Time Course of Reversal of Fentanyl-Induced Respiratory Depression in Healthy Subjects by Intramuscular Nalmefene and Intramuscular and Intranasal Naloxone.

The increase in opioid overdose deaths, particularly involving potent, long-acting synthetic opioids, has led to calls for stronger, longer-acting opioid-overdose-reversal agents. Using an opioid-induced respiratory depression model, we investigated the onset and time course of action of naloxone and a long-acting opioid antagonist, nalmefene, in reversing the effects of an ongoing intravenous fentanyl infusion over a period of up to 100 min. Healthy, moderately experienced opioid users received intramuscular (IM) nalmefene 1 mg, IM naloxone 2 mg, or intranasal (IN) naloxone 4 mg after fentanyl-induced respiratory depression was established based on reduction in respiratory minute volume (MV). Each participant received each opioid antagonist twice per a randomized crossover schedule. Reversal of respiratory depression, pharmacokinetics, and safety were investigated. Participants showed rapid increases in plasma opioid antagonist concentrations, and meaningful reversal of depressed MV tended to occur earlier with IM nalmefene and IM naloxone than with IN naloxone. Compared to naloxone, nalmefene provided extended exposure, and mean MV was maintained at a higher level. All participants experienced treatment-related adverse events, but none were severe, serious, or led to study drug discontinuation. This study provides evidence that IM nalmefene 1 mg achieves reversal of fentanyl-induced respiratory depression similar to or better than that achieved with standard-of-care naloxone treatments. No new safety concerns were raised for IM nalmefene at the tested dose. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of IM nalmefene position it as an important treatment option in opioid overdose reversal, particularly given the increasing prevalence of overdoses involving potent, long-acting synthetic opioids.

Synthetic opioids have disrupted conventional wisdom for treating opioid overdose.

More than 90 % of opioid overdose deaths in North America are now caused by synthetic opioids, and while they are not as prevalent in the European illicit drug market, there are indications that they may become so in the near future. Multiple publications have argued that neither higher doses of naloxone nor more potent opioid receptor antagonists are needed to reverse a synthetic opioid overdose. However, the unique physicochemical properties of synthetic opioids result in a very rapid onset of respiratory depression compared to opium-based molecules, reducing the margin of opportunity to reverse an overdose. While intravenous administration rapidly delivers the high naloxone concentrations needed to reverse a synthetic opioid overdose, this option is often unavailable to first responders. A translational mechanistic model of opioid overdose developed by the FDA's Division of Applied Regulatory Science provides an unbiased approach to evaluate the effectiveness of overdose reversal strategies. Reports using this model demonstrated the naloxone tools (2 mg intramuscular and 4 mg intranasal) used by many first responders can result in an unacceptable loss of life following a synthetic opioid (fentanyl, carfentanil) overdose. Moreover, sequential (2.5 minutes between doses) administration of up to four doses of intranasal naloxone was no more effective at reducing the incidence of cardiac arrest (a surrogate endpoint for lethality) than a single dose, suggesting that attempts at titration may not provide the rapid absorption required to reverse a synthetic opioid overdose. This model was also used to compare the effectiveness of intranasal naloxone to intranasal nalmefene, a recently FDA-approved opioid receptor antagonist with a more rapid absorption and a higher affinity at mu-opioid receptors compared to intranasal naloxone. Intranasal nalmefene resulted in large and clinically meaningful reductions in the incidence of cardiac arrest compared to intranasal naloxone. Furthermore, simultaneous administration of four doses of intranasal naloxone was needed to reduce the incidence of cardiac arrest to levels approaching those produced by a single dose of intranasal nalmefene. These data are consistent with evidence that synthetics have indeed disrupted conventional wisdom in the treatment of opioid overdose.

