Incidence of Naloxone Redosing in the Age of the New Opioid Epidemic

Examining the association of rurality with opioid-related morbidity and mortality in Georgia: A geospatial analysis

INTRODUCTION

The US opioid epidemic continues to escalate, with overdose deaths being the most-used metric to quantify its burden. There is significant geographic variation in opioid-related outcomes. Rural areas experience unique challenges, yet many studies oversimplify rurality characterizations. Contextual factors, such as area deprivation, are also important to consider when understanding a community's need for treatment services and prevention programming. This study aims to provide a geospatial snapshot of the opioid epidemic in Georgia using several metrics of opioid-related morbidity and mortality and explore differences by rurality across counties.

METHODS

This was a spatial ecologic study. Negative binominal regression was used to model the relationship of county rurality with four opioid-related outcomes - overdose mortality, emergency department visits, inpatient hospitalizations, and overdose reversals - adjusting for county-level sex, racial/ethnic, and age distributions. Area Deprivation Index was also included.

RESULTS

There was significant geographic variation across the state for all four opioid-related outcomes. Counts remained highest among the metro areas. For rates, counties in the top quartile of rates varied by outcome and were often rural areas. In the final models, rurality designation was largely unrelated to opioid outcomes, with the exception of medium metro areas (inversely related to hospitalizations and overdose reversals) and non-core areas (inversely related to hospitalizations), as compared to large central metro areas. Higher deprivation was significantly related to increased ED visits and hospitalizations, but not overdose mortality and reversals.

CONCLUSIONS

When quantifying the burden of the opioid epidemic in a community, it is essential to consider multiple outcomes of morbidity and mortality. Understanding what outcomes are problematic for specific communities, in combination with their demographic and socioeconomic context, can provide insight into gaps in the treatment continuum and potential areas for intervention. Additionally, compared to demographic and socioeconomic factors, rurality may no longer be a salient predictor of the severity of the opioid epidemic in an area.

High-dose naloxone formulations are not as essential as we thought

Naloxone is an effective FDA-approved opioid antagonist for reversing opioid overdoses. Naloxone is available to the public and can be administered through intramuscular (IM), intravenous (IV), and intranasal spray (IN) routes. Our literature review investigates the adequacy of two doses of standard IM or IN naloxone in reversing fentanyl overdoses compared to newer high-dose naloxone formulations. Moreover, our initiative incorporates the experiences of people who use drugs, enabling a more practical and contextually-grounded analysis. The evidence indicates that the vast majority of fentanyl overdoses can be successfully reversed using two standard IM or IN dosages. Exceptions include cases of carfentanil overdose, which necessitates ≥ 3 doses for reversal. Multiple studies documented the risk of precipitated withdrawal using ≥ 2 doses of naloxone, notably including the possibility of recurring overdose symptoms after resuscitation, contingent upon the half-life of the specific opioid involved. We recommend distributing multiple doses of standard IM or IN naloxone to bystanders and educating individuals on the adequacy of two doses in reversing fentanyl overdoses. Individuals should continue administration until the recipient is revived, ensuring appropriate intervals between each dose along with rescue breaths, and calling emergency medical services if the individual is unresponsive after two doses. We do not recommend high-dose naloxone formulations as a substitute for four doses of IM or IN naloxone due to the higher cost, risk of precipitated withdrawal, and limited evidence compared to standard doses. Future research must take into consideration lived and living experience, scientific evidence, conflicts of interest, and the bodily autonomy of people who use drugs.

Examination of naloxone dosing patterns for opioid overdose by emergency medical services in Kentucky during increased fentanyl use from 2018 to 2021

BACKGROUND

Fatal overdoses involving fentanyl/fentanyl analogs (F/FA) have increased in the US, raising questions about naloxone doses for F/FA overdose reversal. Emergency medical services (EMS) data provide an opportunity to examine naloxone administration changes as fentanyl increases in the illicit opioid supply.

METHODS

Administered naloxone intranasal-equivalent total dose (INTD) in milligrams (mg) was calculated for Kentucky EMS suspected opioid overdose (SOO) encounters (n=33,846), 2018-2021, and patterns of administration were examined. County-level F/FA availability was measured as 1) proportion of fatal drug overdoses involving F/FA, and 2) F/FA police seizures. Linear mixed models estimated changes in INTD in relation to local F/FA availability accounting for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

From 2018-2021, SOOs increased by 44% (6853 to 9888) with an average INTD increase from 4.5mg to 4.7mg, with more than 99% of encounters resulting in successful reversal each year. For SOO encounters examined by outcome at the scene (i.e., non-fatal fatal vs fatal), average INTD for non-fatal were 4.6mg compared to 5.9mg for fatal overdoses. Mixed modeling found no significant relationship between INTD and the two measures for local F/FA availability.

CONCLUSION

As F/FA-involved overdose risk increased, we observed a modest increase in INTD administered in SOO EMS encounters - just slightly higher than the 4mg standard dose. The lack of significant relationship between F/FA and naloxone dose suggests that naloxone utilization in SOO with EMS involvement remains effective for overdose reversal, and that EMS naloxone dosing patterns have not changed substantially.

