Overdose responses among rural people who use drugs: A multi-regional qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to distribute naloxone have equipped more people with the ability to reverse opioid overdoses but people who use drugs are often reluctant to call 911 due to concerns for legal repercussions. Rural communities face unique challenges in reducing overdose deaths compared to urban communities, including limited access to harm reduction services as well as greater concerns about stigma and privacy. METHODS: The Rural Opioid Initiative was funded in 2017 to better understand the health-related harms associated with the opioid crisis in rural US communities and consists of eight studies spanning ten states and 65 counties. Each study conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with people who use drugs to understand contextual factors influencing drug use and health behaviors. We analyzed qualitative data from seven studies with data available at the time of analysis to understand peer response to overdose. RESULTS: Of the 304 participants interviewed, 55% were men, 70% were white, 80% reported current injection drug use, and 60% reported methamphetamine use. Similar to what has been found in studies focused on urban settings, people who use drugs in rural communities use a range of strategies to reverse overdoses, including non-evidence-based approaches. Several reported that multiple doses of naloxone are needed to reverse overdose. Three themes emerged around the willingness to call 911, including (1) hesitancy to call 911 for fear of legal consequences, (2) negative perceptions or experiences with law enforcement officers, and (3) efforts to obtain medical intervention while avoiding identification/law enforcement involvement. CONCLUSION: People who use drugs employ multiple strategies to attempt overdose reversal, including non-evidence-based approaches. Greater education about the most effective and least harmful strategies is needed. Reluctance to call 911 is rooted in concerns about potential legal consequences as well as perceptions about law enforcement officers, which may be heightened in rural communities where people who use drugs are more easily identified by law enforcement. People who use drugs will go to great strides to connect their peers to needed medical services, suggesting that comprehensive interventions to reduce interactions with law enforcement officers and eliminate legal consequences for reporting overdoses are critical.

How Ohio public library systems respond to opioid-related substance use: a descriptive analysis of survey results.

BACKGROUND: Public libraries in the United States have experienced increases in opioid-related substance use in their communities and on their premises. This includes fatal and non-fatal overdose events. Some libraries have adopted response measures in their branches to deter substance use or prevent overdose. A small number of libraries around the nation have decided to stock the opioid antagonist naloxone (Narcan) for staff to administer to patrons who experience overdose. This response measure has generated extensive media attention. Although Ohio ranks fourth in age-adjusted drug mortality rate in the United States, there has been no investigation of whether Ohio libraries are observing opioid-related transactions, consumption, and/or overdose events, or which measures they have adopted in response to these activities. We conducted a multimethod survey with Ohio public library directors to identify the response measures they have adopted. We present descriptive findings from the quantitative and qualitative items in our survey. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional 54-item multimethod survey of public library system directors (one per system) in Ohio. Directors of each of Ohio's public library systems were invited to participate via email. RESULTS: Of 251 library systems, 56 responded (22.3% response rate), with 34 respondents (60.7%) indicating awareness of opioid-related transactions, consumption, and/or overdose on their premises. Most (n = 43, 76.8%) did not stock naloxone in their buildings. Over half (n = 34, 60.7%) reported implementing one or more non-naloxone response measures. These measures focus on improving security for staff and patrons, deterring opioid-related transactions (purchases and exchanges) and consumption, and providing educational events on substance use. Nearly half (n = 25, 47.2%) partner with community organizations to provide opioid response measures. A similar proportion reported adequate funding to respond to opioid-related substance use (n = 23, 45.1%), and most (n = 38, 74.5%) reported adequate support from their boards and communities. Few respondents have implemented evaluations of their response measures. CONCLUSIONS: Ohio public libraries are responding to evidence of opioid-related transactions, consumption, and/or overdose on their premises with a range of measures that focus on substance use prevention and deterrence. Most Ohio library systems do not stock naloxone. Respondents indicated they prefer to call 911 and let first responders handle overdose events. The majority of respondents indicated their library systems have political capacity to respond to evidence of opioid-related substance use on their premises, but have limited operational and functional capacity. Findings suggest the need to revisit assumptions that public libraries are willing to stock naloxone to respond to overdose events, and that libraries have the resources to respond robustly to opioid-related transactions, consumption, and/or overdose on their premises.

Using quality improvement approaches to increase emergency department provider engagement in research participant enrollment during COVID-19 and opioid overdose public health emergencies.

