Abuse-deterrent formulations (ADFs) refer to formulation technologies aiming to deter the abuse of prescription drugs by making the dosage forms difficult to manipulate or extract the opioids. Assessments are required to evaluate the performance of the drugs through different routes including injection, ingestion, and insufflation and also when the drugs are manipulated. Chewing is the easiest and most convenient way to manipulate the drugs and deserves investigation. Chewing is one of the most complex bioprocesses, where the ingested materials are subject to periodic tooth crushing, mixed through the tongue, and lubricated and softened by the saliva. Inter- and intra-subject variations in chewing patterns may result in different chewing performances. The purpose of this study is to use a chewing simulator to assess the deterrent properties of tablets made of polyethylene oxide (PEO). The simulator can mimic human molar grinding with variable chewing parameters including molar trajectory, chewing frequency, and saliva flow rate. To investigate the effects of these parameters, the sizes of the chewed tablet particles and the chewing force were measured to evaluate the chewing performance. Thirty-four out of forty tablets were broken into pieces. The results suggested that the simulator can chew the tablets into smaller particles and that the molar trajectory and saliva flow rate had significant effect on reducing the size of the particles by analysis of variance (ANOVA) while the effect of chewing frequency was not clear. Additionally, chewing force can work as an indicator of the chewing performance.

A method to reproducibly mill abuse deterrent oxycodone hydrochloride (HCl) extended release (ER) tablets was developed for a nasal insufflation pharmacokinetic (PK) study. Several comminution methods were explored before determining that a conical mill resulted in controlled milling of tablets to a size range equal to or below 1000 μm. However, milling resulted in significant loss of oxycodone from abuse deterrent oxycodone HCl ER tablets compared to minimal oxycodone loss from oxycodone HCl immediate release (IR) tablets. Characterization of milled tablet powder showed that loss of oxycodone was not attributed to analytical procedures or oxycodone phase change during high intensity milling processes. The content uniformity of oxycodone in the milled tablet powder varied when ER and IR tablets were milled to a particle size distribution equal to or below 500 μm but did not vary when particles were sized above 500 µm to equal to or below 1000 μm. In addition, the initial excipient weight to drug substance weight ratio impacted the amount of oxycodone lost from the respective formulation. However, dissolution demonstrated that when oxycodone HCl ER tablets are milled, differences in excipient weight to drug substance weight ratio and particle size distribution of milled tablets did not result in significantly different release of oxycodone.

This study assessed the impact of product particle sizes (fine: 106–500 µm; coarse: 500–1000 µm) on oxycodone pharmacokinetics (PK) following nasal insufflation of milled oxycodone extended‐release (ER) abuse‐deterrent (AD) tablets using immediate‐release (IR) non‐AD product as reference. Additionally, this study assessed the effects of different excipient to drug ratio (EDR) by comparing two products with fine particle size but different EDRs, again using IR non‐AD as the control. Thirty milligrams of oxycodone were administered in each treatment. Coarsely milled 30 mg ER tablets demonstrated significantly lower maximum plasma concentration (C max ) and partial areas under the concentration‐time curve (AUCs) than those of the finely milled IR tablets. Finely milled ER tablets demonstrated similar C max and partial AUCs but higher total systemic exposures than those of finely milled IR tablets. Finely milled 80 mg ER tablets were bioequivalent to IR tablet on all parameters. The finely milled 30 mg ER tablet was not bioequivalent to the coarsely milled 30 mg ER tablet and had higher values for all parameters. The finely milled 30 mg ER tablets (EDR 6.9) showed no PK differences with finely milled 80 mg ER tablets (EDR 4.9). No serious adverse events were reported. The study demonstrated a significant effect of particle sizes (106–1000 µm) on PK of milled and insufflated oxycodone ER AD tablets. EDR difference did not have any significant effects on the PK of finely milled oxycodone ER AD tablets. Particle size distribution should be considered when nasal AD properties of opioid drug products are investigated during drug development.

