Buprenorphine in the Intensive Care Unit: Commentary on the Unanswered Questions.

The removal of the X-waiver in the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act of 2023 has substantial implications for buprenorphine prescribing as one of the options to treat opioid use disorder. The purpose of this commentary is to discuss the unanswered questions regarding buprenorphine in the intensive care unit (ICU) including how the passage of the MAT Act will affect ICU providers, which patients should receive buprenorphine, what is the most appropriate route of administration and dose of buprenorphine, what medications interact with buprenorphine, and how can transitions of care be optimized for these patients.

Management of Critically Ill Patients Receiving Medications for Opioid Use Disorder.

TOPIC IMPORTANCE: Critical care clinicians are likely to see an increasing number of patients admitted to the ICU who are receiving US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs) given the well-documented benefits of these agents. Oral methadone, multiple formulations of buprenorphine, and extended-release naltrexone are the three types of MOUD most likely to be encountered by ICU clinicians; however, these drugs vary with respect to formulations, pharmacokinetics, and adverse effects. REVIEW FINDINGS: No published clinical practice guidelines or consensus statements are available to guide decision-making in patients admitted to the ICU setting who are receiving MOUDs before admission. Additionally, no randomized trials and limited observational studies have evaluated issues related to MOUD use in the ICU. Therefore, ICU clinicians caring for patients admitted who are taking MOUDs must base their decision-making on data extrapolation from pharmacokinetic, pharmacologic, and clinical studies performed in non-ICU settings. SUMMARY: Despite the challenges in administering MOUDs in critically ill patients, extrapolation of data from other hospital settings suggests that the benefits of continuing MOUD therapy outweigh the risks in patients able to continue therapy. This article provides guidance for critical care clinicians caring for patients admitted to the ICU already receiving methadone, buprenorphine, or extended-release naltrexone. The guidance includes algorithms to aid clinicians in the clinical decision-making process, recognizing the inherent limitations of the existing evidence on which the algorithms are based and the need to account for patient-specific considerations.

Considerations and limitations of buprenorphine prescribing for opioid use disorder in the intensive care unit setting: A narrative review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this review is to discuss important considerations when prescribing buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD) in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting, recognizing the challenges of providing detailed recommendations in the setting of limited available evidence. SUMMARY: Buprenorphine is a partial mu-opioid receptor agonist that is likely to be increasingly prescribed for OUD in the ICU setting due to the relaxation of prescribing regulations. The pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of buprenorphine are complicated by the availability of several formulations that can be given by different administration routes. There is no single optimal dosing strategy for buprenorphine induction, with regimens ranging from very low-dose to high dose regimens. Faster induction with higher doses of buprenorphine has been studied and is frequently utilized in the emergency department. In patients admitted to the ICU who were receiving opioids either medically or illicitly, analgesia will not occur until their baseline opioid requirements are covered when their preadmission opioid is either reversed or interrupted. For patients in the ICU who are not on buprenorphine at the time of admission but have possible OUD, there are no validated tools to diagnose OUD or the severity of opioid withdrawal in critically ill patients unable to provide the subjective components of instruments validated in outpatient settings. When prescribing buprenorphine in the ICU, important issues to consider include dosing, monitoring, pain management, use of adjunctive medications, and considerations to transition to outpatient therapy. Ideally, addiction and pain management specialists would be available when buprenorphine is prescribed for critically ill patients. CONCLUSION: There are unique challenges when prescribing buprenorphine for OUD in critically ill patients, regardless of whether they were receiving buprenorphine when admitted to the ICU setting for OUD or are under consideration for buprenorphine initiation. There is a critical need for more research in this area.

Harm reduction and emergency medical services: Opportunities for evidence-based programming.