The Optimal Initial Dose and Route of Naloxone Administration for Successful Opioid Reversal: A Systematic Literature Review

This systematic literature review aims to determine the optimal initial dose of naloxone for successful opioid overdose reversal across different administration routes. Types of participants included adults who have opioid overdoses and adults who are suspected to have opioid overdoses. Pregnant women, children, animals, and populations outside the US were excluded. The interventions included were intranasal (IN), intramuscular (IM), and intravenous (IV) naloxone administration. The data collected for this systematic review were studies from PubMed, CINAHL, PsyINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials registers between January 2015 and July 2021. The risk of bias was assessed via the Review Manager application. Six studies met the inclusion criteria. A meaningful statistical analysis was unable to be conducted with such few studies. The studies reveal 2 mg IN as the most popular dosing for initial naloxone for successful opioid reversal. The most common route of naloxone administration for successful reversal could not be studied but most studies revealed successful initial naloxone dosing in IN equivalents. With minimal studies emerging from our review, further research is warranted in naloxone dosing for optimal opioid reversal in order to fully treat patients. Healthcare workers must be vigilant of potential withdrawal from high naloxone dosing as well as the inefficiency of lower naloxone dosing for adequate opioid overdose reversal in order to treat patients with opioid overdoses properly.

2023 American Heart Association Focused Update on the Management of Patients With Cardiac Arrest or Life-Threatening Toxicity Due to Poisoning: An Update to the American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care

In this focused update, the American Heart Association provides updated guidance for resuscitation of patients with cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, and refractory shock due to poisoning. Based on structured evidence reviews, guidelines are provided for the treatment of critical poisoning from benzodiazepines, β-adrenergic receptor antagonists (also known as β-blockers), L-type calcium channel antagonists (commonly called calcium channel blockers), cocaine, cyanide, digoxin and related cardiac glycosides, local anesthetics, methemoglobinemia, opioids, organophosphates and carbamates, sodium channel antagonists (also called sodium channel blockers), and sympathomimetics. Recommendations are also provided for the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. These guidelines discuss the role of atropine, benzodiazepines, calcium, digoxin-specific immune antibody fragments, electrical pacing, flumazenil, glucagon, hemodialysis, hydroxocobalamin, hyperbaric oxygen, insulin, intravenous lipid emulsion, lidocaine, methylene blue, naloxone, pralidoxime, sodium bicarbonate, sodium nitrite, sodium thiosulfate, vasodilators, and vasopressors for the management of specific critical poisonings.

Systematic Review of Naloxone Dosing and Adverse Events in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Experts recommend using the lowest effective dose of naloxone to balance the reversal of opioid-induced respiratory depression and avoid precipitated opioid withdrawal, however, there is no established dosing standards within the emergency department (ED).

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to determine current naloxone dosing practice in the ED and their association with adverse events.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review by searching PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and EBSCO from 2000-2021. Articles containing patient-level data for initial ED dose and patient outcome had data abstracted by two independent reviewers. Patients were divided into subgroups depending on the initial dose of i.v. naloxone: low dose ([LD], < 0.4 mg), standard dose ([SD], 0.4-2 mg), or high dose ([HD], > 2 mg). Our outcomes were the dose range administered and adverse events per dose. We compared groups using chi-squared difference of proportions or Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

The review included 13 articles with 209 patients in the results analysis: 111 patients in LD (0.04-0.1 mg), 95 in SD (0.4-2 mg), and 3 in HD (4-12 mg). At least one adverse event was reported in 37 SD patients (38.9%), compared with 14 in LD (12.6%, p < 0.0001) and 2 in HD (100.0%, p = 0.16). At least one additional dose was administered to 53 SD patients (55.8%), compared with 55 in LD (49.5%, p < 0.0001), and 3 in HD (100.0%, p = 0.48).

CONCLUSIONS

Lower doses of naloxone in the ED may help reduce related adverse events without increasing the need for additional doses. Future studies should evaluate the effectiveness of lower doses of naloxone to reverse opioid-induced respiratory depression without causing precipitated opioid withdrawal.

High-Dose Naloxone Formulations Are Not as Essential as We Thought

Naloxone is a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved opioid antagonist for reversing opioid overdoses. Naloxone is available to the public, and can be administered through intramuscular (IM), intravenous (IV), and intranasal spray (IN) routes. Our literature review aimed to improve understanding regarding the adequacy of the regularly distributed two doses of low-dose IM or IN naloxone in effectively reversing fentanyl overdoses and whether high-dose naloxone formulations (HDNF) formulations are an optimal solution to this problem. Moreover, our initiative incorporated the perspectives and experiences of people who use drugs (PWUD), enabling a more practical and contextually-grounded analysis. We began by discussing the knowledge and perspectives of Tennessee Harm Reduction, a small peer-led harm reduction organization. A comprehensive literature review was then conducted to gather relevant scholarly works on the subject matter. The evidence indicates that, although higher doses of naloxone have been administered in both clinical and community settings, the vast majority of fentanyl overdoses can be successfully reversed using standard IM dosages with the exception of carfentanil overdoses and other more potent fentanyl analogs, which necessitate three or more doses for effective reversal. Multiple studies documented the risk of precipitated withdrawal using high doses of naloxone. Notably, the possibility of recurring overdose symptoms after resuscitation exists, contingent upon the half-life of the specific opioid. Considering these findings and the current community practice of distributing multiple doses, we recommend providing at least four standard doses of IN or IM naloxone to each potential bystander, and training them to continue administration until the recipient achieves stability, ensuring appropriate intervals between each dose. Based on the evidence, we do not recommend HDNF in the place of providing four doses of standard naloxone due to the higher cost, risk of precipitated withdrawal and limited evidence compared to standard IN and IM. All results must be taken into consideration with the inclusion of the lived experiences, individual requirements, and consent of PWUD as crucial factors. It is imperative to refrain from formulating decisions concerning PWUD in their absence, as their participation and voices should be integral to the decision-making process.