Background To the extent that outcomes are mediated through negative perceptions of generics (the nocebo effect), observational studies comparing brand-name and generic drugs are susceptible to bias favoring the brand-name drugs. We used authorized generic (AG) products, which are identical in composition and appearance to brand-name products but are marketed as generics, as a control group to address this bias in an evaluation aiming to compare the effectiveness of generic versus brand medications. Methods and findings For commercial health insurance enrollees from the US, administrative claims data were derived from 2 databases: (1) Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (years: 2004-2013) and (2) Truven MarketScan (years: 2003-2015). For a total of 8 drug products, the following groups were compared using a cohort study design: (1) patients switching from brand-name products to AGs versus generics, and patients initiating treatment with AGs versus generics, where AG use proxied brand-name use, addressing negative perception bias, and (2) patients initiating generic versus brand-name products (bias-prone direct comparison) and patients initiating AG versus brand-name products (negative control). Using Cox proportional hazards regression after 1:1 propensity-score matching, we compared a composite cardiovascular endpoint (for amlodipine, amlodipine-benazepril, and quinapril), non-vertebral fracture (for alendronate and calcitonin), psychiatric hospitalization rate (for sertraline and escitalopram), and insulin initiation (for glipizide) between the groups. Inverse variance meta-analytic methods were used to pool adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for each comparison between the 2 databases. Across 8 products, 2,264,774 matched pairs of patients were included in the comparisons of AGs versus generics. A majority (12 out of 16) of the clinical endpoint estimates showed similar outcomes between AGs and generics. Among the other 4 estimates that did have significantly different outcomes, 3 suggested improved outcomes with generics and 1 favored AGs (patients switching from amlodipine brand-name: HR [95% CI] 0.92 [0.88-0.97]). The comparison between generic and brand-name initiators involved 1,313,161 matched pairs, and no differences in outcomes were noted for alendronate, calcitonin, glipizide, or quinapril. We observed a lower risk of the composite cardiovascular endpoint with generics versus brand-name products for amlodipine and amlodipine-benazepril (HR [95% CI]: 0.91 [0.84-0.99] and 0.84 [0.76-0.94], respectively). For escitalopram and sertraline, we observed higher rates of psychiatric hospitalizations with generics (HR [95% CI]: 1.05 [1.01-1.10] and 1.07 [1.01-1.14], respectively). The negative control comparisons also indicated potentially higher rates of similar magnitude with AG compared to brand-name initiation for escitalopram and sertraline (HR [95% CI]: 1.06 [0.98-1.13] and 1.11 [1.05-1.18], respectively), suggesting that the differences observed between brand and generic users in these outcomes are likely explained by either residual confounding or generic perception bias. Limitations of this study include potential residual confounding due to the unavailability of certain clinical parameters in administrative claims data and the inability to evaluate surrogate outcomes, such as immediate changes in blood pressure, upon switching from brand products to generics. Conclusions In this study, we observed that use of generics was associated with comparable clinical outcomes to use of brand-name products. These results could help in promoting educational interventions aimed at increasing patient and provider confidence in the ability of generic medicines to manage chronic diseases.

Authorized generics are identical in formulation to brand drugs, manufactured by the brand company but marketed as a generic. Generics, marketed by generic manufacturers, are required to demonstrate pharmaceutical and bioequivalence to the brand drug, but repetition of clinical trials is not required. This retrospective cohort study compared outcomes for generics and authorized generics, which serves as a generic vs. brand proxy that minimizes bias against generics. For the seven drugs studied between 1999 and 2014, 5,234 unique patients were on brand drugs prior to generic entry and 4,900 (93.6%) switched to a generic. During the 12 months following the brand‐to‐generic switch, patients using generics vs. authorized generics were similar in terms of outpatient visits, urgent care visits, hospitalizations, and medication discontinuation. The likelihood of emergency department (ED) visits was slightly higher for authorized generics compared with generics. These data suggest that generics were clinically no worse than their proxy brand comparators.

