Hydrocodone, Oxycodone, and Morphine Metabolism and Drug-Drug Interactions

Awareness of drug interactions involving opioids is critical for patient treatment as they are common therapeutics used in numerous care settings, including both chronic and disease-related pain. Not only do opioids have narrow therapeutic indexes and are extensively used, but they have the potential to cause severe toxicity. Opioids are the classical pain treatment for patients who suffer from moderate to severe pain. More importantly, opioids are often prescribed in combination with multiple other drugs, especially in patient populations who typically are prescribed a large drug regimen. This review focuses on the current knowledge of common opioid drug-drug interactions (DDIs), focusing specifically on hydrocodone, oxycodone, and morphine DDIs. The DDIs covered in this review include pharmacokinetic DDI arising from enzyme inhibition or induction, primarily due to inhibition of cytochrome p450 enzymes (CYPs). However, opioids such as morphine are metabolized by uridine-5'-diphosphoglucuronosyltransferases (UGTs), principally UGT2B7, and glucuronidation is another important pathway for opioid-drug interactions. This review also covers several pharmacodynamic DDI studies as well as the basics of CYP and UGT metabolism, including detailed opioid metabolism and the potential involvement of metabolizing enzyme gene variation in DDI. Based upon the current literature, further studies are needed to fully investigate and describe the DDI potential with opioids in pain and related disease settings to improve clinical outcomes for patients. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: A review of the literature focusing on drug-drug interactions involving opioids is important because they can be toxic and potentially lethal, occurring through pharmacodynamic interactions as well as pharmacokinetic interactions occurring through inhibition or induction of drug metabolism.

A preliminary study of hydrocodone and hydromorphone to oxycodone ratios for distinguishing impurities from independent opioid use

BACKGROUND

Urine drug testing (UDT) monitors prescription compliance and/or drug abuse. However, interpretation of UDT results obtained by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS) can be complicated by the presence of drug impurities that are detected by highly sensitive methods. Hydrocodone is a drug impurity that can be found as high as 1% in oxycodone pills.

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the frequency and concentration of hydrocodone and its metabolite, hydromorphone, in patients taking oxycodone to check if the ratio of hydrocodone or hydromorphone to oxycodone could distinguish between oxycodone only use from those consuming additional opiates.

DESIGN & METHODS

We correlated LC-MS/MS results with medication records of 319 patients with positive oxycodone results over 7 months (4/2021-11/2021).

RESULTS

Fifteen of 319 patients with positive oxycodone results were taking oxycodone only. For these 15 patients, the mean ratio of hydrocodone to oxycodone was 0.57% (range 0.05%-3.35%), and the mean ratio of hydromorphone to oxycodone was 0.81% (range 0.18-3.51%).

CONCLUSIONS

Hydrocodone and/or hydromorphone are detectable in patients taking only oxycodone and can likely be identified as an impurity if their calculated ratio to oxycodone is <1 %. Further validation of the ratios in a larger sample size is recommended.

Hydromorphone and codeine concentrations in oral fluid specimens from patients receiving substitution therapy with Substitol™ (morphine sulfate)

This study aimed to determine whether hydromorphone and codeine can be detected in oral fluid specimens following administration of Substitol™, a slow-release formulation of morphine. This is of interest for those monitoring treatment compliance using drug testing. Oral fluid specimens collected for compliance assessment in routine clinical practice or as part of a clinical trial were subjected to quantitative analysis of hydromorphone, morphine, codeine, and 6-acetylmorphine using highly sensitive mass spectrometric methods. Oral fluid was collected using a Greiner Bio-One saliva collection system. Patients undergoing substitution treatment with Substitol™, methadone, or buprenorphine were included, together with patients undergoing pain treatment with hydromorphone. Hydromorphone was detected in 642 of the 663 (97%) samples from substitol-treated patients. Concentrations were not higher in methadone- and buprenorphine-treated patients who relapsed into heroin use, or in patients on hydromorphone therapy. Codeine was detected in 29% of the samples. These concentrations were lower than those in patients who had relapsed to heroin use. Clinical administration of morphine can lead to detectable concentrations of both hydromorphone and codeine in oral fluids. This should be taken into consideration when using drug testing in oral fluid samples for compliance assessment in this patient group.

What the lab can and cannot do: clinical interpretation of drug testing results

Urine drug testing is one of the objective tools available to assess adherence. To monitor adherence, quantitative urinary results can assist in differentiating "new" drug use from "previous" (historical) drug use. "Spikes" in urinary concentration can assist in identifying patterns of drug use. Coupled chromatographic-mass spectrometric methods are capable of identifying very small amounts of analyte and can make clinical interpretation rather challenging, specifically for drugs that have a longer half-life. Polypharmacy is common in treatment and rehabilitation programs because of co-morbidities. Medications prescribed for comorbidities can cause drug-drug interaction and phenoconversion of genotypic extensive metabolizers into phenotypic poor metabolizers of the treatment drug. This can have significant impact on both pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic properties of the treatment drug. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) coupled with PKs can assist in interpreting the effects of phenoconversion. TDM-PKs reflects the cumulative effects of pathophysiological changes in the patient as well as drug-drug interactions and should be considered for treatment medications/drugs used to manage pain and treat substance abuse. Since only a few enzyme immunoassays for TDM are available, this is a unique opportunity for clinical laboratory scientists to develop TDM-PK protocols that can have a significant impact on patient care and personalized medicine. Interpretation of drug screening results should be done with caution while considering pharmacological properties and the presence or absence of the parent drug and its metabolites. The objective of this manuscript is to review and address the variables that influence interpretation of different drugs analyzed from a rehabilitation and treatment programs perspective.

