Dose-dependent naloxone-induced morphine withdrawal symptoms in opioid-dependent males-a double-blinded, randomized study

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.

Repeated measures analysis of opioid use disorder treatment on clinical opiate withdrawal scale in a randomized clinical trial: sex differences

PURPOSE

Sex differences may exist in opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment. This study examined the treatment effects of buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP/NX) and methadone (MET) on the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) score in individuals with OUD and tested whether the associations differ by sex.

METHOD

We performed a secondary analysis of the data from the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) protocol-0027. A total of 1269 participants (861 males and 408 females) being aged 18 or older with OUD were randomly assigned to receive BUP/NX (n = 740) or MET (n = 529). The paired t test was initially used to compare the COWS scores between pre-dose and post-dose for BUP/NX and MET treatments, separately. The linear mixed model was used to examine the changes in COWS score adjusted for baseline demographic, substance use, and mental health disorders. The interaction of sex and treatment was detected and stratified analysis by sex was conducted.

RESULTS

The paired t test showed that both BUP/NX and MET treatments significantly reduced the COWS scores (p values <0.0001). BUP/NX revealed higher COWS scores than MET (p = 0.0008) and females demonstrated significantly higher COWS scores than males (p = 0.0169). Stratified by sex, BUP/NX compared with MET revealed higher COWS scores only in males (p = 0.0043), whereas baseline amphetamines use disorder and major depressive disorder were significantly associated with COWS scores in females (p = 0.0158 and 0.0422, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Both BUP/NX and MET are effective in decreasing opioid withdrawal symptoms via COWS scores, however, treatment plans for OUD by clinical providers should consider sex differences.

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.

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.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2020

This paper is the forty-third consecutive installment of the annual anthological review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, summarizing articles published during 2020 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides and receptors as well as effects of opioid/opiate agonists and antagonists. The review is subdivided into the following specific topics: molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors (1), the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia in animals (2) and humans (3), opioid-sensitive and opioid-insensitive effects of nonopioid analgesics (4), opioid peptide and receptor involvement in tolerance and dependence (5), stress and social status (6), learning and memory (7), eating and drinking (8), drug abuse and alcohol (9), sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (10), mental illness and mood (11), seizures and neurologic disorders (12), electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (13), general activity and locomotion (14), gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (15), cardiovascular responses (16), respiration and thermoregulation (17), and immunological responses (18).

Can Src protein tyrosine kinase inhibitors be combined with opioid analgesics? Src and opioid-induced tolerance, hyperalgesia and addiction

The clinical application of opioids may be accompanied by a series of adverse consequences, such as opioid tolerance, opioid-induced hyperalgesia, opioid dependence or addiction. In view of this issue, clinicians are faced with the dilemma of treating various types of pain with or without opioids. In this review, we discuss that Src protein tyrosine kinase plays an important role in these adverse consequences, and Src inhibitors can solve these problems well. Therefore, Src inhibitors have the potential to be used in combination with opioids to achieve synergy. How to combine them together to maximize the analgesic effect while avoiding unnecessary trouble provides a topic for follow-up research.

Dose-dependent naloxone-induced morphine withdrawal symptoms in opioid-dependent males-a double-blinded, randomized study

Aims

Oral opioid preparations combined with naloxone are intended to induce a transient acute withdrawal syndrome to avoid intravenous misuse. This trial aimed to establish an appropriate morphine–naloxone dose ratio for an abuse‐deterrent oral opioid formulation.

Methods

In a randomized, double‐blinded, 2 × 2 cross‐over trial, 43 patients with opioid use disorder were challenged with intravenous morphine HCl Ph.Eur. (75 mg; [morphine mono]) or morphine HCl Ph.Eur. and naloxone HCl Ph.Eur. at ratios of 100:1 (75 mg: 0.75 mg; [morphine–naloxone 100:1]) or 200:1 (75 mg: 0.375 mg; [morphine–naloxone 200:1]). Acute naloxone‐induced opioid withdrawal was evaluated using subjective (Short Opiate Withdrawal Scale–German [SOWS‐G]) and observer‐rated (Objective Opiate Withdrawal Scale [OOWS], Wang scale) questionnaires, and physiological parameters. For statistical analysis, the area under the curve between baseline and 20 minutes after drug administration of the outcome variables was calculated.

Results

Intravenous morphine–naloxone caused rapid withdrawal symptoms. Coadministration of naloxone dose‐dependently (morphine–naloxone 100:1 > morphine–naloxone 200:1) increased SOWS‐G, OOWS and Wang Scale area under the curve when compared to morphine mono, respectively (all P < .0001). A similar response was detectable for changes of pupil diameter. Blood pressure and respiratory rate changed heterogeneously, and heart rate was unaltered by morphine without or with naloxone.

Conclusion

Morphine–naloxone 100:1 effectively suppresses the pleasurable effects of intravenous morphine and results in an aversive withdrawal reaction. A lower naloxone concentration as used in morphine–naloxone 200:1 does not appear to be appropriate to prevent intravenous morphine misuse.