Drug and alcohol dependence
-
Drug Alcohol Depend · Nov 2012
Assessment of a formulation designed to be crush-resistant in prescription opioid abusers.
The extent of 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 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. ⋯ These data suggest that the oxymorphone DCR formulations may be a promising technology for reducing opioid abuse.
-
Drug Alcohol Depend · Nov 2012
Changing over-the-counter ephedrine and pseudoephedrine products to prescription only: impacts on methamphetamine clandestine laboratory seizures.
Clandestine laboratory operators commonly extract ephedrine and pseudoephedrine-precursor chemicals used to synthesize methamphetamine-from over-the-counter cold/allergy/sinus products. To prevent this activity, two states, Oregon in 07/2006 and Mississippi in 07/2010, implemented regulations classifying ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as Schedule III substances, making products containing them available by prescription only. Using simple pre-regulation versus post-regulation comparisons, reports claim that the regulations have substantially reduced clandestine laboratory seizures (an indicator of laboratory prevalence) in both states, motivating efforts to implement similar regulation nationally. This study uses ARIMA-intervention time-series analysis to more rigorously evaluate the regulations' impacts on laboratory seizures. ⋯ Oregon's regulation encountered a floor effect, making any sizable impact infeasible. Mississippi, however, realized a substantial impact, suggesting that laboratories, if sufficiently extant, can be meaningfully impacted by prescription precursor regulation. It follows that national prescription precursor regulation would have little impact in western states with low indicated laboratory prevalence, but may be of significant use in regions facing higher indicated prevalence.