Overdose fatalities are increasingly attributed to synthetic opioids, including fentanyl, which may be added to samples of illicit substances unknowingly to the user. As recently as April 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has also raised awareness of the risks of xylazine, an animal tranquilizer that has been found in adulterated samples of illicit substance. A growing body of evidence supports the use of drug testing services, including fentanyl and xylazine test strips, to reduce the risks associated with substance use and prevent fatal overdoses. Emergency medical services clinicians serve on the frontline of the opioid epidemic and are uniquely positioned to distribute harm reduction materials. In this article, we advocate for emergency medical services to distribute fentanyl and xylazine test strips. We also critically evaluate legal and other barriers to implementation.

Legal Authority for Emergency Medical Services to Increase Access to Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder.

Treatment with buprenorphine significantly reduces both all-cause and overdose mortality among individuals with opioid use disorder. Offering buprenorphine treatment to individuals who experience a nonfatal opioid overdose represents an opportunity to reduce opioid overdose fatalities. Although some emergency departments (EDs) initiate buprenorphine treatment, many individuals who experience an overdose either refuse transport to the ED or are transported to an ED that does not offer buprenorphine. Emergency medical services (EMS) professionals can help address this treatment gap. In this Concepts article, we describe the federal legal landscape that governs the ability of EMS professionals to administer buprenorphine treatment, and discuss state and local regulatory considerations relevant to this promising and emerging practice.

Refusals After Prehospital Administration of Naloxone during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if COVID-19 was associated with a change in patient refusals after Emergency Medical Services (EMS) administration of naloxone. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study in which the incidence of refusals after naloxone administration in a single EMS system was evaluated. The number of refusals after naloxone administration was compared across the before-pandemic interval (01/01/20 to 02/15/20) and the during-pandemic interval (03/16/20 to 04/30/20). For comparison the incidence of all other patient refusals before and during COVID-19 as well as the incidences of naloxone administration before and during COVID-19 were also reported. RESULTS: Prior to the widespread knowledge of the COVID-19 pandemic, 24 of 164 (14.6%) patients who received naloxone via EMS refused transport. During the pandemic, 55 of 153 (35.9%) patients who received naloxone via EMS refused transport. Subjects receiving naloxone during the COVID-19 pandemic were at greater risk of refusal of transport than those receiving naloxone prior to the pandemic (RR = 2.45; 95% CI 1.6-3.76). Among those who did not receive naloxone, 2067 of 6956 (29.7%) patients were not transported prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and 2483 of 6016 (41.3%) were not transported during the pandemic. Subjects who did not receive naloxone with EMS were at greater risk of refusal of transport during the COVID-19 pandemic than prior to it (RR = 1.39; 95% CI 1.32-1.46). CONCLUSION: In this single EMS system, more than a two-fold increase in the rate of refusal after non-fatal opioid overdose was observed following the COVID-19 outbreak.

Adult Patients with Respiratory Distress: Current Evidence-based Recommendations for Prehospital Care.

INTRODUCTION: We developed evidence-based recommendations for prehospital evaluation and treatment of adult patients with respiratory distress. These recommendations are compared with current protocols used by the 33 local emergency medical services agencies (LEMSA) in California. METHODS: We performed a review of the evidence in the prehospital treatment of adult patients with respiratory distress. The quality of evidence was rated and used to form guidelines. We then compared the respiratory distress protocols of each of the 33 LEMSAs for consistency with these recommendations. RESULTS: PICO (population/problem, intervention, control group, outcome) questions investigated were treatment with oxygen, albuterol, ipratropium, steroids, nitroglycerin, furosemide, and non-invasive ventilation. Literature review revealed that oxygen titration to no more than 94-96% for most acutely ill medical patients and to 88-92% in patients with acute chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation is associated with decreased mortality. In patients with bronchospastic disease, the data shows improved symptoms and peak flow rates after the administration of albuterol. There is limited data regarding prehospital use of ipratropium, and the benefit is less clear. The literature supports the use of systemic steroids in those with asthma and COPD to improve symptoms and decrease hospital admissions. There is weak evidence to support the use of nitrates in critically ill, hypertensive patients with acute pulmonary edema (APE) and moderate evidence that furosemide may be harmful if administered prehospital to patients with suspected APE. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is shown in the literature to be safe and effective in the treatment of respiratory distress due to acute pulmonary edema, bronchospasm, and other conditions. It decreases both mortality and the need for intubation. Albuterol, nitroglycerin, and NIPPV were found in the protocols of every LEMSA. Ipratropium, furosemide, and oxygen titration were found in a proportion of the protocols, and steroids were not prescribed in any LEMSA protocol. CONCLUSION: Prehospital treatment of adult patients with respiratory distress varies widely across California. We present evidence-based recommendations for the prehospital treatment of undifferentiated adult patients with respiratory distress that will assist with standardizing management and may be useful for EMS medical directors when creating and revising protocols.