PURPOSE: We utilized quality improvement (QI) approaches to increase emergency department (ED) provider engagement with research participant enrollment during the opioid crisis and coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The context of this work is the Evaluating Microdosing in the Emergency Department (EMED) study, a randomized trial offering buprenorphine/naloxone to ED patients through randomization to standard or microdosing induction. Engaging providers is crucial for participant recruitment to our study. Anticipating challenges sustaining long-term engagement after a 63% decline in provider referrals four months into enrollments, we applied Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to develop and implement an engagement strategy to increase and sustain provider engagement by 50% from baseline within 9 months. METHODS: Our engagement strategy was centered on Coffee Carts rounds: 5-min study-related educational presentations for providers on shift; and a secondary initiative, a Suboxone Champions program, to engage interested providers as study-related peer educators. We used provider referrals to our team as a proxy for study engagement and report the percent change in mean weekly referrals across two PDSA cycles relative to our established referral baseline. RESULTS: A QI approach afforded real-time review of interventions based on research and provider priorities, increasing engagement via mean weekly provider referrals by 14.5% and 49% across two PDSA cycles relative to baseline, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our Coffee Carts and Suboxone Champions program are efficient, low-barrier, educational initiatives to convey study-related information to providers. This work supported our efforts to maximally engage providers, minimize burden, and provide life-saving buprenorphine/naloxone to patients at risk of fatal overdose.

RéSUMé: BUT: Nous avons utilisé des approches d'amélioration de la qualité (AQ) pour accroître l'engagement des fournisseurs des services d'urgence (SU) avec l'inscription des participants à la recherche pendant la crise des opioïdes et la pandémie de maladie à coronavirus (COVID-19). Le contexte de ce travail est l'étude Evaluating Microdosing in the Emergency Department (EMED), un essai randomisé offrant de la buprénorphine/naloxone aux patients aux urgences par randomisation à l'induction standard ou au microdosage. L'engagement des fournisseurs est crucial pour le recrutement des participants à notre étude. En anticipant les difficultés à maintenir un engagement à long terme après une baisse de 63 % des recommandations de fournisseurs quatre mois après les inscriptions, nous avons appliqué le Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles d'élaboration et de mise en œuvre d'une stratégie d'engagement visant à accroître et à maintenir l'engagement des fournisseurs de 50 % par rapport au niveau de référence dans les neuf mois. MéTHODES: Notre stratégie de mobilisation était axée sur les tournées de Coffee Carts : des présentations éducatives de cinq minutes sur l'étude pour les fournisseurs sur le quart de travail; et une initiative secondaire, un programme Suboxone Champions, pour mobiliser les fournisseurs intéressés en tant que pairs éducateurs liés à l'étude. Nous avons utilisé les recommandations des fournisseurs à notre équipe comme indicateur de la participation à l'étude et nous avons signalé le pourcentage de changement dans les recommandations hebdomadaires moyennes pour deux cycles PDSA par rapport à notre base de référence établie. RéSULTATS: Une approche d'AQ a permis d'examiner en temps réel les interventions en fonction des priorités de la recherche et des fournisseurs, ce qui a augmenté l'engagement par l'intermédiaire des recommandations hebdomadaires moyennes des fournisseurs de 14,5 % et de 49 % au cours de deux cycles de PDSA par rapport au niveau de référence, respectivement. CONCLUSION: Notre programme Coffee Carts and Suboxone Champions est une initiative éducative efficace et peu contraignante qui permet de transmettre aux fournisseurs des renseignements sur les études. Ce travail a appuyé nos efforts visant à mobiliser au maximum les fournisseurs, à réduire au minimum le fardeau et à fournir de la buprénorphine/naloxone vitale aux patients à risque de surdose mortelle.

Retrospective study investigating naloxone prescribing and cost in US Medicaid and Medicare patients.

