> the naltrexone does nothing compared to how strongly bupe itself binds to your receptors.
What? First of all, it's naloxone rather than naltrexone that is found in suboxone. Subutex doesn't have either of them. And secondly, it's very, VERY well known that naloxone/naltrexone have far more binding affinity to the mu-opioid receptor (the type that we think causes euphoria/analgesia) compared to any sort of opioid we have on the market (maybe not sufentanyl, but even that I'm fairly certain is weaker affinity). That's exactly why we can use Narcan effectively to combat opioid overdose.
I always get them mixed up, but it really isn't changing my point. And yes, no kidding, you brought up Suboxone as well as Subutex which is why I'm discussing it! I'd really prefer if you read my comments with a little more charity. Anyway, it doesn't appear as if you're listening to my point here, and that's okay :) Have a good day
Subutex is for patients that are not clinically stable, so they get daily doses from their treatment center and are watched as they take the medicine. You could argue that the providers should watch them until they have dissolved it, and thus this patent is over-engineering a solution, but that's not what you argued.
Suboxone is for patients that are clinically stable, compliant, and/or are unable to make frequent visits to their treatment center, so they are able to take-home their medication and take it as prescribed. These are patients that you as the healthcare provider are relatively certain wouldn't abuse it.
And yes, while buprenorphine isn't as abusable as most other medications, and is far more forgiving than methadone, it's not perfect, and there is still some liability for abuse, especially with subutex. So while I agree that this patent makes very little difference (again, check my longer comment), it's not all that bad of an idea, hence why Purdue likely patented it.