Prehospital Naloxone Administration Patterns during the Era of Synthetic Opioids

Background: The opioid epidemic is an ongoing public health emergency, exacerbated in recent years by the introduction and rising prevalence of synthetic opioids. The National EMS Scope of Practice Model was changed in 2017 to recommend allowing basic life support (BLS) clinicians to administer intranasal (IN) naloxone. This study examines local IN naloxone administration rates for 4 years after the new recommendation, and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores and respiratory rates before and after naloxone administration.Methods: This retrospective cohort study evaluated naloxone administrations between April 1st 2017 and March 31st 2021 in a mixed urban-suburban EMS system. Naloxone dosages, routes of administration, and frequency of administrations were captured along with demographic information. Analysis of change in the ratio of IN to intravenous (IV) naloxone administrations per patient was performed, with the intention of capturing administration patterns in the area. Analyses were performed for change over time of IN naloxone rates of administration, change in respiratory rates, and change in GCS scores after antidote administration. ALS and BLS clinician certification levels were also identified. Bootstrapping procedures were used to estimate 95% confidence intervals for correlation coefficients.Results: Two thousand and ninety patients were analyzed. There was no statistically significant change in the IN/parenteral ratio over time (p = 0.79). Repeat dosing increased over time from 1.2 ± 0.4 administrations per patient to 1.3 ± 0.5 administrations per patient (r = 0.078, 95% CI: 0.036 - 0.120; p = 0.036). Mean respiratory rates before (mean = 12.6 - 12.6, r = -0.04, 95% CI: -0.09 - 0.01; p = 0.1) and after (mean = 15.2 - 14.9, r = -0.03, 95% CI: -0.08 - 0.01; p = 0.172) naloxone administration have not changed. While initial GCS scores have become significantly lower, GCS scores after administration of naloxone have not changed (initial median GCS 10 - 6, p < 0.001; final median GCS 15 - 15, p = 0.23).Conclusions: Current dosing protocols of naloxone appear effective in the era of synthetic opioids in our region, although patients may be marginally more likely to require repeat naloxone doses.

“It's my frenemy”: A qualitative exploration of knowledge and perceptions of fentanyl use during the COVID-19 pandemic in people who use drugs at a syringe services program in Philadelphia, PA

Background

Exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the proliferation of fentanyl and fentanyl analogs, overdose deaths have surged in the United States, making it important to understand how individuals who use drugs experience and perceive the risks of fentanyl use and how it has changed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Twenty clients from a Philadelphia syringe services program completed a questionnaire and in-depth interview about their fentanyl experiences from January to March 2021. These interviews were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis methods.

Results

Sixty percent of participants were female and racial/ethnic minority. Participants indicated they believed fentanyl use accounted for most Philadelphia opioid-related overdoses and understood that fentanyl was different from other opioids. Fentanyl use was characterized as “all-consuming” by taking over lives and inescapable. While most perceived their risk of fentanyl overdose as high, there was low interest in and reported use of harm reduction strategies such as fentanyl test strips. The COVID-19 pandemic was noted to have negative effects on fentanyl availability, use and overdose risk, as well as mental health effects that increase drug use.

Conclusions

The divide between perceived risk and uptake of protective strategies could be driven by diminished self-efficacy as it relates to acting on and engaging with resources available at the syringe services program and represents a potential intervention target for harm reduction intervention uptake. But the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated risks due to fentanyl use, making an effective, accessible, and well-timed intervention important to address the disconnect between perceived overdose risk and use of preventive behaviors.

In vitro and in vivo pharmaco-dynamic study of the novel fentanyl derivatives: Acrylfentanyl, Ocfentanyl and Furanylfentanyl

Fentanyl derivatives (FENS) belongs to the class of Novel Synthetic Opioids that emerged in the illegal drug market of New Psychoactive Substances (NPS). These substances have been implicated in many cases of intoxication and death with overdose worldwide. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the pharmaco-dynamic profiles of three fentanyl (FENT) analogues: Acrylfentanyl (ACRYLF), Ocfentanyl (OCF) and Furanylfentanyl (FUF). In vitro, we measured FENS opioid receptor efficacy, potency, and selectivity in calcium mobilization studies performed in cells coexpressing opioid receptors and chimeric G proteins and their capability to promote the interaction of the mu receptor with G protein and β-arrestin 2 in bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) studies. In vivo, we investigated the acute effects of the systemic administration of ACRYLF, OCF and FUF (0.01-15 mg/kg i.p.) on mechanical and thermal analgesia, motor impairment, grip strength and cardiorespiratory changes in CD-1 male mice. Opioid receptor specificity was investigated in vivo using naloxone (NLX; 6 mg/kg i.p) pre-treatment. In vitro, the three FENS were able to activate the mu opioid receptor in a concentration dependent manner with following rank order potency: FUF > FENT=OCF > ACRYLF. All compounds were able to elicit maximal effects similar to that of dermorphin, with the exception of FUF which displayed lower maximal effects thus behaving as a partial agonist. In the BRET G-protein assay, all compounds behaved as partial agonists for the β-arrestin 2 pathway in comparison with dermorphin, whereas FUF did not promote β-arrestin 2 recruitment, behaving as an antagonist. In vivo, all the compounds increased mechanical and thermal analgesia with following rank order potency ACRYLF = FENT > FUF > OCF and impaired motor and cardiorespiratory parameters. Among the substances tested, FUF showed lower potency for cardiorespiratory and motor effects. These findings reveal the risks associated with the use of FENS and the importance of studying the pharmaco-dynamic properties of these drugs to better understand possible therapeutic interventions in the case of toxicity.

Pharmacokinetic considerations for community-based dosing of nasal naloxone in opioid overdose in adults

INTRODUCTION

The administration of the opioid antagonist naloxone in the community is a measure to prevent death from opioid overdose. Approved nasal naloxone sprays deliver initial doses of 0.9 to 8 mg. The level of the initial community dose is controversial, as the scientific base is weak.In this review knowledge of the pharmacokinetics of nasal, both approved and improvised nasal sprays, and intramuscular naloxone will be utilized to evaluate dose-effect relationships in previous studies of opioid overdose outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

The aim was to present scientifically based considerations on the initial nasal naloxone doses currently available, which reasonably balances the effect and adverse outcomes, given that at least two doses are at hand. Also included in these considerations is the challenge by illicitly manufactured fentanyl and analogs.This paper is based on both peer-reviewed and grey literature identified by several searches, of such as naloxone pharmacokinetics/formulations/outcomes/emergency medical services, in PubMed and Embase.

