Emergency department utilization and subsequent prescription drug overdose death

Overdose and take-home naloxone in emergency settings: A pilot study examining feasibility of delivering brief interventions addressing overdose prevention with 'take-home naloxone' in emergency departments

OBJECTIVE

Although most unintentional opioid deaths in Australia are attributed to pharmaceutical opioids, take-home naloxone (THN) programmes have to date predominantly targeted people using illicit opioids in drug treatment and harm reduction settings. We sought to examine the feasibility of delivering THN brief interventions (THN-BIs) with intranasal naloxone in EDs.

METHODS

This pilot feasibility study was conducted across three major metropolitan EDs in Sydney and Melbourne. ED staff were surveyed about their perspectives regarding THN before completing a 30-min training programme in THN-BI delivery. Patients presenting with opioid overdose or considered high risk for future overdose were eligible to receive the THN-BI. Staff survey responses were compared between hospitals and provider types using one-way analysis of variances. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were extracted from medical records and compared between hospitals and overdose type using Fisher's exact test and one-way analysis of variances.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-two ED staff completed the survey. One hundred and ten (90.2%) agreed that EDs should provide THN-BIs, whereas 23 (19.2%) identified time constraints and 17 (12.9%) felt uncomfortable discussing overdose with patients. Fifty-seven patients received the THN-BI, with the majority (n = 50, 87.7%) having presented following opioid overdose. The median age was 44 years and 40 (71.4%) were men. Two-thirds of the overdoses (n = 31, 66.0%) were attributed to heroin with one-third (n = 16, 34%) being attributed to pharmaceutical opioids.

CONCLUSIONS

ED-based delivery of THN-BIs can reach a wide range of individuals at-risk of overdose. The present study supports the feasibility of THN interventions in EDs and underscores the importance of addressing implementation barriers including staff training.

CAEP Position Statement: Emergency department management of people with opioid use disorder

Deaths due to opioid overdose have reached unprecedented levels in Canada; over 12,800 opioid-related deaths occurred between January 2016 and March 2019, and overdose death rates increased by approximately 50% from 2016 to 2018.1 In 2016, Health Canada declared the opioid epidemic a national public health crisis,2 and life expectancy increases have halted in Canada for the first time in decades.3 Children are not exempt from this crisis, and the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada has recently prioritized the prevention of problematic substance use among Canadian youth.4.

A qualitative study of emergency department patients who survived an opioid overdose: Perspectives on treatment and unmet needs

OBJECTIVE

Emergency medicine clinicians are uniquely positioned to deliver interventions to enhance linkage to evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) in the acute overdose period, yet little is known about patient perspectives to effectively engage patients immediately following opioid overdose. Our objective was to explore patients' perspectives on substance use treatment, perceived needs, and contextual factors that shape the choice of patients seen in the emergency department (ED) to engage with treatment and other patient support services in the acute post-opioid overdose period.

METHODS

We administered a brief quantitative survey and conducted semistructured interviews with 24 adult ED patients receiving care after an acute opioid overdose between June 2016 and August 2017 in an urban, academic ED. We used constant comparison method and thematic analysis to identify themes across four levels of a modified social ecologic model (individual, interpersonal, organizational, and structural).

RESULTS

The mean (±SD) age of the sample was 33.5 (±9.33) years; 83% were White and 12% were Black; 67% were male; and 83% were diagnosed with OUD, with a mean (±SD) of 3.25 (±2.64) self-reported lifetime opioid overdoses. Eight themes were identified as influencing participants' consideration of OUD treatment and other services: (1) perceptions about control of drug use, (2) personal experience with substance use treatment, (3) role of interpersonal relationships, (4) provider communication skills, (5) stigma, (6) availability of ED resources, (7) impact of treatment policies, and (8) support for unmet basic needs.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving ED care following overdose in our ED are willing to discuss their opioid use and its treatment in the ED and report a variety of unmet needs. This work supports a role for ED-based research evaluating a patient-oriented approach to engage patients after opioid overdose.

Surviving traumatic injury, only to die of acute drug poisoning: Should trauma centers be a path for intervention?