OBJECTIVES To compare rates of switchbacks to branded drug products for patients switched from branded to authorized generic drug products, which have the same active ingredients, appearance, and excipients as the branded product, with patients switched from branded to generic drug products, which have the same active ingredients as the branded product but may differ in appearance and excipients. DESIGN Observational cohort study. SETTING Private (a large commercial health plan) and public (Medicaid) insurance programs in the US. PARTICIPANTS Beneficiaries of a large US commercial health insurer between 2004 and 2013 (primary cohort) and Medicaid beneficiaries between 2000 and 2010 (replication cohort). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Patients taking branded products for one of the study drugs (alendronate tablets, amlodipine tablets, amlodipine-benazepril capsules, calcitonin salmon nasal spray, escitalopram tablets, glipizide extended release tablets, quinapril tablets, and sertraline tablets) were identified when they switched to an authorized generic or a generic drug product after the date of market entry of generic drug products. These patients were followed for switchbacks to the branded drug product in the year after their switch to an authorized generic or a generic drug product. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals after adjusting for demographics, including age, sex, and calendar year. Inverse variance meta-analysis was used to pool adjusted hazard ratios across all drug products. RESULTS A total of 94 909 patients switched from branded to authorized generic drug products and 116 017 patients switched from branded to generic drug products and contributed to the switchback analysis. Unadjusted incidence rates of switchback varied across drug products, ranging from a low of 3.8 per 100 person years (for alendronate tablets) to a high of 17.8 per 100 person years (for amlodipinebenazepril capsules), with an overall rate of 8.2 per 100 person years across all drug products. Adjusted switchback rates were consistently lower for patients who switched from branded to authorized generic drug products compared with branded to generic drug products in the primary cohort (pooled hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.81). Similar results (0.75, 0.62 to 0.91) were observed in the replication cohort. CONCLUSION Switching from branded to authorized generic drug products was associated with lower switchback rates compared with switching from branded to generic drug products.

Study ObjectiveGeneric drugs contain identical active ingredients as their corresponding brand drugs and are pharmaceutically equivalent and bioequivalent, whereas authorized generic drugs (AGs) contain both identical active and inactive ingredients as their corresponding brand drugs but are marketed as generics. This study compares generic-to-brand switchback rates between generic and AGs.DesignRetrospective cohort study.Data SourceClaims and electronic health record data from a regional U.S. health care system.PatientsThe full cohort consisted of 5542 unique patients who received select branded drugs during the 6 months prior to their generic drug market availability (between 1999 and 2014) and then were switched to an AG or generic drug within 30 months of generic drug entry. For these patients, 5929 unique patient-drug combinations (867 with AGs and 5062 with generic drugs) were evaluated.Measurements and Main ResultsTen drugs with AGs and generics marketed between 1999 and 2014 were evaluated. The date of the first generic prescription was considered the index date for each drug, and it marked the beginning of follow-up to evaluate the occurrence of generic-to-brand switchback patterns over the subsequent 30 months. Switchback rates were compared between patients receiving AGs versus those receiving generics using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, controlling for individual drug effects, age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Score, pre-index drug use characteristics, and pre-index health care utilization. Among the 5542 unique patients who switched from brand to generic or brand to AG, 264 (4.8%) switched back to the brand drug. Overall switchback rates were similar for AGs compared with generics (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-1.15). The likelihood of switchback was higher for alendronate (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.20-2.23) and simvastatin (HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.30-2.54) and lower for amlodipine (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.17-0.42) compared with the other drugs evaluated.ConclusionOverall switchback rates were similar between AG and generic drug users, indirectly supporting similar efficacy and tolerability profiles for brand and generic drugs. Reasons for differences in switchback rates among specific products need to be explored further.