EXPERT OPINION

There is little scientific evidence that supports the use of initial systemic dosing that exceeds 0.8 mg in the community. Higher doses increase the risk of withdrawal symptoms feared in people who use opioids. Many obstacles may reduce the potential of community-administered naloxone.

The need for multiple naloxone administrations for opioid overdose reversals: A review of the literature

Background A growing challenge in the opioid epidemic is the rise of highly potent synthetic opioids, (i.e., illicitly manufactured fentanyl [IMF]) entering the US non-prescription opioid market. Successful reversal may require multiple doses of naloxone, the standard of care for opioid overdose. We conducted a narrative literature review to summarize the rates of multiple naloxone administrations (MNA) for opioid overdose reversal. Methods: A MEDLINE search was conducted for published articles using MESH search terms: opioid overdose, naloxone and multiple naloxone administration. Of the 2,101 studies identified, articles meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria were reviewed, categorized by primary and secondary outcomes of interest and summarized by data source and study design. Results: A total of 24 articles meeting eligibility criteria were included. Among EMS-based studies, MNA rates ranged from 9% to 53%; in general, bystander-reported studies were notably higher, from 16% to 89%. Variation in study design, data sources, year and geography, may have contributed to these ranges. Three studies that included longitudinal results reported a significant percent increase between 26% and 43% in annual MNA rates or a significant increase in mean naloxone doses over time (p < .001). Conclusions: This summary found that multiple naloxone administrations during opioid overdose encounters vary widely, have occurred in up to 89% of all opioid overdoses, and have significantly increased over time. Higher naloxone formulations may fulfill an unmet need in opioid overdose reversals, given the rising rates of overdoses involving IMF. Further studies are needed to gain a better understanding of MNA during opioid overdose encounters, particularly across a wider geographic region in the US in order to inform continuing efforts to combat the opioid epidemic.

Treatment of opioid overdose: current approaches and recent advances

BACKGROUND

The USA has recently entered the third decade of the opioid epidemic. Opioid overdose deaths reached a new record of over 74,000 in a 12-month period ending April 2021. Naloxone is the primary opioid overdose reversal agent, but concern has been raised that naloxone is not efficacious against the pervasive illicit high potency opioids (i.e., fentanyl and fentanyl analogs).

METHODS

This narrative review provides a brief overview of naloxone, including its history and pharmacology, and the evidence regarding naloxone efficacy against fentanyl and fentanyl analogs. We also highlight current advances in overdose treatments and technologies that have been tested in humans.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The argument that naloxone is not efficacious against fentanyl and fentanyl analogs rests on case studies, retrospective analyses of community outbreaks, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics. No well-controlled studies have been conducted to test this argument, and the current literature provides limited evidence to suggest that naloxone is ineffective against fentanyl or fentanyl analog overdose. Rather a central concern for treating fentanyl/fentanyl analog overdose is the rapidity of overdose onset and the narrow window for treatment. It is also difficult to determine if other non-opioid substances are contributing to a drug overdose, for which naloxone is not an effective treatment. Alternative pharmacological approaches that are currently being studied in humans include other opioid receptor antagonists (e.g., nalmefene), respiratory stimulants, and buprenorphine. None of these approaches target polysubstance overdose and only one novel approach (a wearable naloxone delivery device) would address the narrow treatment window.

Safety, Efficacy, and Cost of 0.4-mg Versus 2-mg Intranasal Naloxone for Treatment of Prehospital Opioid Overdose

BACKGROUND

Intranasal naloxone is commonly used to treat prehospital opioid overdose. However, the optimal dose is unclear, and currently, no study exists comparing the clinical effect of intranasal naloxone at different doses.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this investigation was to compare the safety, efficacy, and cost of 0.4- versus 2-mg intranasal naloxone for treatment of prehospital opioid overdose.

METHODS

A retrospective, cross-sectional study was performed of 218 consecutive adult patients receiving intranasal naloxone in 2 neighboring counties in Southeast Michigan: one that used a 0.4-mg protocol and one that used a 2-mg protocol. Primary outcomes were response to initial dose, requirement of additional dosing, and incidence of adverse effects. Unpooled, 2-tailed, 2-sample t-tests and χ² tests for homogeneity were performed with statistical significance defined as P <0.05.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 populations in age, mass, gender, proportion of exposures suspected as heroin, response to initial dose, required redosing, or total number of doses by any route. The overall rate of adverse effects was 2.1% under the lower-dose protocol and 29% under the higher-dose protocol (P < 0.001). The lower-dose protocol was 79% less costly.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Treatment of prehospital opioid overdose using intranasal naloxone at an initial dose of 0.4 mg was equally effective during the prehospital period as treatment at an initial dose of 2 mg, was associated with a lower rate of adverse effects, and represented a 79% reduction in cost.

Increases in Naloxone Administrations by Emergency Medical Services Providers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Time Series Study

BACKGROUND

The opioid crisis in the United States may be exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Increases in opioid use, emergency medical services (EMS) runs for opioid-related overdoses, and opioid overdose deaths have been reported. No study has examined changes in multiple naloxone administrations, an indicator of overdose severity, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines changes in the occurrence of naloxone administrations and multiple naloxone administrations during EMS runs for opioid-related overdoses during the COVID-19 pandemic in Guilford County, North Carolina (NC).

