The danger of addiction, which is very significant, with opioids doesn’t go away with this modified design.

Unless you’re being sarcastic and referencing the lies the Sackler family used to get OxyContin popular..

That being said it is indeed quite cool that they modified the drug to decrease the respiratory depression.

>each of which ended up making a stronger, more dangerous opioid

This is true of some early opioids like heroin, but with e.g. Oxycontin the problem wasn’t a stronger opioid, it's how it ended up being prescribed.

Purdue's marketing led doctors to prescribe it to more people, in higher doses, and for longer. Oxycontin isn't inherently more dangerous than the dose of immediate release oxycodone or morphine that would have an equivalent effect.

Innovation in opioids shouldn't just be written off. They're still the best (and sometimes the only effective) treatment for a huge number of people, and some new opioids like buprenorphine/combos like Suboxone have real advantages.

The lesson from Oxycontin is more about deceptive marketing and prescribing practices.

Adjacent medicines have seen major improvements: eg Ketamine was a significant improvement from PCP (notably, less psychosis and safe enough to use off the battlefield / with children)

“Removing the worst and most fatal danger” is a laudable goal with Fentanyl given the absurd rate of ODs

No, same. Reading the headline, I immediately thought "Aw shit, here we go again".

It's like that xkcd comic about unifying standards, now we have n+1 addictive opioids.