjective reports and selfadministration within the context of medications development for substance use disorders, focusing primarily on illustrative examples from development efforts with opioid and cocaine dependence, and 3) explores the utility of applying self-administration procedures to assess the abuse liability of novel compounds, including "abuse deterrent" formulations (ADFs). The review will focus on opioid and cocaine dependence because a rich database from both clinical laboratory and clinical trial research exists for these two drug classes. The data reviewed suggest that drug-induced changes in self-administration and subjective effects are not always concordant. Therefore, assessment of selfadministration in combination with subjective effects provides a more comprehensive picture that may have improved predictive validity for translating to the clinical setting.

Background The extent of intranasal and intravenous prescription opioid abuse has led to the development of formulations that are difficult to crush. The purpose of the present studies was to examine whether experienced prescription opioid abusers (individuals who were using prescription opioids for non-medical purposes regardless of how they were obtained) were able to prepare a formulation of oxymorphone hydrochloride ER 40 mg designed to be crush-resistant (DCR) for intranasal (Study 1) or intravenous abuse (Study 2), utilizing a non-crush-resistant formulation of oxymorphone (40 mg; OXM) as a positive control. Methods No drug was administered in these studies. Participants were provided with DCR and OXM tablets in random order and asked to prepare them for abuse with tools/solutions that they had previously requested. The primary outcome for Study 1 was particle size distribution, and the primary outcome for Study 2 was percent yield of active drug in the extracts. Other descriptive variables were examined to better understand potential responses to these formulations. Results Fewer DCR than OXM particles were smaller than 1.705 mm (9.8% vs. 97.7%), and thus appropriate for analyses. Percent yield of active drug in extract was low and did not differ between the two formulations (DCR: 1.95%; OXM: 1.29%). Most participants were not willing to snort (92%) or inject (84%) the tampered products. Participants indicated that they found less relative value in the DCR than the OXM formulation across both studies. Conclusions Although there are safety issues associated with formulations that gel, these data suggest that the oxymorphone DCR formulations may be a promising technology for reducing opioid abuse.

Aims To examine whether tamper-resistant formulations (TRFs) of tapentadol hydrochloride ER 50 mg (TAP50) and tapentadol hydrochloride 250 mg (TAP250) could be converted into forms amenable to intranasal (Study 1) or intravenous abuse (Study 2). Design Randomized, repeated-measures study designs were employed. A non-TRF of OxyContin® 40 mg (OXY40) served as a positive control. No drug was taken in either study. Setting The studies took place in an outpatient setting in New York, NY. Participants 25 experienced, healthy extended-release oxycodone abusers participated in each study. Measurements The primary outcome for Study 1 was percentage of participants who indicated they would snort the tampered tablets, while the primary outcome for Study 2 was percent yield of active drug in solution. Other descriptive variables such as time spent manipulating the tablets were also examined to better characterize tampering behaviors. Findings Tampered TRF tablets were less desirable than the tampered OXY40 tablets. Few individuals were willing to snort the TRF particles (TAP50: 24%, TAP250: 16%; OXY40: 100% p<.001). There was less drug extracted from the TAP50 tablet than from the OXY40 tablet (3.5% vs. 37.0%, p=.008), and no samples from the TAP250 tablets contained analyzable solutions of the drug. It took participants longer to tamper with the TAPs (Study 1: TAP50 vs. OXY40, p<.01; TAP250 vs. OXY40, p<.01; Study 2: TAP250 vs. OXY40, p<05). Conclusions Taptentadol TRF tablets were not well-liked by individuals who regularly tampered with extended-release oxycodone tablets. Employing tamper resistant technology may be a promising approach towards reducing the abuse potential of tapentadol ER.

Background Antinuclear antibody (ANA)5 testing is routinely performed during evaluation of patients with a suspected connective tissue disease (CTD), yet the question of which method is most appropriate remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical utility of ANA testing by an enzyme immunoassay (EIA), an immunofluorescence assay (IFA), and a multiplex immunoassay (MIA) in a routine laboratory population. Methods Samples (n = 1000) were collected from specimens submitted for ANA testing by EIA (Bio-Rad). All samples were subsequently analyzed by IFA (Zeus) and MIA (Bio-Rad). The sample cohort was weighted to represent the routine testing population. Diagnostic information was obtained by chart review. Results For the diagnosis of a CTD, ROC curve analysis demonstrated no significant differences between IFA (area under the curve 0.81) and EIA (0.84) (P = 0.25), with overlay of a single point for the MIA. When normalized to a specificity of approximately 90%, the sensitivities of the MIA, EIA, and IFA were 67%, 67%, and 56%, respectively. By varying the clinical cutoff, the IFA could achieve the highest sensitivity of 94%; however, the corresponding specificity was only 43%. In contrast, a strongly positive EIA had a specificity of 97%, although, at this cutoff, the sensitivity was only 40%. Conclusions Although the overall diagnostic performance of the IFA, EIA, and MIA were not statistically different, the clinical sensitivity and specificity varied dramatically based on the positive/negative cutoff. Knowledge about the performance characteristics of each method will significantly aid in the interpretation of ANA testing.