METHODS

Using a period-over-period approach, we compared the occurrence of opioid-related EMS runs, naloxone administrations, and multiple naloxone administrations during the 29-week period before (September 1, 2019, to March 9, 2020) and after NC's COVID-19 state of emergency declaration (ie, the COVID-19 period of March 10 to September 30, 2020). Furthermore, historical data were used to generate a quasi-control distribution of period-over-period changes to compare the occurrence of each outcome during the COVID-19 period to each 29-week period back to January 1, 2014.

RESULTS

All outcomes increased during the COVID-19 period. Compared to the previous 29 weeks, the COVID-19 period experienced increases in the weekly mean number of opioid-related EMS runs (25.6, SD 5.6 vs 18.6, SD 6.6; P<.001), naloxone administrations (22.3, SD 6.2 vs 14.1, SD 6.0; P<.001), and multiple naloxone administrations (5.0, SD 1.9 vs 2.7, SD 1.9; P<.001), corresponding to proportional increases of 37.4%, 57.8%, and 84.8%, respectively. Additionally, the increases during the COVID-19 period were greater than 91% of all historical 29-week periods analyzed.

CONCLUSIONS

The occurrence of EMS runs for opioid-related overdoses, naloxone administrations, and multiple naloxone administrations during EMS runs increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in Guilford County, NC. For a host of reasons that need to be explored, the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have exacerbated the opioid crisis.

Outcomes following Naloxone Administration by Bystanders and First Responders

Background: Naloxone is widely available to bystanders and first responders to treat patients with suspected opioid overdose. In these patients, the prognostic factors and potential benefits associated with additional naloxone administered by emergency medical services (EMS) are uncertain. Objectives: We sought to identify prognostic factors for admission to the hospital following prehospital administration of naloxone for suspected opioid overdose by bystanders and first responders. We secondarily examined whether administration of additional naloxone by paramedics after initial treatment by non-EMS personnel was associated with improvement in level of consciousness prior to hospital arrival. Methods: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study of patients treated within a single urban EMS system from 2013 to 2016. Inclusion criteria were administration of naloxone by bystanders or first responders and transport to one of three academic medical centers. For the secondary analysis, only patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score ≤12 on paramedic arrival were included. We performed univariate and multivariable analyses examining a primary outcome of hospital admission and secondary outcome of improvement in consciousness as defined by GCS >12 in patients with initial GCS ≤12. Results: Of 359 patients identified for the primary analysis, 60 were admitted to the hospital. Factors associated with increased rate of admission included higher total naloxone dosage (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.09-1.70) and presence of alternate/additional non-opioid central nervous system (CNS) depressants (OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.13-5.56). Among 178 patients who had poor neurologic status (GCS ≤12) on paramedic arrival following naloxone administered by bystander or first responder, administration of additional naloxone was not associated with a better rate of neurologic improvement prior to hospital arrival (77% improved with additional naloxone, 81% improved without additional naloxone; OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.39-1.76). Conclusions: Among patients with suspected opioid overdose treated with naloxone by bystanders and first responders, a higher total dose of naloxone and polysubstance intoxication with additional CNS depressants were predictors of admission. Administration of additional naloxone by paramedics was not associated with a higher rate of neurologic improvement prior to hospital arrival, suggesting a ceiling effect on naloxone efficacy in opioid overdose.

Prehospital Naloxone and Emergency Department Adverse Events: A Dose-Dependent Relationship

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate prehospital and emergency department (ED) interventions and outcomes of patients who received prehospital naloxone for a suspected opioid overdose.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to evaluate if the individual dose, individual route, total dose, number of prehospital naloxone administrations, or occurrence of a prehospital adverse event (AE) were associated with the occurrence of AEs in the ED. Secondary objectives included a subset analysis of patients who received additional naloxone while in the ED, or were admitted to an intensive care or step-down unit (ICU).

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational chart review of adult patients who received prehospital naloxone and were transported by ambulance to a suburban academic tertiary care center between 2014 and 2017. Descriptive, univariate, and multivariate statistics were used, with p < 0.05 indicating significance.

RESULTS

There were 513 patients included in the analysis, with a median age of 29 years, and median total prehospital naloxone dose of 2 mg. An increasing number of prehospital naloxone doses, an occurrence of a prehospital AE, and a route of administration other than intranasally for the first dose of prehospital naloxone were significantly associated with an increased likelihood of an ED AE. Patients who received < 2 mg of prehospital naloxone had the least likelihood of being admitted to an ICU, whereas patients who received at least 6 mg had a dramatically increased likelihood of ICU admission.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that an increasing number of prehospital naloxone doses was significantly associated with an increased likelihood of an ED adverse event.

Opioid overdose reversals using naloxone in New York City by people who use opioids: Implications for public health and overdose harm reduction approaches from a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Adverse reactions to naloxone, such as withdrawal symptoms and aggression, are widely recognised in the literature by pharmaceutical manufacturers and clinical practitioners as standard reactions of individuals who are physically dependent upon opioid drugs following the reversal of potentially fatal opioid overdose. This paper seeks to provide a differentiated view on reactions to naloxone that may have important implications for public health and harm reduction approaches.

METHODS

Analyses from a qualitative investigation embedded within a 5-year Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) examined the risks and benefits of Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) training models (brief or extended training) in various populations of people who use opioids in New York City. The qualitative experiences (obtained through semi-structured interviews) of 46 people who use opioids and who were each involved in the delivery of naloxone, during 56 separate overdose events that occurred throughout 2016-2018, were studied. Situational analysis and inductive content analysis of interview data focused upon overdose reversals in an attempt to provide understandings of the various adverse effects associated with naloxone from their perspective. These analyses were supplemented by data sessions within the research team during which the findings obtained from situational analysis and inductive content analysis were reviewed and complemented by deductive (clinical) appraisals of the various physical and psychological effects associated with the overdose reversals.