BACKGROUND

Although death from drug overdose is a leading cause of injury-related death in the United States, its incidence after traumatic incident is unknown. Moreover, little is known about related risk factors. We sought to determine the incidence and characteristics of and risk factors for trauma patients suffering death by acute drug poisoning ("overdose") after hospitalization for a traumatic incident.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of all admitted trauma patients ≥18 y of age at the only level-1 trauma center in our region from 2012 to 2019, matched with unintentional overdose decedents from the California death registry. We assessed associations between demographic and clinical characteristics with risk of overdose death, using cumulative incidence functions and Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models.

RESULTS

Of 9,860 patients residing in San Francisco, CA, USA, at the time of their trauma activation or admission during the study period, 1,418 died (4.3 per 100 person-years), 107 from unintentional overdose (0.3 per 100 person-years). Overdose decedents were 84% male, 50% white, with a mean age of 48 years at the time of presentation; 20% of deaths occurred within 3 months of hospitalization, and 40% were attributed to a prescription opioid. In multivariate analysis, younger age, male sex, white race, and having undergone a urine drug screening were all associated with subsequent death from overdose.

CONCLUSION

During a mean 3.4-year follow-up, the mortality rate from overdose among adult patients with traumatic incidents was 0.3/100 person-years. Trauma hospitalization may serve as an opportunity to screen and initiate prevention, harm reduction, and treatment interventions.

Naloxone provision to emergency department patients recognized as high-risk for opioid use disorder

INTRODUCTION

Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) are at increased risk for overdose and death. Clinical practice guidelines and professional organization policy statements recommend providing naloxone to patients at risk for overdose. We sought to characterize fidelity to naloxone practice recommendations in a cohort of Emergency Department (ED) patients in whom opioid use disorder was suspected by the treating physician.

METHODS

This single-center cross-sectional study evaluated electronic health records from an urban academic ED with 73,000 annual encounters in a region with a high prevalence of OUD. Patients ≥18 years old with encounters from January 1, 2018 to November 30, 2019 were included if discharged from the ED and either administered buprenorphine in the ED or referred to outpatient substance use treatment. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of included patients provided naloxone (take-home or prescription). We used random effects multivariable logistic regression (accounting for multiple patient encounters) to estimate the odds ratio (OR) for receiving naloxone.

RESULTS

Of 1036 eligible patient encounters, 320 resulted in naloxone provision (30.9%, 95% CI: 28.1-33.8). Naloxone provision occurred for 33.6% (95% CI 30.5-36.7) of 900 patients referred to outpatient substance use treatment without ED buprenorphine administration, 10.6% (95% CI 5.0-19.2) of 85 patients administered buprenorphine and not referred to outpatient substance use treatment, and 17.6% (95% CI 8.4-30.9) of 51 patients administered buprenorphine and referred to outpatient treatment. After controlling for age, sex, race, and prior provision of naloxone, the administration of buprenorphine was associated with a 94% lower odds (aOR = 0.06 [95% CI 0.011-0.33]) for naloxone provision compared to those only referred to outpatient treatment.

CONCLUSION

A majority of ED patients who received an intervention targeted at OUD, in an ED where take-home naloxone is freely available, did not receive either take-home naloxone or a prescription for naloxone at discharge. Patients receiving buprenorphine were less likely to receive naloxone than patients only referred to outpatient treatment. These data suggest barriers other than recognition of potential OUD and naloxone availability impact provision of naloxone and argue for a treatment "bundle" as a conceptual model for care of ED patients with suspected OUD.

Patient acceptance of naloxone resulting from targeted intervention from community pharmacists to prevent opioid misuse and accidental overdose

Background: Community pharmacists are in a unique position to prevent opioid-related deaths through the provision of naloxone. However, for those identified as candidates for take-home naloxone, the acceptance rate remains low. Value would be gained from knowing what patient demographics and pharmacist actions are associated with increased patient acceptance of naloxone. Methods: Through a state-wide program, community pharmacists screened all patients receiving an opioid prescription for risk of opioid misuse and/or accidental overdose. Pharmacists prescribed and/or dispensed take-home naloxone to patients at elevated risk. Naloxone acceptance rates were stratified based on risk factors for misuse and overdose to determine which patients are most likely to accept naloxone. Patient acceptance of naloxone and risks were captured electronically. Results: Pharmacist-initiated naloxone recommendations based on risk screening resulted in a 5.81% take-home naloxone acceptance rate. Individuals that were taking multiple opioid medications were most likely to accept the naloxone (20.45%). Concurrent disease states or medications (COPD, concurrent anxiety/depression medication, concurrent sleep aid) were associated with a statistically significant increase in the rate of naloxone acceptance. Acceptance of take-home naloxone increased as a patient risk for opioid misuse and/or accidental overdose increased. Conclusion: Patient acceptance of naloxone at the community pharmacy level was notably higher compared to national naloxone dispensing rates when pharmacists implemented a patient screening and systematic risk-based approach to identify candidates in need of take-home naloxone.

