Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Drugs in R&D
Published in: Drugs in R&D 3/2011

Open Access 01-09-2011 | Original Research Article

Impact of Intravenous Naltrexone on Intravenous Morphine-Induced High, Drug Liking, and Euphoric Effects in Experienced, Nondependent Male Opioid Users

Authors: Lynn R. Webster, MD, Franklin K. Johnson, Joseph Stauffer, Beatrice Setnik, Sabrina Ciric

Published in: Drugs in R&D | Issue 3/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background: Opioid analgesics can be abused by crushing followed by solubilization and intravenous injection to attain rapid absorption. Morphine sulfate and naltrexone hydrochloride extended release capsules (EMBEDA®, MS-sNT), indicated for management of chronic, moderate to severe pain, contain pellets of morphine sulfate with a sequestered naltrexone core. Should product tampering by crushing occur, the sequestered naltrexone is intended for release to reduce morphine-induced subjective effects.
Objective: This study compared self-reports of high, euphoria, and drug-liking effects of intravenous morphine alone versus intravenous morphine combined with naltrexone in a clinical simulation of intravenous abuse of crushed MS-sNT.
Methods: This single-center, randomized, double-blind, crossover study characterized subjective effects of naltrexone administered intravenously at the same ratio to morphine present in MS-sNT. Subjects were male and had used prescription opioids five or more times within the previous 12 months to get ‘high’ but were not physically dependent on opioids. The primary outcome was the response to the Drug Effects Questionnaire (DEQ) question #5, “How high are you now?” (100mm Visual Analog Scale [VAS]). The secondary outcome was the response to a Cole/Addiction Research Center Inventory (ARCI) Stimulation-Euphoria modified scale. Additional outcomes included resonse to VAS drug liking, the remaining DEQ questions, and pupillometry.
Results: Administration of intravenous naltrexone following intravenous morphine diminished mean high (29.8 vs 85.2 mm), Cole/ARCI Stimulation-Euphoria (13.7 vs 27.8 mm), and drug-liking (38.9 vs 81.4 mm) scores (all p < 0.0001) compared with intravenous morphine alone. No serious adverse events occurred as a result of the tested ratio of naltrexone to morphine.
Conclusions: Results in this study population suggest that naltrexone added to morphine in the 4% ratio within MS-sNT mitigates the high, euphoria, and drug liking of morphine alone, potentially reducing the attractiveness for product tampering. Assessment of the true clinical significance of these findings will require further study.
Literature
1.
Sloan P, Babul N. Extended-release opioids for the management of chronic non-malignant pain. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2006; 3 (4): 489–97PubMedCrossRef
2.
Woolf CJ, Hashmi M. Use and abuse of opioid analgesics: potential methods to prevent and deter non-medical consumption of prescription opioids. Curr Opin Investig Drugs 2004; 5 (1): 61–6PubMed
3.
4.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: national findings [online]. Office of Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H-36, HHS publication no. (SMA) 09-4434. Rockville (MD). Available from URL: http://​oas.​samhsa.​gov [Accessed 2009 Oct 2]
5.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2006: national estimates of drug-related emergency department visits [online]. Office of Applied Studies, DAWN Series D-30, DHHS publication no. (SMA) 08-4339. Rockville (MD). Available from URL: http://​dawninfo.​samhsa.​gov [Accessed 2010 Aug 1]
6.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Treatment of episode data set (TEDS) highlights: 2006; national admissions to substance abuse treatment services [online]. Office of Applied Studies, DASIS Series: S-40, DHHS publication no. (SMA) 08-4313. Rockville (MD). Available from URL: http://​oas.​samhsa.​gov [Accessed 2010 Aug 1]
7.
Hall AJ, Logan JE, Toblin RL, et al. Patterns of abuse among unintentional pharmaceutical overdose fatalities. JAMA 2008; 300 (22): 2613–20PubMedCrossRef
8.
Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, et al. Monitoring the future: national results on adolescent drug use; overview of key findings, 2008. Bethesda (MD): National Institute on Drug Abuse, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2009. NIH publication no. 09-7401
9.
Wright IV C, Kramer ED, Zalman MA, et al. Risk identification, risk assessment, and risk management of abusable drug formulations. Drug Alcohol Depend 2006; 83 (Suppl. 1): S68–76PubMedCrossRef
10.
Kuehn BM. Opioid prescriptions soar: increase in legitimate use as well as abuse. JAMA 2007; 297 (3): 249–51PubMedCrossRef
11.
Katz N. Abuse-deterrent opioid formulations: are they a pipe dream? Curr Rheumatol Rep 2008; 10 (1): 11–8PubMedCrossRef
12.
Katz NP, Adams EH, Chilcoat H, et al. Challenges in the development of prescription opioid abuse-deterrent formulations. Clin J Pain 2007; 23 (8): 648–60PubMedCrossRef
13.
McColl S, Sellers EM. Research design strategies to evaluate the impact of formulations on abuse liability. Drug Alcohol Depend 2006; 83 (Suppl. 1): S52–62PubMedCrossRef
14.
House of Representatives. Making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes: conference report (to accompany H.R. 2744), 109–255; 109th Congress, 1st Session, 2005
15.
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA, US Department of Health and Human Services (statement of Sandra L Kweder, MD, Deputy Director, Office of New Drugs). Prevention of prescription drug abuse before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources House Committee on Government Reform (2006 Jul 26)