RESULTS

People who use opioids recognise three distinct and interconnected outcomes that may follow a successful opioid overdose reversal after intramuscular or intranasal administration of naloxone. These outcomes are here termed, (i) 'rage' (describing a wide range of angry, hostile and/or aggressive outbursts), (ii) 'withdrawal symptoms,' and (iii) 'not rage, not withdrawal' (i.e., a wide range of short-lived, 'harmless' conditions (such as temporary amnesia, mild emotional outbursts, or physical discomfort) that do not include rage or withdrawal symptoms).

CONCLUSION

Physical and psychological reactions to naloxone should not be understood exclusively as a consequence of acute, opioid-related, withdrawal symptoms. The three distinct and interconnected reversal outcomes identified in this study are considered from a harm reduction policy perspective and are further framed by concepts associated with 'mediated toxicity' (i.e., harm triggered by medicine). The overall conclusion is that harm reduction training programmes that are aligned to the policy and practice of take home naloxone may be strengthened by including awareness and training in how to best respond to 'rage' associated with overdose reversal following naloxone administration by people who use opioids and other laypersons.

Take-Home Naloxone for the Emergency Interim Management of Opioid Overdose: The Public Health Application of an Emergency Medicine

Naloxone is a well-established essential medicine for the treatment of life-threatening heroin/opioid overdose in emergency medicine. Over two decades, the concept of 'take-home naloxone' has evolved, comprising pre-provision of an emergency supply to laypersons likely to witness an opioid overdose (e.g. peers and family members of people who use opioids as well as non-medical personnel), with the recommendation to administer the naloxone to the overdose victim as interim care while awaiting an ambulance. There is an urgent need for more widespread naloxone access considering the growing problem of opioid overdose deaths, accounting for more than 100,000 deaths worldwide annually. Rises in mortality are particularly sharp in North America, where the ongoing prescription opioid problem is now overlaid with a rapid growth in overdose deaths from heroin and illicit fentanyl. Using opioids alone is dangerous, and the mortality risk is clustered at certain times and contexts, including on prison release and discharge from hospital and residential care. The provision of take-home naloxone has required the introduction of new legislation and new naloxone products. These include pre-filled syringes and auto-injectors and, crucially, new concentrated nasal sprays (four formulations recently approved in different countries) with speed of onset comparable to intramuscular naloxone and relative bioavailability of approximately 40-50%. Choosing the right naloxone dose in the fentanyl era is a matter of ongoing debate, but the safety margin of the approved nasal sprays is superior to improvised nasal kits. New legislation in different countries permits over-the-counter sales or other prescription-free methods of provision. However, access remains uneven with take-home naloxone still not provided in many countries and communities, and with ongoing barriers contributing to implementation inertia. Take-home naloxone is an important component of the response to the global overdose problem, but greater commitment to implementation will be essential, alongside improved affordable products, if a greater impact is to be achieved.

How Emergency Physicians Approach Refusal of Observation after Naloxone Resuscitation

BACKGROUND

Patients who are resuscitated with naloxone frequently refuse a period of observation, even though they may be suffering from a variety of medical and psychiatric comorbidities. Emergency physicians (EPs) are then confronted with the challenge of how best to serve patients' interests while respecting autonomy.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to characterize how EPs think about this kind of dilemma and the strategies they use to resolve them.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of 59 emergency physicians attending the American College of Emergency Physicians' Scientific Assembly in October 2018. Three case vignettes highlighting different clinical and ethical features served as prompts. Interviews were analyzed using a constant comparative method to identify patterns of responses and derive key themes.

RESULTS

Across the vignettes, EPs demonstrated diverse approaches to observation, assessing decision-making capacity and encouraging compliance. Some EPs refused to comply with a patient's wishes even when they had determined a patient demonstrated capacity. Conversely, a few EPs were willing to allow patients to leave the emergency department (ED) without assessing capacity, or despite determining that the patient lacked capacity. Common reasons for complying with patients' demands were concerns about the patients' rights and concerns about the safety of staff. Most physicians interviewed reported no institutional guidelines or education on the topic, and many physicians expressed an interest in providing medication for addiction treatment in the ED.

CONCLUSIONS

EPs approach this clinical and ethical dilemma in widely divergent ways. Consensus about strategies for navigating patients' wishes relative to clinical concerns are needed to help EPs manage these challenging cases.

Prepacked naloxone administration for suspected opioid overdose in the era of illicitly manufactured fentanyl: a retrospective study of regional poison center data

Background: Prepacked naloxone kits (PNKs) are frequently used to reverse opioid intoxication. It is unknown if the presence of illicitly manufactured fentanyl and its analogs (IMFs) in heroin supply is affecting the PNK doses given by laypersons. We investigated the trend of PNK dose administered to reverse opioid toxicity in suspected/undifferentiated opioid intoxication.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed PNK administrations reported to the Maryland Poison Center between 1 January 2015 and 15 October 2017. Primary outcome was the mean PNK dose administered to reverse opioid-induced central nervous system and ventilatory depression. Secondary outcomes included the reversal rate of opioid toxicity, patient disposition, and survival rate.Results: Our analysis involved 1139 PNK administrations. The mean age of subjects was 34.3 years; 68.8% (n = 781) were male. Ventilatory depression was present in 98.2% (n = 958) of cases, and 97% (n = 1097) were unresponsive. Law enforcement administered the majority of PNK (91.0%; n = 1035); the primary route was intranasal (97.9%; n = 1051). Toxicity was reversed in 79.2% (n = 886) of overdose victims after a mean PNK dose of 3.12 mg. EMS personnel gave 291 subjects additional naloxone (mean: 2.2 mg), reversing opioid toxicity in 94.2% (n = 254). Between 2015 and 2017, the mean PNK dose increased from 2.12 to 3.63 mg (p < .0001) while the reversal rate decreased from 82.1% to 76.4% (p = .04). One hundred and eighty-two patients (15.9%) refused transport; of those transported to a hospital, 73.4% (n = 569) were treated and released and 12.4% (n = 96) required hospitalization. Ninety-six percent (n = 1092) of the subjects survived. Forty subjects were pronounced dead at the scene. Fentanyl or its analog was detected in 36 of 55 opioid-related deaths (65.5%).Conclusions: PNK administration reversed toxicity in the majority of patients with undifferentiated opioid intoxication. Between 2015 and 2017, increasing doses of PNK were administered but the reversal rate decreased. These trends are likely multifactorial, including increasing availability of IMFs.