Lack of Influence by CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 Genotypes on Pain Relief by Hydrocodone in Postoperative Cesarean Section Pain Management

Background

Genetic polymorphisms of cytochrome P450 are contributors to variability in individual response to drugs. Within the P450 family, CYP2D6 is responsible for metabolizing hydrocodone, a widely prescribed opioid for pain management. Alternatively, CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 can form norhydrocodone and dihydrocodeine. We have previously found that in a postcesarean section cohort, the rate of hydromorphone formation was dependent on the genotype of CYP2D6 and that plasma hydromorphone, not hydrocodone, was predictive of pain relief.

Method

Blood was obtained from a postcesarean cohort that were surveyed for pain response and common side effects. Plasma samples were genotyped for CYP3A4/5, and their hydrocodone concentrations were measured by LC-MS. R statistical software was used to check for differences in the outcomes due to CYP3A4/5 and CYP2D6, and a multivariate regression model was fit to determine factors associated with pain score.

Results

Two-way ANOVA between CYP3A4/A5 and CYP2D6 phenotypes revealed that the former variants did not have a statistical significance on the outcomes, and only CYP2D6 phenotypes had a significant effect on total dosage (P = 0.041). Furthermore, a 3-way ANOVA analysis showed that CYP2D6 (P = 0.036) had a predictive effect on plasma hydromorphone concentrations, and CYP3A4/A5 did not have any effect on the measured outcomes.

Conclusions

With respect to total dosages in a cesarean section population, these results confirm that CYP2D6 phenotypes are predictors for plasma hydromorphone concentration and pain relief, but CYP3A4/A5 phenotypes have no influence on pain relief or on side effects.

Preclinical and Clinical Pharmacology of Hydrocodone for Chronic Pain: A Mini Review

Hydrocodone is one of the most prescribed oral analgesic drugs and it is one of the most abused drugs in general population. It is a mu-opioid agonist predominantly metabolized to the O-demethylated product hydromorphone and to the N-demethylated product norhydrocodone. The purpose of the study is to summarize the preclinical and clinical characteristics of hydrocodone. Pharmacokinetic aspect (terminal half-life, maximum serum concentration, and time to maximum serum concentration) of hydrocodone and the influence of metabolic genetic polymorphism in analgesic response to hydrocodone are also illustrated and commented. Literature on experimental preclinical pharmacology investigating analgesic activity in laboratory animals is furtherly discussed. Moreover, the authors discuss and comment on the updated data regarding safety profile and effectiveness of hydrocodone in the treatment of chronic pain. A bibliographic research was carried out (from February 01, 2018 to August 28, 2018) independently by two researchers (blinded to the authors and initially on results) in the major scientific databases and research engines of peer-reviewed literature on life sciences and biomedical topics, starting from January 1990 to August 2018. Analysis of results of clinical studies suggests that abuse-deterrent extended-release (ER) hydrocodone formulations can be effective and they are well tolerated in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Weaker is the evidence of the analgesic effectiveness of ER hydrocodone on other chronic pain syndromes and non-cancer non-neuropathic chronic pain. In these conditions, hydrocodone showed to have positive effects in non-controlled open studies and needs to be further studied to assess the real strength of results.

Suitability of the DRI Hydrocodone/Hydromorphone Immunoassay in the Clinical Environment at a Lower Cutoff: Validation With LC-MS/MS Analysis

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the analytical performance of the DRI hydrocodone/hydromorphone assay by comparing semiquantitative values obtained by this assay with values obtained by a liquid chromatography combined with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method. We also evaluated the possibility of lowering the cutoff of the DRI assay from 300 to 100 ng/mL.

METHODS

We compared semiquantitative values obtained by the DRI assay in 97 specimens with values obtained by the LC-MS/MS method including 10 specimens containing hydrocodone and/or hydromorphone concentrations between 105.0 and 145.0 ng/mL (determined by LC-MS/MS) to determine the sensitivity at 100 ng/mL. In addition, several opioids at a concentration of 5000 ng/mL were also analyzed by the DRI assay to determine its specificity.

