The Diversion of Ultram, Ultracet, and generic tramadol HCL.

Ultram (tramadol HCL) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1994 as a non-scheduled drug under the Controlled Substance Act. The non-scheduled status was contingent on the development and implementation of a comprehensive post-marketing surveillance program by an Independent Steering Committee external to Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical charged with monitoring abuse and recommending scheduling if unexpectedly high abuse occurred. The program developed by this committee was composed of a variety of studies, and the results of the first three years of the surveillance efforts revealed that the rate of Ultram abuse was low. At a meeting of the FDA in 1998 to reexamine the scheduling status of Ultram, it was recommended that the scope of the postmarketing surveillance program be broadened to include data on diversion. After a 1-year pilot study, by January 2002, a nationwide diversion survey was fully operational. This brief communication describes the experiences of this diversion study, and compares the findings on the diversion of Ultram and other tramadol HCL products with that of more widely abused drugs. Survey data suggest that the diversion of Ultram and other tramadol products is low, and overall, diversion investigators did not consider tramadol to be a problem in their respective jurisdictions.

A comparison of the abuse liability of tramadol, NSAIDs, and hydrocodone in patients with chronic pain.

Concern about abuse/dependence in chronic pain patients taking opioid analgesics may lead to undertreatment of pain, yet little is known about the prevalence of abuse/dependence in these patients and how it differs among analgesic agents. The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of tramadol abuse compared to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and hydrocodone-containing analgesics in patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNP). The study had three arms. The first arm consisted of subjects prescribed tramadol alone; the second of subjects randomized to either NSAIDs or tramadol; and the third of subjects randomized to hydrocodone or tramadol. Each investigator received two boxes of prescriptions randomized so that one in every four prescriptions was for tramadol. Upon deciding on the therapeutically appropriate arm, the physician selected the appropriate box, opened the next envelope and completed the enclosed prescription. After the initial randomization, physicians could prescribe whatever medication was therapeutically appropriate. A total of 11,352 subjects were enrolled. Up to nine interviews using a structured questionnaire were conducted over a 12-month period. An algorithm called the "Abuse Index" was developed to identify subjects who were abusing the drug. The primary components of the index were increasing dose without physician approval, use for purposes other than intended, inability to stop its use, and withdrawal. The percent of subjects who scored positive for abuse at least once during the 12-month follow-up were 2.5% for NSAIDs, 2.7% for tramadol, and 4.9% for hydrocodone. When more than one hit on the algorithm was used as a measure of persistence, abuse rates were 0.5% for NSAIDs, 0.7% for tramadol, and 1.2% for hydrocodone. Thus, the results of this study suggest that the prevalence of abuse/dependence over a 12-month period in a CNP population that was primarily female was equivalent for tramadol and NSAIDs, with both significantly less than the rate for hydrocodone.

Rates of abuse of tramadol remain unchanged with the introduction of new branded and generic products: results of an abuse monitoring system, 1994-2004.

PURPOSE: The analgesic Tramadol HCl (Ultram) was approved in 1994 as a non-scheduled drug under the CSA provided that a novel risk-management program would be developed by an Independent Steering Committee (ISC). The risk-management program began in 1995 with the launch of Ultram, and has been modified over the past decade to accommodate Ultracet (Ultram and acetaminophen) in 2001 and generic tramadol in 2002. This provided a unique opportunity to study the potential changes in abuse as the generic and combination products became available. METHODS: To proactively detect cases of abuse and diversion, the ISC developed a comprehensive questionnaire which was completed quarterly by an extensive network of drug abuse experts (n = 309) and police agencies (n = 100) who were asked to indicate how many diversion cases involving Ultram, Ultracet, and generic tramadol were identified during the preceding 3 months and what were the ten most commonly diverted drugs in their catchment area during that period. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The data generated demonstrate that the abuse of tramadol remained very low despite new branded and generic formulations. Contrary to the hypothesis that cheaper generic drugs would lead to higher rates of abuse, we found no increase in abuse with the introduction of generic tramadol. Ultracet abuse rates, unlike those found with other widely used hydrocodone and oxycodone combination products, have been even lower than that observed for tramadol. Since the FDA has now mandated that proactive risk-management plans be implemented for new drugs, the tramadol risk-management plan may be useful as a prototypic model which can be modified to accommodate other drugs with abuse potential.

An independent assessment of MEDWatch reporting for abuse/dependence and withdrawal from Ultram (tramadol hydrochloride).

OBJECTIVE: Assess the validity of medical products reporting program (MEDWatch) reports of abuse/dependence and withdrawal associated with Ultram (tramadol). METHODS: Reports of possible abuse/dependence or withdrawal associated with Ultram during 13 quarters following launch were spontaneously reported to the manufacturer Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical (OMP) and also solicited from 255 NIDA grantees and addiction treatment professionals by an Independent Steering Committee (ISC). Reports were classified by the ISC using DSM-IV criteria, by the Drug Safety and Surveillance (DSS) units of Robert Wood Johnson Pharmaceutical Research Institute (PRI) using World Health Organization Adverse Reaction Terms (WHOART) terms, and reported to the food and drug administration (FDA) via MEDWatch. Rates of abuse/dependence and withdrawal per 100000 persons exposed were calculated separately for classifications made by the PRI and the ISC, and confidence intervals calculated to determine the degree to which they agreed. RESULTS: For 681 reports submitted to PRI, confidence intervals of ISC ratings contained PRI ratings 12 of 13 times for abuse/dependence, and 12 of 13 times for withdrawal. For 242 reports submitted to the ISC, confidence intervals of ISC ratings contained PRI ratings 10 of 13 times for abuse/dependence, and 12 of 13 times for withdrawal. Proactive surveillance increased the total number of cases of abuse/dependence but not withdrawal. Many cases of withdrawal without signs or symptoms of abuse/dependence were identified. CONCLUSIONS: There was good/excellent concordance between MEDWatch and ISC classifications. Proactive surveillance increased cases of abuse/dependence but not withdrawal. Withdrawal with no signs or symptoms of dependence was common. More use of proactive surveillance is likely to improve assessments of public health risks associated with adverse events.

Physical dependence on Ultram (tramadol hydrochloride): both opioid-like and atypical withdrawal symptoms occur.

In 1994, the Drug Abuse Advisory Committee (DAAC) of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded that Ultram (tramadol hydrochloride) could be marketed as an analgesic drug without scheduling under the Controlled Substances Act based upon extensive pre-clinical, clinical and European epidemiological data. However, to guard against unexpectedly high levels of abuse in the United States, the DAAC recommended that an independent steering committee (ISC) be appointed to proactively monitor abuse/dependence. In the event that high rates of abuse were found, this ISC was given the authority to immediately recommend to the FDA that Ultram be scheduled. In the course of the surveillance project, the ISC received reports of withdrawal following abrupt discontinuation of Ultram and in some instances, following dose reductions. In most cases, the withdrawal symptoms consisted of classical opioid withdrawal, but in some cases were accompanied by withdrawal symptoms not normally observed in opiate withdrawal, such as hallucinations, paranoia, extreme anxiety, panic attacks, confusion and unusual sensory experiences such as numbness and tingling in one or more extremities. Withdrawal symptoms of either type were one of the more prevalent adverse events associated with chronic Ultram use, comprising nearly 40% of all adverse events reported with Ultram. Most of these consisted of typical opiate withdrawal symptoms, but 1 in 8 cases presented as atypical. These results indicate that physicians and other healthcare professionals need to be aware of the potential of Ultram to induce withdrawal of the classical opioid type, and that atypical withdrawal may also occur.