Pharmacokinetics of a novel, approved, 1.4-mg intranasal naloxone formulation for reversal of opioid overdose-a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Intranasal (i.n.) naloxone is an established treatment for opioid overdose. Anyone likely to witness an overdose should have access to the antidote. We aimed to determine whether an i.n. formulation delivering 1.4 mg naloxone hydrochloride would achieve systemic exposure comparable to that of 0.8 mg intramuscular (i.m.) naloxone.

DESIGN

Open, randomized four-way cross-over trial.

SETTING

Clinical Trials Units in St Olav's Hospital, Trondheim and Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-two healthy human volunteers, 10 women, median age = 25.8 years.

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

One and two doses of i.n. 1.4 mg naloxone compared with i.m. 0.8 mg and intravenous (i.v.) 0.4 mg naloxone.

MEASUREMENTS

Quantification of plasma naloxone was performed by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic non-compartment analyses were used for the main analyses. A non-parametric pharmacokinetic population model was developed for Monte Carlo simulations of different dosing scenarios.

FINDINGS

Area under the curve from administration to last measured concentration (AUC_0-last ) for i.n. 1.4 mg and i.m. 0.8 mg were 2.62 ± 0.94 and 3.09 ± 0.64 h × ng/ml, respectively (P = 0.33). Maximum concentration (C_max ) was 2.36 ± 0.68 ng/ml for i.n. 1.4 mg and 3.73 ± 3.34 for i.m. 0.8 mg (P = 0.72). Two i.n. doses showed dose linearity and achieved a C_max of 4.18 ± 1.53 ng/ml. T_max was reached after 20.2 ± 9.4 minutes for i.n. 1.4 mg and 13.6 ± 15.4 minutes for i.m. 0.8 mg (P = 0.098). The absolute bioavailability for i.n. 1.4 mg was 0.49 (±0.24), while the relative i.n./i.m. bioavailability was 0.52 (±0.25).

CONCLUSION

Intranasal 1.4 mg naloxone provides adequate systemic concentrations to treat opioid overdose compared with intramuscular 0.8 mg, without statistical difference on maximum plasma concentration, time to maximum plasma concentration or area under the curve. Simulations support its appropriateness both as peer administered antidote and for titration of treatment by professionals.

Pharmacokinetic Interaction between Naloxone and Naltrexone Following Intranasal Administration to Healthy Subjects

Naloxone (17-allyl-4,5α-epoxy-3,14-dihydroxymorphinan-6-one HCl), a μ-opioid receptor antagonist, is administered intranasally to reverse an opioid overdose but its short half-life may necessitate subsequent doses. The addition of naltrexone [17-(cyclopropylmethyl)-4,5α-epoxy-3,14-dihydroxymorphinan-6-one], another μ-receptor antagonist, which has a reported half-life of 3 1/2 hours, may extend the available time to receive medical treatment. In a phase 1 pharmacokinetic study, healthy adults were administered naloxone and naltrexone intranasally, separately and in combination. When administered with naloxone, the C _max value of naltrexone decreased 62% and the area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC_0-inf) decreased 38% compared with when it was given separately; lower concentrations of naltrexone were observed as early as 5 minutes postdose. In contrast, the C _max and AUC_0-inf values of naloxone decreased only 18% and 16%, respectively, when given with naltrexone. This apparent interaction was investigated further to determine if naloxone and naltrexone shared a transporter. Neither compound was a substrate for organic cation transporter (OCT) 1, OCT2, OCT3, OCTN1, or OCTN2. There was no evidence of the involvement of a transmembrane transporter when they were tested separately or in combination at concentrations of 10 and 500 µM using Madin-Darby canine kidney II cell monolayers at pH 7.4. The efflux ratios of naloxone and naltrexone increased to six or greater when the apical solution was pH 5.5, the approximate pH of the nasal cavity; there was no apparent interaction when the two were coincubated. The importance of understanding how opioid antagonists are absorbed by the nasal epithelium is magnified by the rise in overdose deaths attributed to long-lived synthetic opioids and the realization that better strategies are needed to treat opioid overdoses.

Comparison of the Pharmacokinetic Properties of Naloxone Following the Use of FDA-Approved Intranasal and Intramuscular Devices Versus a Common Improvised Nasal Naloxone Device

For more than a decade, first responders and the general public have been able to treat suspected opioid overdoses using an improvised nasal naloxone device (INND) constructed from a prefilled syringe containing 2 mg of naloxone (1 mg/mL) attached to a mucosal atomization device. In recent years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved Ezvio, an autoinjector that delivers 2 mg by intramuscular injection and Narcan nasal spray (2- and 4-mg strengths; 0.1 mL/dose) for the emergency treatment of a known or suspected opioid overdose. The present study was conducted to compare the pharmacokinetics of naloxone using the FDA-approved devices (each administered once) and either 1 or 2 administrations using the INND. When naloxone was administered twice using the improvised device, the doses were separated by 2 minutes. The highest maximum plasma concentration was achieved using the 4-mg FDA-approved spray. The highest exposures at 5 minutes postdose, based on AUC values, were after administration with the autoinjector and the 4-mg FDA-approved spray; at 10, 15, and 20 minutes postdose, the latter yielded the greatest exposure. Even after 2 administrations, the INND failed to achieve naloxone plasma levels comparable to the FDA-approved devices at any time. The ease of use and higher plasma concentrations achieved using the 4-mg FDA-approved spray, compared with the INND, should be considered when deciding which naloxone device to use.