BACKGROUND: Opioid overdoses in the USA have increased to unprecedented levels. Administration of the opioid antagonist naloxone can prevent overdoses. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to reveal the pharmacoepidemiologic patterns in naloxone prescribing to Medicaid patients from 2018 to 2021 as well as Medicare in 2019. DESIGN: Observational pharmacoepidemiologic study SETTING: US Medicare and Medicaid naloxone claims INTERVENTION: The Medicaid State Drug Utilisation Data File was utilised to extract information on the number of prescriptions and the amount prescribed of naloxone at a national and state level. The Medicare Provider Utilisation and Payment was also utilised to analyse prescription data from 2019. OUTCOME MEASURES: States with naloxone prescription rates that were outliers of quartile analysis were noted. RESULTS: The number of generic naloxone prescriptions per 100 000 Medicaid enrollees decreased by 5.3%, whereas brand naloxone prescriptions increased by 245.1% from 2018 to 2021. There was a 33.1-fold difference in prescriptions between the highest (New Mexico=1809.5) and lowest (South Dakota=54.6) states in 2019. Medicare saw a 30.4-fold difference in prescriptions between the highest (New Mexico) and lowest states (also South Dakota) after correcting per 100 000 enrollees. CONCLUSIONS: This pronounced increase in the number of naloxone prescriptions to Medicaid patients from 2018 to 2021 indicates a national response to this widespread public health emergency. Further research into the origins of the pronounced state-level disparities is warranted.

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.

Evaluation of Strategies to Enhance Community-Based Naloxone Distribution Supported by an Opioid Settlement.

Importance: Many US states are substantially increasing community-based naloxone distribution, supported in part through settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors. Objectives: To evaluate the potential impact of increased naloxone availability on opioid overdose deaths (OODs) and explore strategies to enhance this impact by integrating interventions to address solitary drug use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analytical modeling study used PROFOUND (Prevention and Rescue of Fentanyl and Other Opioid Overdoses Using Optimized Naloxone Distribution Strategies), a previously published simulation model, to forecast annual OODs between January 2023 and December 2025. The simulated study population included individuals from Rhode Island who misused opioids and stimulants and were at risk for opioid overdose. Exposures: The study modeled expanded naloxone distribution supported by the state's opioid settlement (50 000 naloxone nasal spray kits each year). Two approaches to expanding naloxone distribution were evaluated: one based on historical spatial patterns of naloxone distribution (supply-based approach) and one based on the spatial distribution of individuals at risk (demand-based approach). In addition, hypothetical interventions to enhance the likelihood of witnessed overdoses in private or semiprivate settings were considered. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual number of OODs and ratio of fatal to nonfatal opioid overdoses. Results: Modeling results indicated that distributing more naloxone supported by the state's opioid settlement could reduce OODs by 6.3% (95% simulation interval [SI], 0.3%-13.7%) and 8.8% (95% SI, 1.8%-17.5%) in 2025 with the supply-based and demand-based approaches, respectively. However, increasing witnessed overdoses by 20% to 60% demonstrated greater potential for reducing OODs, ranging from 8.5% (95% SI, 0.0%-20.3%) to 24.1% (95% SI, 8.6%-39.3%). Notably, synergistic associations were observed when combining both interventions: increased naloxone distribution with the 2 approaches and a 60% increase in witnessed overdoses could reduce OODs in 2025 by 33.5% (95% SI, 17.1%-50.4%) and 37.4% (95% SI, 19.6%-56.3%), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that interventions to address solitary drug use are needed to maximize the impact of continued efforts to increase community-based naloxone distribution, which may be particularly important for jurisdictions that have strong community-based naloxone distribution programs.

Reducing overdose deaths among persons with opioid use disorder in connecticut.

BACKGROUND: People in Connecticut are now more likely to die of a drug-related overdose than a traffic accident. While Connecticut has had some success in slowing the rise in overdose death rates, substantial additional progress is necessary. METHODS: We developed, verified, and calibrated a mechanistic simulation of alternative overdose prevention policy options, including scaling up naloxone (NLX) distribution in the community and medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) among people who are incarcerated (MOUD-INC) and in the community (MOUD-COM) in a simulated cohort of people with OUD in Connecticut. We estimated how maximally scaling up each option individually and in combinations would impact 5-year overdose deaths, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years. All costs were assessed in 2021 USD, employing a health sector perspective in base-case analyses and a societal perspective in sensitivity analyses, using a 3% discount rate and 5-year and lifetime time horizons. RESULTS: Maximally scaling NLX alone reduces overdose deaths 20% in the next 5 years at a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); if injectable rather than intranasal NLX was distributed, 240 additional overdose deaths could be prevented. Maximally scaling MOUD-COM and MOUD-INC alone reduce overdose deaths by 14% and 6% respectively at favorable ICERS. Considering all permutations of scaling up policies, scaling NLX and MOUD-COM together is the cost-effective choice, reducing overdose deaths 32% at ICER $19,000/QALY. In sensitivity analyses using a societal perspective, all policy options were cost saving and overdose deaths reduced 33% over 5 years while saving society $338,000 per capita over the simulated cohort lifetime. CONCLUSIONS: Maximally scaling access to naloxone and MOUD in the community can reduce 5-year overdose deaths by 32% among people with OUD in Connecticut under realistic budget scenarios. If societal cost savings due to increased productivity and reduced crime costs are considered, one-third of overdose deaths can be reduced by maximally scaling all three policy options, while saving money.

