Do binders/fillers in generic hydro affect bioavailability in CWE?

Following Watson's merger with Activis, my pharmacy began dispensing a Watson 3203 white oval pill for prescriptions written for 7.5 hydrocodone/3.25 APAP. Approximately 18 hours after my first dose, I began having withdrawals (chills, jerking limbs and torso,, rapid heartbeat, etc.). Additionally, there has never been any decline in the amount of pain from that first dose on. After doing some research and discovering other people having complaints and subsequent theories about the pill, my best guess is that Watson is using cheaper binders and fillers now that have drastically altered the bioavailability for some of us (in addition to maybe taking full advantage of the FDA's 20% loophole). Does anyone know if the CWE process will resolve this issue? I've read that at least some of the binders/fillers make it through the filter, but was wondering if they would still have the same detrimental effect?

I don't really think binders and fillers are the issue.If Watson has merged with another company they may be using a cheaper,inferior quality hydro.I don't know if you have any benzo experience but the quality of generic diazapam varies widely from brand to brand.Walgreens,for example,stocks a green 10mg diazapam that wears off in about 20 mins.That could be the case with your hydros.Pharmaceutical companies have been known to cheat.Secondly,I don't know what your habit/tolerance is like but I've never known hydrocodone to last anywhere near 18 hours,no matter how big the dose.It's just not that strong of a pain-killer.As far as it not helping with your pain,I too have chronic pain issues and I'm currently prescribed Norco.It doesn't touch my pain.When you need round-the-clock pain relief and you take an opiate every day you quickly build a tolerance and before you know it you need something stronger.It's a viscious cycle I know all too well.You may want to consider a different pharmacy that dispenses a different generic.If you call and ask they will tell you what they stock.
As far as CWE goes,it seems you would be bound to at least lose some of the hydro during filtration.

Thank you very much, downerhead. I will definitely be following your advice and suggestions.
Also, I didn't phrase the 18- hour comment right: what I meant to convey was that when I'd taken the first dose of the new medication, it not only didn't relieve the pain, but 18 hours (and an additional dose) later, I began to experience withdrawals.
Again, thank you for your helpful words. I sincerely appreciate it.

welcome to bluelight.

moving your post now.

homeless -> other drugs

^^^ This thread should have been terminated.

No filler changes the water solubilities if H+APAP in cold water.

And there isn't an 80% "loophole";, you misunderstand how bioequivalence works. You couldn't possibly manipulate a formulation to consistently average, LESS THAN 20% under the name brand.

well unless profit simply isn't a goal... ?

Even the same formulation of a drug like hydrocodone will vary in it's absorption by upwards of 100%, you'd have to be Dr Robotnik to somehow "take advantage" of statistical randomness.

CWE done right should work fine; if you're truly convinced there is a problem, then have the watsons tested at a lab.

But alas, every opioiphile in the US takes Watson, so it must be a conspiracy against you

Lorne??? - I seem to have offended you with my post, and I apologize for that, and I'd like to clarify what I meant. First of all, I was merely presenting some opinions on the subject that I'd encountered elsewhere upon searching for an explanation for what I was experiencing, in hopes that someone knowledgable could help me. Downerhead kindly did exactly that - weeding out the wrong assumption, offering a more plausible explanation, and providing helpful suggestions based on first-hand experience.
Secondly, I did not claim there was an 80% loophole; I said 20%, pertaining to the FDA's allowance for that degree of variance in generic medications.
Thirdly, I do understand bioavailability reasonably well, as I've had type 1 diabetes for years and have needed to apply the concept frequently to the area of nutrition. What I didn't understand was the role binders/fillers would play in the matter. So I asked for help.
Finally, the issue of Watson. As I stated in my original post, Watson merged with a company called Activis. The latter - based on a few accounts I've read elsewhere - produces less-effective hydro products. Now that pharmacies that carry Watson are starting to replenish their stock with the new, post-merger product, complaints about quality are starting to pop up. I've been completely satisfied taking Watson for the last five years and understand its popularity; however, it's becoming apparent something has changed. Hopefully, it will only be temporary once their reputation begins to suffer.

^^^ I know exactly what you meant

But you still misunderstand what "bioequivalence" means. They are not allowed to short you 20% of a drug(in this, 1.5mg hydro), it is just the range if variance allowed in studies.

And I'm not offended, but there are no helpful suggestions to be given, as there is no evidence to indicate anything is wrong with this brand. In the contrary, Watson is literally the most common brand, and no one complains. In any case, hydro is glfully water soluble; at worst the filler could delay Tmax; it won't lower Cmax.

Finally, brand discussion isn't really allowed, though I'm all for specific extraction techniques

Geeze,dude must work for Watson.