Emergency Medical Services Use Among Patients Receiving Involuntary Psychiatric Holds and the Safety of an Out-of-Hospital Screening Protocol to "Medically Clear" Psychiatric Emergencies in the Field, 2011 to 2016.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Patients with acute psychiatric emergencies who receive an involuntary hold often spend hours in the emergency department (ED) because of a deficit in inpatient psychiatric beds. One solution to address the lack of prompt psychiatric evaluation in the ED has been to establish regional stand-alone psychiatric emergency services. However, patients receiving involuntary holds still need to be screened and evaluated to ensure that their behavior is not caused by an underlying and life-threatening nonpsychiatric illness. Although traditional regional emergency medical services (EMS) systems depend on the medical ED for this function, a field-screening protocol can allow EMS to directly transport a substantial portion of patients to a stand-alone psychiatric emergency service. The purpose of this investigation is to describe overall EMS use for patients receiving involuntary holds, compare patients receiving involuntary holds with all EMS patients, and evaluate the safety of field medical clearance of an established field-screening protocol in Alameda County, CA. METHODS: We obtained data for all EMS encounters between November 1, 2011, and November 1, 2016, using Alameda County's standardized data set. After unique patient identification, we describe the data at the patient level and at the encounter level. At the patient level, we compare "involuntary hold patients" (≥1 involuntary hold during the study period) with those who were "never held." Additionally, we assess the safety of out-of-hospital medical clearance by calculating the rate of failed diversion, defined as retransport of a patient to a medical ED within 12 hours of transport to the psychiatric emergency services by EMS. RESULTS: Of the 541,731 total EMS encounters in Alameda County during the study period, 10% (N=53,887) were identified as involuntary hold encounters. Of these involuntary hold patient encounters, 41% (N=22,074) resulted in direct transport of the patient to the stand-alone psychiatric emergency service for evaluation; 0.3% (N=60) failed diversion and required retransport within 12 hours. At the patient level, Alameda County EMS encountered 257,625 unique patients, and 10% (N=26,283) had at least one encounter for an involuntary hold during the study period. These "involuntary hold patients" were substantially younger, more likely to be men, and less likely to be insured. Additionally, they had higher overall EMS use: "involuntary hold patients" accounted for 24% of all encounters (N=128,003); 53,887 of these encounters were for involuntary holds, whereas an additional 74,116 were for other reasons. Similarly, 4% of "involuntary hold patients" had 20 or more encounters, whereas only 0.4% of "never held" patients were in this category. Last, the 7% of "involuntary hold patients" (N=1,907) who received greater than or equal to 5 involuntary holds during the study period accounted for 39% of all involuntary holds and 9% of all EMS encounters. CONCLUSION: Ten percent of all EMS encounters were for involuntary psychiatric holds. With an EMS-directed screening protocol, 41% of all such patient encounters resulted in direct transport of the patient to the psychiatric emergency service, bypassing medical clearance in the ED. Overall, only 0.3% of these patients required retransport to a medical ED within 12 hours of arrival to psychiatric emergency services. We found that 24% of all EMS encounters in Alameda County were attributable to "involuntary hold patients," reinforcing the importance of the effects of mental illness on EMS use.