Implementation and Evaluation of a Bystander Naloxone Training Course.

Introduction: Bystander provision of naloxone is a key modality to reduce opioid overdose-related death. Naloxone training courses are available, but no standardized program exists. As part of a bystander empowerment course, we created and evaluated a brief naloxone training module. Methods: This was a retrospective evaluation of a naloxone training course, which was paired with Stop the Bleed training for hemorrhage control and was offered to administrative staff in an office building. Participants worked in an organization related to healthcare, but none were clinicians. The curriculum included the following topics: 1) background about the opioid epidemic; 2) how to recognize the signs of an opioid overdose; 3) actions not to take when encountering an overdose victim; 4) the correct steps to take when encountering an overdose victim; 5) an overview of naloxone products; and 6) Good Samaritan protection laws. The 20-minute didactic section was followed by a hands-on session with nasal naloxone kits and a simulation mannequin. The course was evaluated with the Opioid Overdose Knowledge (OOKS) and Opioid Overdose Attitudes (OOAS) scales for take-home naloxone training evaluation. We used the paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare scores pre- and post-course. Results: Twenty-eight participants completed the course. The OOKS, measuring objective knowledge about opioid overdose and naloxone, had improved scores from a median of 73.2% (interquartile range [IQR] 68.3%-79.9%) to 91.5% (IQR 85.4%-95.1%), P < 0.001. The three domains on the OOAS score also showed statistically significant results. Competency to manage an overdose improved on a five-point scale from a median of 2.5 (IQR 2.4-2.9) to a median of 3.7 (IQR 3.5-4.1), P < 0.001. Concerns about managing an overdose decreased (improved) from a median of 2.3 (IQR 1.9-2.6) to median 1.8 (IQR 1.5-2.1), P < 0.001. Readiness to intervene in an opioid overdose improved from a median of 4 (IQR 3.8-4.2) to a median of 4.2 (IQR 4-4.2), P < 0.001. Conclusion: A brief course designed to teach bystanders about opioid overdose and naloxone was feasible and effective. We encourage hospitals and other organizations to use and promulgate this model. Furthermore, we suggest the convening of a national consortium to achieve consensus on program content and delivery.

Bystander-application of a novel nasal swab optimized for drug delivery is safe and non-traumatic for the general population.

OBJECTIVE: The PN Naloxone Nasal Swab (Pocket Naloxone Corp., Bethesda, MD) is a swab optimized for drug delivery and intended for use by non-medical personnel for the emergency treatment of opioid overdose. The aim of this study (PNC-20-003) is to determine the safety of this nasal swab in a real-world environment. METHODS: This was a single-institution, quantitative-qualitative prospective trial performed at an outpatient clinic. Patients with normal or abnormal nasal structure were recruited. A non-medically trained individual placed the nasal (soaked in fluorescein dye) on each side of the patient's nose. Endoscopy with recording was performed before and after swab placement. An independent reviewer rated degree of staining, mucosal bleeding, and trauma at nasal subsites. RESULTS: Videos from 32 nasal cavities (16 participants) were reviewed. All cavities had high intensity staining at the septum and the inferior turbinate. No patients had staining within the middle meatus, agger nasi, or olfactory regions. In patients with normal anatomy, obstructive nasal anatomy or prior nasal surgery, all cavities had staining near the nasal septum. Only 7 cavities (22 %) had minor bleeding defined as ooze that stopped in 1-2min, and 3 (9 %) had minor trauma defined as mucosal disruption less than 5mm. There were no significant differences in comparing pre- and post-swab nasal cavity, trauma, or bleeding exams. CONCLUSIONS: These study results showed that this swab is atraumatic to the nasal mucosal membranes when administered by non-medical personnel. Analysis suggests contact with targeted sites for drug absorption regardless of anatomy.