Mortality Following Nonfatal Opioid and Sedative/Hypnotic Drug Overdose

INTRODUCTION

Opioid and sedative/hypnotic drug overdoses are major causes of morbidity in the U.S. This study compares 12-month incidence of fatal unintentional drug overdose, suicide, and other mortality among emergency department patients presenting with nonfatal opioid or sedative/hypnotic overdose.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study using statewide, longitudinally linked emergency department patient record and mortality data from California. Participants comprised all residents presenting to a licensed emergency department at least once in 2009-2011 with nonfatal unintentional opioid overdose, sedative/hypnotic overdose, or neither (a 5% random sample). Participants were followed for 1 year after index emergency department presentation to assess death from unintentional overdose, suicide, or other causes, ascertained using ICD-10 codes. Absolute death rates per 100,000 person years and standardized mortality ratios relative to the general population were calculated. Data were analyzed February-August 2019.

RESULTS

Following the index emergency department visit, unintentional overdose death rates per 100,000 person years were 1,863 following opioid overdose, 342 following sedative/hypnotic overdose, and 31 for reference patients without an index overdose (respective standardized mortality ratios of 106.1, 95% CI=95.2, 116.9; 24.5, 95% CI=21.3, 27.6; and 2.6, 95% CI=2.2, 3.0). Suicide mortality rates per 100,000 were 319, 174, and 32 following opioid overdose, sedative/hypnotic overdose, and reference visits, respectively. Natural causes mortality rates per 100,000 were 8,058 (opioid overdose patients), 17,301 (sedative/hypnotic overdose patients), and 3,097 (reference patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency department patients with nonfatal opioid or sedative/hypnotic drug overdose have exceptionally high risks of death from unintentional overdose, suicide, and other causes. Emergency department-based interventions offer potential for reducing these patients' overdose and other mortality risks.

Predictors of Overdose Death Among High-Risk Emergency Department Patients With Substance-Related Encounters: A Data Linkage Cohort Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Persons with substance use disorders frequently utilize emergency department (ED) services, creating an opportunity for intervention and referral to addiction treatment and harm-reduction services. However, EDs may not have the appropriate tools to distinguish which patients are at greatest risk for negative outcomes. We link hospital ED and medical examiner mortality databases in one state to identify individual-level risk factors associated with overdose death among ED patients with substance-related encounters.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study linked Maryland statewide ED hospital claims records for adults with nonfatal overdose or substance use disorder encounters in 2014 to 2015 with medical examiner mortality records in 2015 to 2016. Logistic regression was used to identify factors in hospital records associated with risk of opioid overdose death. Predicted probabilities for overdose death were calculated for hypothetical patients with different combinations of overdose and substance use diagnostic histories.

RESULTS

A total of 139,252 patients had substance-related ED encounters in 2014 to 2015. Of these patients, 963 later experienced an opioid overdose death, indicating a case fatality rate of 69.2 per 10,000 patients, 6 times higher than that of patients who used the ED for any cause. Factors most strongly associated with death included having both an opioid and another substance use disorder (adjusted odds ratio 2.88; 95% confidence interval 2.04 to 4.07), having greater than or equal to 3 previous nonfatal overdoses (adjusted odds ratio 2.89; 95% confidence interval 1.54 to 5.43), and having a previous nonfatal overdose involving heroin (adjusted odds ratio 2.24; 95% confidence interval 1.64 to 3.05).

CONCLUSION

These results highlight important differences in overdose risk among patients receiving care in EDs for substance-related conditions. The findings demonstrate the potential utility of incorporating routine data from patient records to assess risk of future negative outcomes and identify primary targets for initiation and linkage to lifesaving care.