Neighborhood Poverty and 9-1-1 Ambulance Response Time.

BACKGROUND: Are 9-1-1 ambulances relatively late to poorer neighborhoods? Studies suggesting so often rely on weak measures of neighborhood (e.g., postal zip code), limit the analysis to particular ambulance encounters (e.g., cardiac arrest responses), and do little to account for variations in dispatch priority or intervention severity. METHODS: We merged EMS ambulance contact records in a single California county (n = 87,554) with tract-level data from the American Community Survey (n = 300). After calculating tract-level median ambulance response time (MART), we used ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to estimate a conditional average relationship between neighborhood poverty and MART and quantile regression to condition this relationship on 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of MART. We also specified each of these outcomes by five dispatch priorities and by three intervention severities. For each model, we estimated the associated changes in MART per 10 percentage point increase in tract-level poverty while adjusting for emergency department proximity, population density, and population size. RESULTS: Our study produced three major findings. First, most of our tests suggested tract-level poverty was negatively associated with MART. Our baseline OLS model estimates that a 10 percentage point increase in tract-level poverty is associated with almost a 24 s decrease in MART (-23.55 s, 95% confidence interval [CI] -33.13 to -13.98). Results from our quantile regression models provided further evidence for this association. Second, we did not find evidence that ambulances are relatively late to poorer neighborhoods when specifying MART by dispatch priority. Third, we were also unable to identify a positive association between tract-level poverty and MART when we specified our outcomes by three intervention severities. Across each of our 36 models, tract-level poverty was either not significantly associated with MART or was negatively associated with MART by a magnitude smaller than a full minute per estimated 10 percentage point increase in poverty concentration. CONCLUSION: Our study challenges the commonly held assumption that ambulances are later to poor neighborhoods. We scrutinize our findings before cautiously considering their relevance for ambulance response time research and for ongoing conversations on the relationship between neighborhood poverty and prehospital care.

State Regulation of Community Paramedicine Programs: A National Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Community Paramedicine (CP) is a rapidly evolving field within prehospital care where paramedics step outside of their traditional roles of treating acute conditions to provide elements of primary and preventive care. It is unclear if current state oversight regarding the scope of practice (SOP) for paramedics provides clear guidance on the novel functions provided and skills performed by CP programs. OBJECTIVE: To determine the process and authority, as currently defined by state laws and regulations in the United States, to expand paramedic SOP in order to perform CP roles and to assess state EMS agencies' interpretation of paramedic SOP as it applies to CP. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of laws, regulations, and policies from the 50 U.S. states in effect between February and June 2016 that define or apply to paramedic SOP. We determined whether each state's SOP included 21 potential skills applicable to CP within the following categories: assessment, treatment & intervention, referrals, and prevention & public health. Laws were also queried for mechanisms for expanding SOP, alternate destinations, and community paramedicine for each state. Additionally, we surveyed representatives from U.S. State Emergency Medical Services (EMS) agencies and asked which of these skills were a part of their current SOP. All data was coded into Excel™ and analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: All 50 U.S. states have laws relating to EMS. Forty-one states have a statewide SOP (82%), and 3 states have statewide protocols from which the SOP has been inferred for purposed of this study, but may not legally constitute SOP in this jurisdiction (6%). 20 states (40%) had a clearly defined mechanism for expanding SOP. Sixteen states (32%) had laws specific to CP. Seven states (14%) allowed for patients to be transported to alternate destinations. Of the 21 skills surveyed, on average there were 8.63 (6.41-10.85) fewer skills for paramedics found in state SOP laws and regulations than were reported as being a part of a state's paramedic SOP. All skills demonstrated variability between the legal review and survey results with 13.04-96.15% concordance. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of guidance and consistency regarding CP programs and scope of practice. Further studies are needed to understand best practices around regulation and oversight of CP.