Characterization of peer support services for substance use disorders in 11 US emergency departments in 2020: findings from a NIDA clinical trials network site selection process.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency departments (ED) are incorporating Peer Support Specialists (PSSs) to help with patient care for substance use disorders (SUDs). Despite rapid growth in this area, little is published regarding workflow, expectations of the peer role, and core components of the PSS intervention. This study describes these elements in a national sample of ED-based peer support intervention programs. METHODS: A survey was conducted to assess PSS site characteristics as part of site selection process for a National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Clinical Trials Network (CTN) evaluating PSS effectiveness, Surveys were distributed to clinical sites affiliated with the 16 CTN nodes. Surveys were completed by a representative(s) of the site and collected data on the PSS role in the ED including details regarding funding and certification, services rendered, role in medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and naloxone distribution, and factors impacting implementation and maintenance of ED PSS programs. Quantitative data was summarized with descriptive statistics. Free-text fields were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 11 surveys were completed, collected from 9 different states. ED PSS funding was from grants (55%), hospital funds (46%), peer recovery organizations (27%) or other (18%). Funding was anticipated to continue for a mean of 16 months (range 12 to 36 months). The majority of programs provided "general recovery support (81%) Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) services (55%), and assisted with naloxone distribution to ED patients (64%). A minority assisted with ED-initiated buprenorphine (EDIB) programs (27%). Most (91%) provided services to patients after they were discharged from the ED. Barriers to implementation included lack of outpatient referral sources, barriers to initiating MOUD, stigma at the clinician and system level, and lack of ongoing PSS availability due to short-term grant funding. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of ED-based PSSs were funded through time-limited grants, and short-term grant funding was identified as a barrier for ED PSS programs. There was consistency among sites in the involvement of PSSs in facilitation of transitions of SUD care, coordination of follow-up after ED discharge, and PSS involvement in naloxone distribution.

Is a randomised controlled trial of take home naloxone distributed in emergency settings likely to be feasible and acceptable? Findings from a UK qualitative study exploring perspectives of people who use opioids and emergency services staff.

OBJECTIVE: Distribution of take-home naloxone (THN) by emergency services may increase access to THN and reduce deaths and morbidity from opioid overdose. As part of a feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of distribution of THN kits and education within ambulance services and Emergency Departments (EDs), we used qualitative methods to explore key stakeholders' perceptions of feasibility and acceptability of delivering the trial. METHODS: We undertook semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 26 people who use opioids and with 20 paramedics and ED staff from two intervention sites between 2019 and 2021. Interviews and focus groups were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: People using opioids reported high awareness of overdose management, including personal experience of THN use. Staff perceived emergency service provision of THN as a low-cost, low-risk intervention with potential to reduce mortality, morbidity and health service use. Staff understood the trial aims and considered it compatible with their work. All participants supported widening access to THN but reported limited trial recruitment opportunities partly due to difficulties in consenting patients during overdose. Procedural problems, restrictive recruitment protocols, limited staff buy-in and patients already owning THN limited trial recruitment. Determining trial effectiveness was challenging due to high levels of alternative community provision of THN. CONCLUSIONS: Distribution of THN in emergency settings was considered feasible and acceptable for stakeholders but an RCT to establish the effectiveness of THN delivery is unlikely to generate further useful evidence due to difficulties in recruiting patients and assessing benefits.

Developing medical simulations for opioid overdose response training: A qualitative analysis of narratives from responders to overdoses.

Medical simulation offers a controlled environment for studying challenging clinical care situations that are difficult to observe directly. Overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) programs aim to train potential rescuers in responding to opioid overdoses, but assessing rescuer performance in real-life situations before emergency medical services arrive is exceedingly complex. There is an opportunity to incorporate individuals with firsthand experience in treating out-of-hospital overdoses into the development of simulation scenarios. Realistic overdose simulations could provide OEND programs with valuable tools to effectively teach hands-on skills and support context-sensitive training regimens. In this research, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 individuals experienced in responding to opioid overdoses including emergency department physicians, first responders, OEND program instructors, and peer recovery specialists. Two coders conducted qualitative content analysis using open and axial thematic coding to identify nuances associated with illicit and prescription opioid overdoses. The results are presented as narrative findings complemented by summaries of the frequency of themes across the interviews. Over 20 hours of audio recording were transcribed verbatim and then coded. During the open and axial thematic coding process several primary themes, along with subthemes, were identified, highlighting the distinctions between illicit and prescription opioid overdoses. Distinct contextual details, such as locations, clinical presentations, the environment surrounding the patient, and bystanders' behavior, were used to create four example simulations of out-of-hospital overdoses. The narrative findings in this qualitative study offer context-sensitive information for developing out-of-hospital overdose scenarios applicable to simulation training. These insights can serve as a valuable resource, aiding instructors and researchers in systematically creating evidence-based scenarios for both training and research purposes.