RESULTS

We observed no false-negative result using the DRI immunoassay in 96 specimens that showed semiquantitative values at 100 ng/mL or higher. However, one specimen containing 110 ng/mL of hydrocodone was false negative with the DRI assay (semiquantitative value 88 ng/mL, below 100 ng/mL cutoff). The semiquantitative values produced by DRI showed poor correlation with values determined by the LC-MS/MS method. The sensitivity of the DRI assay at 100 ng/mL was 90%, and the assay was very specific showing minimal cross-reactivity only with oxycodone and oxymorphone.

CONCLUSIONS

DRI immunoassay for hydrocodone/hydromorphone is a cost-effective method of screening urine specimens in the clinical environment at a lower cutoff of 100 ng/mL.

Future applications of high-resolution MS to meet the demands for pain management drug testing

Urine specimens submitted for pain management drug testing often contain multiple psychotherapeutic drugs, in addition to opioids. Immunoassay-based screen-and-confirm approaches typically used for clinical drug testing have limited sensitivity to detect therapeutic concentrations of many drugs prescribed in pain management and do not differentiate between drugs in the same class. In addition, screening for all the various illicit and prescription drugs that may be present in the pain management population requires as many as 10–20 individual immunoassays. High-resolution MS approaches have the potential to transform the way clinical drug testing is performed for pain management.

The challenges of LC–MS/MS analysis of opiates and opioids in urine

Opioids are some of the most commonly prescribed and abused drugs around the world. Primarily used for anesthesia or pain management, other opioids can also be used in the treatment of opioid addiction. Given these facts, clinicians often randomly test or monitor their patients to determine compliance or abstinence from these drugs via immunoassay methods. When a positive screen is obtained, a confirmatory assay is carried out and although the gold standard has been GC–MS, LC–MS/MS is fast becoming a valid and popular alternative. This review will discuss opioids, the complex metabolic pathways, the measurement of these drugs, the challenges involved and, finally, will describe some LC–MS/MS methods published from 2003 until 2013.

Laboratory testing for prescription opioids

Opioid analgesic misuse has risen significantly over the past two decades, and these drugs now represent the most commonly abused class of prescription medications. They are a major cause of poisoning deaths in the USA exceeding heroin and cocaine. Laboratory testing plays a role in the detection of opioid misuse and the evaluation of patients with opioid intoxication. Laboratories use both immunoassay and chromatographic methods (e.g., liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry detection), often in combination, to yield high detection sensitivity and drug specificity. Testing methods for opioids originated in the workplace-testing arena and focused on detection of illicit heroin use. Analysis for a wide range of opioids is now required in the context of the prescription opioid epidemic. Testing methods have also been primarily based upon urine screening; however, methods for analyzing alternative samples such as saliva, sweat, and hair are available. Application of testing to monitor prescription opioid drug therapy is an increasingly important use of drug testing, and this area of testing introduces new interpretative challenges. In particular, drug metabolism may transform one clinically available opioid into another. The sensitivity of testing methods also varies considerably across the spectrum of opioid drugs. An understanding of opioid metabolism and method sensitivity towards different opioid drugs is therefore essential to effective use of these tests. Improved testing algorithms and more research into the effective use of drug testing in the clinical setting, particularly in pain medicine and substance abuse, are needed.

Quantitative study of controlled substance bedside wasting, disposal and evaluation of potential ecologic effects

Drugs in wastewater arise from many sources. For health care, these include excretion and direct disposal (bedside wasting). The present study reports on the dispensing and wasting of 15 controlled substances (CS) at two health care facilities in Albany, NY over a nearly two year period. The study considered measures of ecotoxicity, drug metabolism, excretion and disposal of these CS. Potential alternatives to flushing of CS into wastewaters from healthcare facilities are discussed. Drug medication and waste collection records (12,345) included: numbers of drugs dispensed, returned and wasted. Overall, 8528 g of 15 CS were wasted. Three (midazolam, acetaminophen-codeine and fentanyl) accounted for 87.5% of the total wasted. Wasting varied by hospital, 14 CS at the academic medical center hospital and 8 at the surgical care center were wasted. Liquids were more frequently wasted than tablets or pills. Some combination drugs (acetaminophen (APAP)-codeine) were frequently (50% of drug dispensed) wasted while others were less wasted (APAP-hydrocodone-6.3%; APAP-oxycodone-1.3%). The 8 CS judged more hazardous to aquatic life were: APAP-codeine, APAP-hydrocodone, APAP-oxycodone, alprazolam, diazepam, fentanyl, midazolam, and testosterone. Ketamine, morphine, oxycodone and zolpidem were of lesser acute toxicity based on available LC50 values. These CS might provide a therapeutically equivalent alternative to the more environmentally harmful drugs. In health care facilities, professionals dispose of CS by bedside wasting into water or other receptacles. This can be avoided by returning CS to the hospital's pharmacy department, thence to a licensed distributor. Study of this process of drug wasting can identify opportunities for process improvements. We found 3 CS (APAP-codeine, midazolam and testosterone) where ½ to 1/3 of the drug was wasted and 5 others with 30 to 13% wasted. Knowledge of the adverse impacts from the release of highly toxic drugs into the environment might influence CS selection and disposal alternatives.