A twice-daily, extended release, abuse deterrent formulation of oxycodone, to be exact. And just in time, too. I was becoming concerned that FDA's recent commitment to take a new approach to the opioid crisis might have actually been genuine. I guess you can't have too much of a good thing.
The trade name you'll want to look out for is Xtampza ER. And no, I didn't misspell it. Wondering how to pronounce it? Your guess is as good as mine. The pharma industry appears to be running low on catchy, hip drug names with the letters "x" and "z" that play well in the market. Someday soon, we're going to see a drug called Xyz ER. You won't see Xtampza pop up right away - Purdue (makers of Oxycontin) are (predictably) suing Collegium (makers of Xtampza) for patent infringement (because, really, how many extended-release, abuse-deterrent formulations of oxycodone do we need?) But alas, Collegium appears to have a solid case: you can open up Xtampza capsules and sprinkle the oxycodone on your food without sacrificing its abuse deterrent properties. Science!
First, let's talk mandatory physician education. While you probably hadn't yet heard of Xtampza, you can be excused for that lack of awareness given that you likely have neither the authority nor the inclination to prescribe it. But the doctors who can prescribe it are going to learn about it from the sales reps who are pushing it. We can do better than that. We need to do better than that.
And to celebrate the advent of every new abuse-deterrent opioid formulation, I like to remind readers of this blog, both new and returning, that abuse-deterrence is a tool, not a solution. As I have written before, but share again here:
I am 100% supportive of abuse-deterrent formulations of prescription opioids. These formulations are effective in combating abuse and diversion (at least in the short-term - it seems drug addicts often find a way to crack the code of each newly formulated medication. But that doesn't mean we should stop trying, nor does it mean we should eliminate the economic incentive for the pharmaceutical companies to develop such technology).
To me, though, this conversation is a distraction. While eliminating abuse and diversion would be great for the work comp system, these aberrant behaviors are not driving the bulk of the problem. The vast majority of cases in which PRIUM intervenes involve legitimate prescriptions being taken as prescribed. Very little pill crushing. Very little intravenous injections. Very little drug dealing.
The problem as we see it is lack of medical necessity. In most cases, it doesn't matter if the patient's opioid is abuse-deterrent or not. If it's medically unnecessary, if it's leading to loss of function, if it's leading to dependence and addiction... it needs to go away. The doctor will be better educated. The patient will get better. The cost of care will go down. Everyone wins.
Abuse deterrent technology is great, but if we focus on technology over medical necessity, we will have missed the mark and the crisis will continue.
On Twitter @PRIUM1