Adverse Effects After Prehospital Administration of Naloxone by Bystanders: A Preliminary Study.

OBJECTIVE: Opioid use disorder is a cause of significant morbidity and mortality. In order to reverse opioid overdose as quickly as possible, many institutions and municipalities have encouraged people with no professional medical training to carry and administer naloxone. This study sought to provide preliminary data for research into the rates of adverse effects of naloxone when administered by bystanders compared to Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel, since this question has not been studied previously. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study performed at an urban, tertiary, academic medical center that operates its own EMS service. A consecutive sample of patients presenting to EMS with opioid overdose requiring naloxone was separated into two groups based on whether naloxone was administered by bystanders or by EMS personnel. Each group was analyzed to determine the incidence of four pre-specified adverse events. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the rate of adverse events between the bystander (19%) and EMS (16%) groups (OR = 1.23; 95% CI, 0.63 - 2.32; P = .499) in this small sample. Based on these initial results, a study would need a sample size of 6,188 in order to reach this conclusion with 80% power. Similarly, there were no significant differences in the rates of any of the individual adverse events. Secondary analysis of patients' demographics showed differences between the two groups which generate hypotheses for further investigation of disparities in naloxone administration. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study provides foundational data for further investigation of naloxone administration by bystanders. Adverse events after the prehospital administration of naloxone are rare, and future studies will require large sample sizes. These preliminary data did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in adverse event rates when comparing naloxone administration by bystanders and EMS clinicians. This study provides data that will be useful for conducting further research on multiple facets of this topic.

Emergency Department Take-Home Naloxone Improves Access Compared with Pharmacy-Dispensed Naloxone.

BACKGROUND: Opioid overdose is a major cause of mortality in the United States. In spite of efforts to increase naloxone availability, distribution to high-risk populations remains a challenge. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of multiple different naloxone distribution methods on patient obtainment of naloxone in the emergency department (ED) setting. METHODS: Naloxone was provided to patients in three 12-month phases between February 2020 and February 2023. In Phase 1, physicians could offer patients electronic prescriptions, which were filled in a nearby in-hospital discharge pharmacy. In Phase 2, physicians directly provided patients with take-home naloxone at discharge. In Phase 3, distribution was expanded to allow ED staff to hand patients take-home naloxone at time of discharge. The total number of prescriptions, rate of prescription filling, and amount of take-home naloxone kits provided to patients were then statistically analyzed using 95% confidence intervals (CI) and chi-squared testing. RESULTS: In Phase 1, 348 naloxone prescriptions were written, with 133 (95% CI 112.5-153.5) filled. In Phase 2, 327 (95% CI 245.5-408.5) take-home naloxone kits were given to patients by physicians. In Phase 3, 677 (95% CI 509.5-844.5) take-home naloxone kits were provided to patients by ED staff. There were statistically significant increases in naloxone distribution from Phase 1 to Phase 2, and Phase 2 to Phase 3. CONCLUSIONS: Take-home naloxone increases access when compared with naloxone prescriptions in the ED setting. A multidisciplinary approach combined with the removal of regulatory and administrative barriers allowed for further increased distribution of no-cost naloxone to patients.