16.
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services (statement of Leonard J Paulozzi, MD, MPH, medical epidemiologist). Trends in unintentional drug overdose deaths before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs (2008 Mar 12)
17.
Gonzalez JP, Brogden RN. Naltrexone: a review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy in the management of opioid dependence. Drugs 1988; 35 (3): 192–213PubMedCrossRef
18.
Naltrexone hydrochloride tablets [package insert]. Hazelwood (MO): Mallinckrodt Inc., 2009
19.
Vivitrol [package insert]. Frazer (PA): Cephalon Inc., 2007
20.
EMBEDA® [package insert]. Bristol (TN): King Pharmaceuticals Inc., June 2009
21.
Stauffer J, Setnik B, Sokolowska M, et al. Subjective effects and safety of whole and tampered morphine sulfate and naltrexone hydrochloride (ALO-01) extended-release capsules versus morphine solution and placebo in experienced non-dependent opioid users: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Clin Drug Investig 2009; 29 (12): 777–90PubMedCrossRef
22.
Johnson FK, Stark JG, Bieberdorf FA, et al. Relative oral bioavailability of morphine and naltrexone derived from crushed morphine sulfate and naltrexone hydrochloride extended-release capsules versus intact product and versus naltrexone solution: a single-dose, randomized-sequence, open-label, three-way crossover trial in healthy volunteers. Clin Ther 2010; 32 (6): 1149–64PubMedCrossRef
23.
Cole JO, Orzack MH, Beake B, et al. Assessment of the abuse liability of buspirone in recreational sedative users. J Clin Psychiatry 1982; 43 (12 Pt 2): 69–75PubMed
24.
Cicero TJ, Surratt H, Inciardi JA, et al. Relationship between therapeutic use and abuse of opioid analgesics in rural, suburban, and urban locations in the United States. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 16 (8): 827–40PubMedCrossRef
25.
26.
27.
Jasinski DR. Assessment of the abuse potentiality of morphinelike drugs (methods used in man). In: Martin W R, editor. Drug Addiction. New York (NY): Springer-Verlag, 1977: 197–258CrossRef
28.
Shram MJ, Sathyan G, Khanna S, et al. Evaluation of the abuse potential of extended release hydromorphone versus immediate release hydromorphone. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2010; 30 (1): 25–33PubMedCrossRef
29.
Knaggs RD, Crighton IM, Cobby TF, et al. The pupillary effects of intravenous morphine, codeine, and tramadol in volunteers. Anesth Analg 2004; 99 (1): 108–12PubMedCrossRef
30.
Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Royal Stat Soc Series B 1995; 57 (1): 289–300
31.
Data on file. Natick (MA): Analgesic Solutions, 2011
32.
Ghodse AH, Greaves JL, Lynch D. Evaluation of the opioid addiction test in an out-patient drug dependency unit. Br J Psychiatry 1999; 175: 158–62PubMedCrossRef
33.
Fliegert F, Kurth B, Göhler K. The effects of tramadol on static and dynamic pupillometry in healthy subjects: the relationship between pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics and CYP2D6 metaboliser status. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 61 (4): 257–66PubMedCrossRef
34.
Stoops WW, Hatton KW, Lofwall MR, et al. Intravenous oxycodone, hydrocodone, and morphine in recreational opioid users: abuse potential and relative potencies. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2010; 212 (2): 193–203CrossRef
35.
Balster RL, Bigelow GE. Guidelines and methodological reviews concerning drug abuse liability assessment. Drug Alcohol Depend 2003; 70 (3 Suppl.): S13–40PubMedCrossRef
36.
Azolosa JL, Stitzer ML, Greenwald MK. Opioid physical dependence development: effects of single versus repeated morphine pretreatments and of subjects’ opioid exposure history. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1994; 114 (1): 71–80CrossRef
37.
38.
39.
Dershwitz M, Walsh JL, Morishige RJ, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of inhaled versus intravenous morphine in healthy volunteers. Anesthesiology 2000; 93 (3): 619–28PubMedCrossRef
40.
Kaufman MJ, Levin JM, Kukes TJ, et al. Illicit cocaine use patterns in intravenous-naive cocaine users following investigational intravenous cocaine administration. Drug Alcohol Depend 2000; 58 (1–2): 35–42PubMedCrossRef
41.
Chou R, Fanciullo GJ, Fine PG, et al. Clinical guidelines for the use of chronic opioid therapy in chronic noncancer pain. J Pain 2009; 10 (2): 113–30PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Impact of Intravenous Naltrexone on Intravenous Morphine-Induced High, Drug Liking, and Euphoric Effects in Experienced, Nondependent Male Opioid Users
Authors
Lynn R. Webster, MD
Franklin K. Johnson
Joseph Stauffer
Beatrice Setnik
Sabrina Ciric
Publication date
01-09-2011
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Drugs in R&D / Issue 3/2011
Print ISSN: 1174-5886
Electronic ISSN: 1179-6901
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/11593390-000000000-00000

Other articles of this Issue 3/2011

Drugs in R&D 3/2011 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Short-Term Acetylsalicylic Acid (Aspirin) Use for Pain, Fever, or Colds —Gastrointestinal Adverse Effects

Original Research Article

Seated Cuff Blood Pressure-Lowering Efficacy of an Olmesartan Medoxomil-Based Treatment Regimen in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Review Article

Clinical and Experimental Applications of Sodium Phenylbutyrate

Review Article

Impact of Respiratory Syncytial Virus