Randomised clinical trial of an emergency department-based peer recovery support intervention to increase treatment uptake and reduce recurrent overdose among individuals at high risk for opioid overdose: study protocol for the navigator trial

INTRODUCTION

Effective approaches to increase engagement in treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) and reduce the risk of recurrent overdose and death following emergency department (ED) presentation for opioid overdose remain unknown. As such, we aim to compare the effectiveness of behavioural interventions delivered in the ED by certified peer recovery support specialists relative to those delivered by licensed clinical social workers (LCSWs) in promoting OUD treatment uptake and reducing recurrent ED visits for opioid overdose.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Adult ED patients who are at high risk for opioid overdose (ie, are being treated for an opioid overdose or identified by the treating physician as having OUD) (n=650) will be recruited from two EDs in a single healthcare system in Providence, Rhode Island into a two-arm randomised trial with 18 months of follow-up postrandomisation. Eligible participants will be randomly assigned (1:1) in the ED to receive a behavioural intervention from a certified peer recovery support specialist or a behavioural intervention from an LCSW. The primary outcomes are engagement in formal OUD treatment within 30 days of the initial ED visit and recurrent ED visits for opioid overdose within 18 months of the initial ED visit, as measured through statewide administrative records.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol was approved by the Rhode Island Hospital institutional review board (Approval Number: 212418). Data will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03684681.

Touchpoints - Opportunities to predict and prevent opioid overdose: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Medical care, public health, and criminal justice systems encounters could serve as touchpoints to identify and intervene with individuals at high-risk of opioid overdose death. The relative risk of opioid overdose death and proportion of deaths that could be averted at such touchpoints are unknown.

METHODS

We used 8 individually linked data sets from Massachusetts government agencies to perform a retrospective cohort study of Massachusetts residents ages 11 and older. For each month in 2014, we identified past 12-month exposure to 4 opioid prescription touchpoints (high dosage, benzodiazepine co-prescribing, multiple prescribers, or multiple pharmacies) and 4 critical encounter touchpoints (opioid detoxification, nonfatal opioid overdose, injection-related infection, and release from incarceration). The outcome was opioid overdose death. We calculated Standardized Mortality Ratios (SMRs) and Population Attributable Fractions (PAFs) associated with touchpoint exposure.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 6,717,390 person-years of follow-up with 1315 opioid overdose deaths. We identified past 12-month exposure to any touchpoint in 2.7% of person-months and for 51.8% of opioid overdose deaths. Opioid overdose SMRs were 12.6 (95% CI: 11.1, 14.1) for opioid prescription and 68.4 (95% CI: 62.4, 74.5) for critical encounter touchpoints. Fatal opioid overdose PAFs were 0.19 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.21) for opioid prescription and 0.37 (95% CI: 0.34, 0.39) for critical encounter touchpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

Using public health data, we found eight candidate touchpoints were associated with increased risk of fatal opioid overdose, and collectively identified more than half of opioid overdose decedents. These touchpoints are potential targets for development of overdose prevention interventions.

Patient characteristics associated with being offered take home naloxone in a busy, urban emergency department: a retrospective chart review

BACKGROUND

Overdose deaths can be prevented by distributing take home naloxone (THN) kits. The emergency department (ED) is an opportune setting for overdose prevention, as people who use opioids frequently present for emergency care, and those who have overdosed are at high risk for future overdose death. We evaluated the implementation of an ED-based THN program by measuring the extent to which THN was offered to patients presenting with opioid overdose. We analyzed whether some patients were less likely to be offered THN than others, to identify areas for program improvement.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed medical records from all ED visits between April 2016 and May 2017 with a primary diagnosis of opioid overdose at a large, urban tertiary hospital located in Alberta, Canada. A wide array of patient data was collected, including demographics, opioid intoxicants, prescription history, overdose severity, and whether a naloxone kit was offered and accepted. Multivariable analyses were used to identify patient characteristics and situational variables associated with being offered THN.

RESULTS

Among the 342 ED visits for opioid overdose, THN was offered in 49% (n = 168) of cases. Patients were more likely to be offered THN if they had been found unconscious (Adjusted Odds Ratio 3.70; 95% Confidence Interval [1.63, 8.37]), or if they had smoked or injected an illegal opioid (AOR 6.05 [2.15,17.0] and AOR 3.78 [1.32,10.9], respectively). In contrast, patients were less likely to be offered THN if they had a current prescription for opioids (AOR 0.41 [0.19, 0.88]), if they were admitted to the hospital (AOR 0.46 [0.22,0.97], or if they unexpectedly left the ED without treatment or before completing treatment (AOR 0.16 [0.22, 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world evaluation of an ED-based THN program, we observed that only half of patients with opioid overdose were offered THN. ED staff readily identify patients who use illegal opioids or experience a severe overdose as potentially benefitting from THN, but may miss others at high risk for future overdose. We recommend that hospital EDs provide additional guidance to staff to ensure that all eligible patients at risk of overdose have access to THN.