Pharmacological prevention and treatment of opioid-induced constipation in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related pain often requires opioid treatment with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) as its most frequent gastrointestinal side-effect. Both for prevention and treatment of OIC osmotic (e.g. polyethylene glycol) and stimulant (e.g. bisacodyl) laxatives are widely used. Newer drugs such as the peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) and naloxone in a fixed combination with oxycodone have become available for the management of OIC. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to give an overview of the scientific evidence on pharmacological strategies for the prevention and treatment of OIC in cancer patients. METHODS: A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library was completed from inception up to 22 October 2022. Randomized and non-randomized studies were systematically selected. Bowel function and adverse drug events were assessed. RESULTS: Twenty trials (prevention: five RCTs and three cohort studies; treatment: ten RCTs and two comparative cohort studies) were included in the review. Regarding the prevention of OIC, three RCTs compared laxatives with other laxatives, finding no clear differences in effectivity of the laxatives used. One cohort study showed a significant benefit of magnesium oxide compared with no laxative. One RCT found a significant benefit for the PAMORA naldemedine compared with magnesium oxide. Preventive use of oxycodone/naloxone did not show a significant difference in two out of three other studies compared to oxycodone or fentanyl. A meta-analysis was not possible. Regarding the treatment of OIC, two RCTs compared laxatives, of which one RCT found that polyethylene glycol was significantly more effective than sennosides. Seven studies compared an opioid antagonist (naloxone, methylnaltrexone or naldemedine) with placebo and three studies compared different dosages of opioid antagonists. These studies with opioid antagonists were used for the meta-analysis. Oxycodone/naloxone showed a significant improvement in Bowel Function Index compared to oxycodone with laxatives (MD -13.68; 95 % CI -18.38 to -8.98; I2 = 58 %). Adverse drug event rates were similar amongst both groups, except for nausea in favour of oxycodone/naloxone (RR 0.51; 95 % CI 0.31-0.83; I2 = 0 %). Naldemedine (NAL) and methylnaltrexone (MNTX) demonstrated significantly higher response rates compared to placebo (NAL: RR 2.07, 95 % CI 1.64-2.61, I2 = 0 %; MNTX: RR 3.83, 95 % CI 2.81-5.22, I2 = 0 %). With regard to adverse events, abdominal pain was more present in treatment with methylnaltrexone and diarrhea was significantly more present in treatment with naldemedine. Different dosages of methylnaltrexone were not significantly different with regard to both efficacy and adverse drug event rates. CONCLUSIONS: Magnesium oxide and naldemedine are most likely effective for prevention of OIC in cancer patients. Naloxone in a fixed combination with oxycodone, naldemedine and methylnaltrexone effectively treat OIC in cancer patients with acceptable adverse events. However, their effect has not been compared to standard (osmotic and stimulant) laxatives. More studies comparing standard laxatives with each other and with opioid antagonists are necessary before recommendations for clinical practice can be made.

Fact vs. fiction: naloxone in the treatment of opioid-induced respiratory depression in the current era of synthetic opioids.

Opioid-induced respiratory depression (OIRD) deaths are ~80,000 a year in the US and are a major public health issue. Approximately 90% of fatal opioid-related deaths are due to synthetic opioids such as fentanyl, most of which is illicitly manufactured and distributed either on its own or as an adulterant to other drugs of abuse such as cocaine or methamphetamine. Other potent opioids such as nitazenes are also increasingly present in the illicit drug supply, and xylazine, a veterinary tranquilizer, is a prevalent additive to opioids and other drugs of abuse. Naloxone is the main treatment used to reverse OIRD and is available as nasal sprays, prefilled naloxone injection devices, and generic naloxone for injection. An overdose needs to be treated as soon as possible to avoid death, and synthetic opioids such as fentanyl are up to 50 times more potent than heroin, so the availability of new, higher-dose, 5-mg prefilled injection or 8-mg intranasal spray naloxone preparations are important additions for emergency treatment of OIRDs, especially by lay people in the community. Higher naloxone doses are expected to reverse a synthetic overdose more rapidly and the current formulations are ideal for use by untrained lay people in the community. There are potential concerns about severe withdrawal symptoms, or pulmonary edema from treatment with high-dose naloxone. However, from the perspective of first responders, the balance of risks would point to administration of naloxone at the dose required to combat the overdose where the risk of death is very high. The presence of xylazines as an adulterant complicates the treatment of OIRDs, as naloxone is probably ineffective, although it will reverse the respiratory depression due to the opioid. For these patients, hospitalization is particularly vital. Education about the benefits of naloxone remains important not only in informing people about how to treat emergency OIRDs but also how to obtain naloxone. A call to emergency services is also essential after administering naloxone because, although the patient may revive, they may overdose again later because of the short half-life of naloxone and the long-lasting potency of fentanyl and its analogs.