Fentanyl and fentanyl-analog involvement in drug-related deaths

BACKGROUND

To describe and analyze the involvement of fentanyl and fentanyl analogs (FAs) in drug-related deaths in West Virginia (WV), United States.

METHODS

Retrospective analyses of all WV drug-related deaths from 2005 to 2017 were performed, including comparisons of demographic and toxicological characteristics among total deaths, deaths in which fentanyl/FAs were present, deaths in which they were absent, heroin-related deaths, and prescription opioid-related deaths.

RESULTS

Most of the 8813 drug-related deaths were overdoses, with about 11% resulting from transportation/other injuries in which drugs were contributors. Prescription opioid presence (without fentanyl) decreased by 75% from 2005-14 to 2015-17 (3545 deaths to 859 deaths, respectively), while fentanyl involvement in the deaths increased by 122% between these periods (487 to 1082 deaths). Ten FAs were identified (427 instances) after 2015. Alprazolam and ethanol were among the top five most frequently identified substances across years. Fentanyl, heroin and cocaine replaced oxycodone, diazepam and hydrocodone in the top five beginning in 2015. Few decedents had a prescription for fentanyl after 2015, with fewer prescriptions also present for other controlled substances identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Fentanyl, rapidly emerging FAs, and other illicit drugs in recent years pose a serious health threat even though prescription opioid-related deaths decreased over the same time period.

Higher doses of naloxone are needed in the synthetic opiod era

There has been a dramatic increase of deaths due to illicit fentanyl. We examined the pharmacology of fentanyl and reviewed data on the number of repeat doses of naloxone used to treat fentanyl overdoses. Multiple sequential doses of naloxone have been required in a certain percentage of opioid overdoses due to fentanyl. In addition, fentanyl appears to differ from other opioids as having a very rapid onset with high systemic levels found in overdose victims. A rapid competition is required by naloxone to out-compete large numbers of opioid receptors occupied by fentanyl in the CNS. Taken together, we propose that higher doses of naloxone are needed to combat the new era of overdoses due to the more potent synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

Naloxone Use Among Emergency Department Patients with Opioid Overdose

BACKGROUND

Emergency department (ED) visits for unintentional opioid overdoses have increased dramatically. Naloxone hydrochloride (Narcan®) is an opioid antagonist commonly used to treat these overdoses.

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to identify experiences regarding naloxone use among ED patients with opioid overdose.

METHODS

This prospective survey study was conducted at an urban level I trauma center. A survey was administered to eligible ED patients after unintentional opioid overdose. This study identified current and previous use of naloxone among ED patients with opioid overdose.

RESULTS

Eight-nine ED patients with accidental overdose of opioids participated (90% participation rate). Most participants reported a history of opioid overdose (n = 62 [70%]). A significant minority stated they have had access to a naloxone kit (n = 28 [31%]). Most participants with a naloxone kit stated that their frequency and dosage of opiate use did not change after access to naloxone (n = 17 [63%]), and a few used opiates more often (n = 1 [4%]) or less often (n = 9 [33%]). There was a significant negative correlation between total dose and age (Spearman ρ -0.27; p = 0.01). There was no association between dose and sex.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients presenting with opioid overdose have had a history of opioid overdose. Patients with opioid overdose required a highly variable dose of naloxone. Higher doses of naloxone were associated with lower age. Despite widespread availability of naloxone to consumers, a minority of patients in this study reported access to naloxone. Participants who had access to a naloxone kit stated that their frequency and dosage of opioid use did not change.

Promising roles for pharmacists in addressing the U.S. opioid crisis

Overdoses of prescription or illicit opioids claimed the lives of 116 Americans each day in 2016, and the crisis continues to escalate. As healthcare systems evolve to address the crisis, the potential of pharmacists to make a positive difference is significant. In addition to utilizing available prescription drug monitoring programs to help prevent diversion of opioids, practicing pharmacists can be alert for signs of opioid misuse by patients (e.g., multiple prescriptions from different physicians) as well as inappropriate prescribing or hazardous drug combinations that physicians may not be aware of (e.g., opioid analgesics combined with benzodiazepines). They can also supply patients with information on risks of opioids, proper storage and disposal of medications, and the harms (and illegality) of sharing medications with other people. Increasingly, pharmacies are sites of distribution of the opioid antagonist naloxone, which has been shown to save lives when made available to opioid users and their families or other potential bystanders to an overdose; and pharmacists can provide guidance about its use and even legal protections for bystanders to an overdose that customers may not be aware of. Pharmacists can also recommend addiction treatment to patients and be a resource for information on addiction treatment options in the community. As addiction treatment becomes more integrated with general healthcare, pharmacies are also increasingly dispensing medications like buprenorphine and, in the future, possibly methadone. Pharmacists in private research labs and at universities are helping to develop the next generation of addiction treatments and safer, non-addictive pain medications; they can also play a role in implementation research to enhance the delivery of addiction interventions and medications in pharmacy settings. Meanwhile, pharmacists in educational settings can promote improved education about the neurobiology and management of pain and its links to opioid misuse and addiction.