Frequent emergency department use and mortality in patients with substance and opioid use in Alberta: A population-based retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

In the current opioid epidemic, identifying high-risk patients among those with substance and opioid use may prevent deaths. The objective of this study was to determine whether frequent emergency department (ED) use and degree of frequent use are associated with mortality among ED patients with substance and opioid use.

METHODS

This cohort study used linked population-based ED (National Ambulatory Care Reporting System) and mortality data from Alberta. All adults ≥ 18 years with substance or opioid use-related visits based on diagnostic codes from April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2013, were included (n = 16,389). Frequent use was defined by ≥ 5 visits in the previous year. Outcomes were unadjusted and adjusted (for age, sex, income) mortality within 90 days (primary), and 30 days, 365 days, and 2 years (secondary). To examine degree, frequent use was subcategorized into 5-10, 11-15, 16-20, and > 20 visits.

RESULTS

Frequent users were older, lower income, and made lower acuity visits than non-frequent users. Frequent users with substance use had higher mortality at 365 days (hazard ratio [HR] 1.36 [1.04, 1.77]) and 2 years (HR 1.32 [1.04, 1.67]), but not at 90 or 30 days. Mortality did not differ for frequent users with opioid use overall. By degree, patients with substance use and > 20 visits/year and with opioid use and 16-20 visits/year demonstrated a higher 365-day and 2-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with substance use, frequent ED use and extremely frequent use (> 20 visits/year) were associated with long-term but not short-term mortality. These findings suggest a role for targeted screening and preventive intervention.

Prescription-, Illicit-, and Self-Harm Opioid Overdose Cases Treated in Hospital

OBJECTIVE

Research suggests unintentional overdose on prescription drugs and intentional self-harm cases differ fundamentally from unintentional illicit drug overdoses, but there are few data on opioid overdose per se.

METHOD

We analyzed consecutive opioid overdose patients age 13 and over (N = 435) treated by a toxicology consult service to compare three poisoning groups: unintentional illicit drug (illicit, n = 128), unintentional prescription drug (prescription, n = 217), and intentional self-harm (self-harm, n = 90). The groups were compared on key characteristics of the poisoning events (severity, co-ingestion of non-opioid) and the hospital-based treatments required to manage the poisonings (use of antidote, provision of pharmacological support). Logistic regressions yielded incident rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) adjusted for age and sex.

RESULTS

Compared to the illicit group, the prescription group was more likely to co-ingest a non-opioid drug (IRR [95% CI] = 1.594 [1.077, 2.358], p = .020. Compared to illicit cases, self-harm cases were more likely to co-ingest a non-opioid drug (IRR = 3.181 [1.620, 6.245], p = .001) and had a lower poisoning severity score (IRR = 0.750 [0.564, 0.997], p = .048). There were no statistically significant differences between the self-harm and prescription groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The similarities between the self-harm and prescription poisoning groups suggest that they may benefit from common interventions including appropriate restriction on prescription of opioids and other medications that may be misused (e.g., sedative-hypnotic/muscle relaxants). The characteristics of the illicit poisoning group (use of heroin; more severe overdose events) suggest the need for initiation of intensive substance use treatment interventions during hospitalization.

Prescription-, Illicit-, and Self-Harm Opioid Overdose Cases Treated in Hospital

OBJECTIVE

Research suggests unintentional overdose on prescription drugs and intentional self-harm cases differ fundamentally from unintentional illicit drug overdoses, but there are few data on opioid overdose per se.

METHOD

We analyzed consecutive opioid overdose patients age 13 and over (N = 435) treated by a toxicology consult service to compare three poisoning groups: unintentional illicit drug (illicit, n = 128), unintentional prescription drug (prescription, n = 217), and intentional self-harm (self-harm, n = 90). The groups were compared on key characteristics of the poisoning events (severity, co-ingestion of non-opioid) and the hospital-based treatments required to manage the poisonings (use of antidote, provision of pharmacological support). Logistic regressions yielded incident rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) adjusted for age and sex.

