5 ms·

The newspaper has other evidence the manufacturer is sketchy as hell: http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/ http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin

by gkop 10y ago

The newspaper has other evidence the manufacturer is sketchy as hell: http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/ http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/

refurb 10y ago
I find the 12-hour vs. 8-hour argument to be very weak. Of course the manufacturer was pushing for 12-hour. You will be fined by the FDA for pushing any use of your drug that is not approved by the FDA. You can get approval for 12-hour dosing, then just start saying "nahh... let's change it to 8 hour". That article found some data and twisted it into a conspiracy.
- nxzero 10y ago
  Per the FDA, at least in 1995, you're correct, OxyContin was only allowed to be prescribed in 12 hours doses, not 4-6, per the FDA. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/ucm338566.htm http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/u...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
DanBC 10y ago
Yes, the manufacturer was sketchy as hell. The prescribing doctor and clinic were quickly identified, by worried pharmacists and by the sketchy manufacturers. This was during the time the "war on drugs" was pretty full on, and the risks of opiate prescribing were well known. How did the various systems fail? We see this across a range of different industries. People sort of report some concerns, but they often don't do it properly. Sometimes that means mildly defective product is shipped. Other times it means many people are harmed. There was a submission several years ago about an accountant who somehow got wrapped up in massive amounts of fraud. He said that many people along the way could have stopped him, and he didn't make much effort to perpetuate the fraud. He would just ask people to fill out that bit of paper, or to wait a few days before sending some other bit of paper, and they all just thought "he's okay, I'll do him this favour". Individually they were little favours. Collectively, it was pretty big. (I'm trying to fidn the link now)
- 55555 10y ago
  I'm pretty interested in that accounting link. Please update if you find it.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    I really think it's this one: http://www.npr.org/2012/05/01/151764534/psychology-of-fraud-why-good-people-do-bad-things http://www.npr.org/2012/05/01/151764534/psychology-of-fraud-... But I'm struggling to find the HN submission for it.
    - 55555 10y ago
      Thank you, that was very interesting.
stordoff 10y ago
Does anyone know why the manufacturer was pushing q12h dosing so strongly? As an opiate user, I don't want large, infrequent doses - I want small, but frequent, doses to maintain a consistent level of pain relief without side-effects (e.g. euphoria, nausea) Fortunately my current codeine prescription ("take 15-30mg as directed as required") gives me a fairly wide latitude - most days I don't need it at all, but on a bad day can take 15mg every three hours or so.
- xkcd-sucks 10y ago
  A less frequent dosing schedule is an 'improvement' over formulations which are available as generics. This justifies the patent/ increased cost of using the oxycontin or whatever's replaced it
- khuey 10y ago
  The big selling point of 12 hour dosing is you don't wake up in the middle of the night in pain.
  - stordoff 10y ago
    Fair point. I use tamazepam for my sleep issues (generally they are for reasons other than pain) so hadn't really thought about that.
  - jonknee 10y ago
    Well the big selling point for the manufacturer is that it's patented and has no generic equivalent. It's no matter if the new feature doesn't really work.
- sukilot 10y ago
  The claim is that the large does are time-release. But your point re variable need is still relevant.
- ars 10y ago
  The q12h dosing is patented. The regular dosing is generic. That's all. OxyContin would not exist if not for q12h dosing.

by gkop 10y ago

The newspaper has other evidence the manufacturer is sketchy as hell: http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/ http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/

refurb 10y ago

I find the 12-hour vs. 8-hour argument to be very weak. Of course the manufacturer was pushing for 12-hour. You will be fined by the FDA for pushing any use of your drug that is not approved by the FDA. You can get approval for 12-hour dosing, then just start saying "nahh... let's change it to 8 hour". That article found some data and twisted it into a conspiracy.

nxzero 10y ago
Per the FDA, at least in 1995, you're correct, OxyContin was only allowed to be prescribed in 12 hours doses, not 4-6, per the FDA. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/ucm338566.htm http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/u...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

DanBC 10y ago

Yes, the manufacturer was sketchy as hell. The prescribing doctor and clinic were quickly identified, by worried pharmacists and by the sketchy manufacturers. This was during the time the "war on drugs" was pretty full on, and the risks of opiate prescribing were well known. How did the various systems fail? We see this across a range of different industries. People sort of report some concerns, but they often don't do it properly. Sometimes that means mildly defective product is shipped. Other times it means many people are harmed. There was a submission several years ago about an accountant who somehow got wrapped up in massive amounts of fraud. He said that many people along the way could have stopped him, and he didn't make much effort to perpetuate the fraud. He would just ask people to fill out that bit of paper, or to wait a few days before sending some other bit of paper, and they all just thought "he's okay, I'll do him this favour". Individually they were little favours. Collectively, it was pretty big. (I'm trying to fidn the link now)

55555 10y ago
I'm pretty interested in that accounting link. Please update if you find it.
- DanBC 10y ago
  I really think it's this one: http://www.npr.org/2012/05/01/151764534/psychology-of-fraud-why-good-people-do-bad-things http://www.npr.org/2012/05/01/151764534/psychology-of-fraud-... But I'm struggling to find the HN submission for it.
  - 55555 10y ago
    Thank you, that was very interesting.

stordoff 10y ago

Does anyone know why the manufacturer was pushing q12h dosing so strongly? As an opiate user, I don't want large, infrequent doses - I want small, but frequent, doses to maintain a consistent level of pain relief without side-effects (e.g. euphoria, nausea) Fortunately my current codeine prescription ("take 15-30mg as directed as required") gives me a fairly wide latitude - most days I don't need it at all, but on a bad day can take 15mg every three hours or so.

xkcd-sucks 10y ago
A less frequent dosing schedule is an 'improvement' over formulations which are available as generics. This justifies the patent/ increased cost of using the oxycontin or whatever's replaced it
khuey 10y ago
The big selling point of 12 hour dosing is you don't wake up in the middle of the night in pain.
- stordoff 10y ago
  Fair point. I use tamazepam for my sleep issues (generally they are for reasons other than pain) so hadn't really thought about that.
- jonknee 10y ago
  Well the big selling point for the manufacturer is that it's patented and has no generic equivalent. It's no matter if the new feature doesn't really work.
sukilot 10y ago
The claim is that the large does are time-release. But your point re variable need is still relevant.
ars 10y ago
The q12h dosing is patented. The regular dosing is generic. That's all. OxyContin would not exist if not for q12h dosing.