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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Analysis of rising cases of adolescent opioid use presentations to the emergency department and their management.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to answer the question of how adolescents (ages 12-17 years old) with opioid-related presentations are currently managed in the ED. The two main outcomes were the proportion of visits where naloxone and buprenorphine were both used and prescribed, and the rate of revisits to the emergency department in the six months following ED presentation. METHODS: This was a multi-center retrospective cross-sectional study. We studied patients presenting to the ED who were 12-17 years old with an opioid-related presentation. RESULTS: Two-hundred and thirty-one patients were identified out of 571 encounters screened. Of these presentations, 77/231 (33%) were girls and 154/231 (67%) were boys. The majority of patients were Latino (64%; n=147); 26% were white (n=59), 6% were middle eastern or Arab (14), and 4% were black (10). Incidence of opioid use disorder per 100,000 presentations increased by 2800% from 2014 to 2022 (21/100,000 +/- 10 [2014] to 600/100,000 +/- 50 [2022]). A plurality of cases was related to opioid withdrawal (42%; 97). On discharge from the ED, 29% of patients received naloxone. For patients in withdrawal, 4% received a prescription for buprenorphine. Twenty-nine percent of patients had a return to the ED in the six months following initial visit. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescent opioid-related presentations to the ED are rapidly increasing. Increasing ED presentations, compounded by a high 6-month revisit rate, pose a management challenge amid limited outpatient resources for this population. Opioid agonist therapy and naloxone are not routinely provided. Increasing the use of both are two ways to improve the quality of care for this population.

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.

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.

Opioid stewardship program implementation in rural and critical access hospitals in Arizona.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to examine rural hospitals' status in implementing opioid stewardship program (OSP) elements and assess differences in implementation in emergency department (ED) and acute inpatient departments. DESIGN: Health administrator survey to identify the number and type of OSP elements that each hospital has implemented. SETTING: Arizona critical access hospitals (CAHs). PARTICIPANTS: ED and acute inpatient department heads at 17 Arizona CAHs (total of 34 assessments). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Implementation of 11 OSP elements, by department (ED vs inpatient) and prevention orientation (primary vs tertiary). RESULTS: The percentage of implemented elements ranged from 35 to 94 percent in EDs and 24 to 88 percent in acute care departments. Reviewing the prescription drug monitoring program database and offering alternatives to opioids were the most frequently implemented. Assessing opioid use disorder (OUD) and prescribing naloxone were among the least. The number of implemented elements tended to be uniform across departments. We found that CAHs implemented, on average, 67 percent of elements that prevent unnecessary opioid use and 54 percent of elements that treat OUD. CONCLUSIONS: Some OSP elements were in place in nearly every Arizona CAH, while others were present in only a quarter or a third of hospitals. To improve, more attention is needed to define and standardize OSPs. Equal priority should be given to preventing unnecessary opioid initiation and treating opioid misuse or OUD, as well as quality control strategies that provide an opportunity for continuous improvement.

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.

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.

Patients' willingness to pay for naloxone: A national cross-sectional survey of prescription opioid users with chronic pain in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Millions of U.S. people have been heavily affected by opioids. In March 2023, the Food and Drug Administration approved naloxone as an over-the-counter medication. This has allowed more access to patients at high risk of opioid overdose. However, the patient's willingness to pay for naloxone at the pharmacy counter has not been assessed. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to characterize factors associated with the willingness to pay for naloxone among the patient group. METHODS: A cross-sectional Qualtrics online panel survey instrument was developed. This survey was distributed to patients in the United States, aged ≥ 18 years, with any chronic pain and taking opioids. The survey included demographics, and clinical characteristics (pain assessment, opioid use, and knowledge of naloxone). In addition, willingness to pay was assessed using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. An ordinal logistic regression model was used to examine demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 549 subjects completed the survey (women [53.01%], white or Caucasian (83.61%), age mean [SD] 44 [13]). Women were associated with less willingness to pay (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.685 [95% CI 0.478-0.983], P = 0.0403). Compared with the high household income group (≥ $150,000), low household income ≤ $25,000 (aOR 0.326 [95% CI 0.160-0.662], P = 0.0020) or income between $25,000 and 74,999 (aOR 0.369 [95% CI 0.207-0.657], P = 0.0007) was associated with less likelihood of willing to pay. Patients with a previous diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea were associated with a higher likelihood of willingness to pay (aOR 1.685 [95% CI 1.138-2.496], P = 0.0092). Each unit increase in pain was also associated with a higher likelihood of willingness to pay (aOR 1.247 [95% CI 1.139-1.365], P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Demographics and clinical factors were associated with willingness to pay for naloxone. This study's findings are useful in the development of interventions to address pharmacy-based naloxone distribution programs.

Organize and mobilize for implementation effectiveness to improve overdose education and naloxone distribution from syringe services programs: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The United States (US) continues to face decades-long increases in opioid overdose fatalities. As an opioid overdose reversal medication, naloxone can dramatically reduce opioid overdose mortality rates when distributed to people likely to experience or witness an opioid overdose and packaged with education on its use, known as overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND). Syringe services programs (SSPs) are ideal venues for OEND with staff who are culturally competent in providing services for people who are at risk of experiencing or observing an opioid overdose. We carried out a randomized controlled trial of SSPs to understand the effectiveness of the organize and mobilize for implementation effectiveness (OMIE) approach at improving OEND implementation effectiveness within SSPs. METHODS: Using simple randomization, 105 SSPs were enrolled into the trial and assigned to one of two study arms - (1) dissemination of OEND best practice recommendations (Control SSPs) or the OMIE approach along with dissemination of the OEND best practice recommendations (i.e., OMIE SSPs). OMIE SSPs could participate in 60-min OMIE sessions once a month for up to 12 months. At 12-month post-baseline, 102 of 105 SSPs (97%) responded to the follow-up survey. RESULTS: The median number of sessions completed by OMIE SSPs was 10. Comparing OMIE SSPs to control SSPs, we observed significant increases in the number of participants receiving naloxone (incidence rate ratio: 2.15; 95% CI: 1.42, 3.25; p < 0.01) and the rate of naloxone doses distributed per SSP participant (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.18, 3.30; p = 0.01). We observed no statistically significant difference in the number of adopted best practices between conditions (difference in means 0.2, 95% CI: - 0.7, 1.0; p = 0.68). We also observed a threshold effect where SSPs receiving a higher OMIE dose had greater effect sizes with regard to the number of people given naloxone and the number of naloxone doses distributed. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the multifaceted OMIE approach was effective at increasing naloxone distribution from SSPs, despite substantial external shocks during the trial. These findings have major implications for addressing the overdose crisis, which has continued unabated for decades. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03924505 . Registered 19 April 2019.