RESULTS

Compared to the illicit group, the prescription group was more likely to co-ingest a non-opioid drug (IRR [95% CI] = 1.594 [1.077, 2.358], p = .020. Compared to illicit cases, self-harm cases were more likely to co-ingest a non-opioid drug (IRR = 3.181 [1.620, 6.245], p = .001) and had a lower poisoning severity score (IRR = 0.750 [0.564, 0.997], p = .048). There were no statistically significant differences between the self-harm and prescription groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The similarities between the self-harm and prescription poisoning groups suggest that they may benefit from common interventions including appropriate restriction on prescription of opioids and other medications that may be misused (e.g., sedative-hypnotic/muscle relaxants). The characteristics of the illicit poisoning group (use of heroin; more severe overdose events) suggest the need for initiation of intensive substance use treatment interventions during hospitalization.

Screening emergency department patients for opioid drug use: A qualitative systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The opioid drug epidemic is a major public health concern and an economic burden in the United States. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the reliability and validity of screening instruments used in emergency medicine settings to detect opioid use in patients and to assess psychometric data for each screening instrument.

METHODS

PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for articles published up to May 2018. The extracted articles were independently screened for eligibility by two reviewers. We extracted 1555 articles for initial screening and 95 articles were assessed for full-text eligibility. Six articles were extracted from the full-text assessment.

RESULTS

Six instruments were identified from the final article list: Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain - Revised; Drug Abuse Screening Test; Opioid Risk Tool; Current Opioid Misuse Measure; an Emergency Medicine Providers Clinician Assessment Questionnaire; and an Emergency Provider Impression Data Collection Form. Screening instrument characteristics, and reliability and validity data were extracted from the six studies. A meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity between the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of validity and reliability evidence in all six articles; and sensitivity, specificity and predictive values varied between the different instruments. These instruments cannot be validated for use in emergency medicine settings. There is no clear evidence to state which screening instruments are appropriate for use in detecting opioid use disorders in emergency medicine patients. There is a need for brief, reliable, valid and feasible opioid use screening instruments in the emergency medicine setting.

Yes, not now, or never: an analysis of reasons for refusing or accepting emergency department-based take-home naloxone

OBJECTIVE

Take-home naloxone (THN) reduces deaths from opioid overdose. To increase THN distribution to at-risk emergency department (ED) patients, we explored reasons for patients' refusing or accepting THN.

METHODS

In an urban teaching hospital ED, we identified high opioid overdose risk patients according to pre-specified criteria. We offered eligible patients THN and participation in researcher-administered surveys, which inquired about reasons to refuse or accept THN and about THN dispensing location preferences. We analyzed refusal and acceptance reasons in open-ended responses, grouped reasons into categories (absolute versus conditional refusals,) then searched for associations between patient characteristics and reasons.

RESULTS

Of 247 patients offered THN, 193 (78.1%) provided reasons for their decision. Of those included, 69 (35.2%) were female, 91 (47.2%) were under age 40, 61 (31.6%) were homeless, 144 (74.6%) reported injection drug use (IDU), and 131 (67.9%) accepted THN. Of 62 patients refusing THN, 19 (30.7%) felt "not at risk" for overdose, while 28 (45.2%) gave conditional refusal reasons: "too sick," "in a rush," or preference to get THN elsewhere. Non-IDU was associated with stating "not at risk," while IDU, homelessness, and age under 40 were associated with conditional refusals. Among acceptances, 86 (65.7%) mentioned saving others as a reason. Most respondents preferred other dispensing locations beside the ED, whether or not they accepted ED THN.

CONCLUSION

ED patients refusing THN felt "not at risk" for overdose or felt their ED visit was not the right time or place for THN. Most accepting THN wanted to save others.

Prescribing naloxone for opioid overdose intervention

To provide an update on prescription of naloxone as a harm-reduction strategy, PubMed was searched to identify publications relevant to naloxone prescribing for reversal of opioid overdose. Opportunities now exist to expand naloxone use, although evidence suggests these are often missed or underexploited. The US FDA has approved an intranasal naloxone spray and an autoinjector naloxone formulation for community use. Effective use of naloxone in community settings requires screening to identify patients at risk of opioid overdose, discussing naloxone use with patients and their relatives, and providing appropriate training. The tools exist to expand the use of naloxone more widely into the community, thereby creating an opportunity to reduce opioid overdose fatalities.

Rate of patients at elevated risk of opioid overdose visiting the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

To determine the rate of patients visiting the emergency department who are at risk of opioid overdose.

METHODS

The electronic records of a 412 bed tertiary care county teaching hospital were searched for emergency department (ED) visits from January 1, 2013 to October 31, 2016 to find patients on at least 100mg morphine equivalents (MME) of oral opioid therapy, or an opioid in combination with a benzodiazepine. Records were also searched for patients with a positive urinalysis for opioids when no opioid was present on their home medication list. Medication reconciliations were searched for patients at risk of opioid overdose who were subsequently discharged on naloxone.

RESULTS

An analysis of 2521 patients visiting the ED was performed, and the overall rate of risk of opioid overdose increased from 25.84% to 47.41% (p<0.0001) in patients meeting inclusion criteria from 2013 to 2016. For patients on opioids, the rate of patients on 100 MME daily or greater increased from 9.72% to 28.24% (p<0.0001) from 2013 to 2016. The rate of patients on opioid therapy in combination with benzodiazepine therapy did not change significantly from 2013 to 2016. When comparing patients at risk of opioid overdose to total emergency department visits, we found the rate of at risk patients increased significantly from 0.12% to 0.56% (p<0.0001) from 2013 to 2016.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of patients visiting the emergency department at risk of opioid overdose increased significantly from 2013 to 2016. Naloxone was not routinely prescribed to this patient cohort.

Risk markers for fatal and non-fatal prescription drug overdose: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Drug overdose is a public health crisis in the United States, due in part to the unintended consequences of increases in prescribing of opioid analgesics. Many clinicians evaluate risk markers for opioid-related harms when prescribing opioids for chronic pain; however, more data on predictive risk markers are needed. Risk markers are attributes (modifiable and non-modifiable) that are associated with increased probability of an outcome. This review aims to identify risk markers associated with fatal and non-fatal prescription drug overdose by synthesizing findings in the existing peer-reviewed and grey literature. Eligible cohort, case-control, cross-sectional, and case-cohort studies were reviewed and data were extracted for qualitative and quantitative synthesis.

FINDINGS

Summary odds ratios (SOR) were estimated from 29 studies for six risk markers: sex, age, race, psychiatric disorders, substance use disorder (SUD), and urban/rural residence. Heterogeneity was assessed and effect estimates were stratified by study characteristics. Of the six risk markers identified, SUD had the strongest association with drug overdose death (SOR = 5.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.53 - 7.76), followed by psychiatric disorders (SOR = 3.94, 95% CI = 3.09 - 5.01), white race (SOR = 2.28, 95% CI = 1.93 - 2.70), the 35-44 year age group relative to the 25-34 year reference group (SOR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.31 - 1.76), and male sex (SOR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.17 - 1.51).

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights fatal and non-fatal prescription drug risk markers most frequently assessed in peer-reviewed and grey literature. There is a need to better understand modifiable risk markers and underlying reasons for drug misuse in order to inform interventions that may prevent future drug overdoses.

Something for pain: Responsible opioid use in emergency medicine

The United States is currently experiencing a public health crisis of opioid addiction, which has its genesis in an industry marketing effort that successfully encouraged clinicians to prescribe opioids liberally, and asserted the safety of prescribing opioids for chronic non-cancer pain, despite a preponderance of evidence demonstrating the risks of dependence and misuse. The resulting rise in opioid use has pushed drug overdose deaths in front of motor vehicle collisions to become the leading cause of accidental death in the country. Emergency providers frequently treat patients for complications of opioid abuse, and also manage patients with acute and chronic pain, for which opioids are routinely prescribed. Emergency providers are therefore well positioned to both prevent new cases of opioid misuse and initiate appropriate treatment of existing opioid addicts. In opioid-naive patients, this is accomplished by a careful consideration of the likelihood of benefit and harm of an opioid prescription for acute pain. If opioids are prescribed, the chance of harm is reduced by matching the number of pills prescribed to the expected duration of pain and selecting an opioid preparation with low abuse liability. Patients who present to acute care with exacerbations of chronic pain or painful conditions associated with opioid misuse are best managed by treating symptoms with opioid alternatives and encouraging treatment for opioid addiction.