The different doses of sufentanil combined with nalmefene in bronchoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Bronchoscopy examination is a common clinical diagnostic method. However, due to its unique operational characteristics, the procedure often induces discomfort and pain in patients. The combined use of sufentanil and nalmefene offers advantages in effectively reversing opioid-induced respiratory depression without compromising analgesic effects. However, a comprehensive analysis report on the combined use of different doses of sufentanil and nalmefene in bronchoscopy examinations has not been reported. The aim of this subject is to investigate the application effects of different doses of sufentanil combined with nalmefene in bronchoscopy. Methods: Using computer-based and manual methods to retrieve relevant keywords, we searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang from inception to the present to find studies evaluating the application effects of different doses of sufentanil combined with nalmefene in bronchoscopy examinations. The quality of the included studies was assessed, and meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: A total of six English-language articles, involving randomized controlled trials and reviews, and comprising 774 participants, were finally included. The control group used conventional therapy, whereas the intervention group used different doses of sufentanil combined with nalmefene. Meta-analysis results indicated that compared to conventional therapy, this approach significantly improved vital signs such as systolic blood pressure [SBP; mean difference (MD) =21.44, P<1×10-5] and diastolic blood pressure (DBP; MD =22.52, P<1×10-5), heart rate (HR; MD =25.16, P<1×10-5), and oxygen saturation (SpO2; MD =30.16, P<1×10-5). A total of 4 studies focused on sedative effects, and that of sufentanil combined with nalmefene was significantly superior to conventional therapy (P<1×10-5). Analysis of adverse events showed that the combined therapy had better outcomes in terms of hypertension and tachycardia incidence compared to the control group (P<0.001, P<1×10-5), and Riker sedation-agitation scale (SAS score) was significantly reduced (P<0.05). However, there were no significant differences in other adverse events (P>0.05). Subgroup analysis showed fewer adverse reactions at 0.4 µg/kg sufentanil concentration compared to 0.2 and 0.8 µg/kg, with only hypertension differing significantly. Conclusions: In clinical practice, considering the use of sufentanil combined with nalmefene can improve patients' experience during bronchoscopy examinations. However, it should be noted that this approach may not be suitable for all patients, and clinicians need to choose appropriate analgesic and sedative methods for bronchoscopy examinations based on patients' conditions and individual differences. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that this study has some limitations and further research is needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this approach in other types of endoscopic examinations, as well as to compare the effects and safety of different drug combinations.

Comparison of intranasal naloxone and intranasal nalmefene in a translational model assessing the impact of synthetic opioid overdose on respiratory depression and cardiac arrest.

Introduction: Using a validated translational model that quantitatively predicts opioid-induced respiratory depression and cardiac arrest, we compared cardiac arrest events caused by synthetic opioids (fentanyl, carfentanil) following rescue by intranasal (IN) administration of the µ-opioid receptor antagonists naloxone and nalmefene. Methods: This translational model was originally developed by Mann et al. (Clin Pharmacol Ther 2022) to evaluate the effectiveness of intramuscular (IM) naloxone. We initially implemented this model using published codes, reproducing the effects reported by Mann et al. on the incidence of cardiac arrest events following intravenous doses of fentanyl and carfentanil as well as the reduction in cardiac arrest events following a standard 2 mg IM dose of naloxone. We then expanded the model in terms of pharmacokinetic and µ-opioid receptor binding parameters to simulate effects of 4 mg naloxone hydrochloride IN and 3 mg nalmefene hydrochloride IN, both FDA-approved for the treatment of opioid overdose. Model simulations were conducted to quantify the percentage of cardiac arrest in 2000 virtual patients in both the presence and absence of IN antagonist treatment. Results: Following simulated overdoses with both fentanyl and carfentanil in chronic opioid users, IN nalmefene produced a substantially greater reduction in the incidence of cardiac arrest compared to IN naloxone. For example, following a dose of fentanyl (1.63 mg) producing cardiac arrest in 52.1% (95% confidence interval, 47.3-56.8) of simulated patients, IN nalmefene reduced this rate to 2.2% (1.0-3.8) compared to 19.2% (15.5-23.3) for IN naloxone. Nalmefene also produced large and clinically meaningful reductions in the incidence of cardiac arrests in opioid naïve subjects. Across dosing scenarios, simultaneous administration of four doses of IN naloxone were needed to reduce the percentage of cardiac arrest events to levels that approached those produced by a single dose of IN nalmefene. Conclusion: Simulations using this validated translational model of opioid overdose demonstrate that a single dose of IN nalmefene produces clinically meaningful reductions in the incidence of cardiac arrest compared to IN naloxone following a synthetic opioid overdose. These findings are especially impactful in an era when >90% of all opioid overdose deaths are linked to synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

Effect of Preadministration of Nalmefene on Sufentanil-Induced Cough During Induction of General Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Breast Surgery: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.

Purpose: This study was designed to investigate the effects of preadministration of nalmefene before general anesthesia induction on sufentanil-induced cough (SIC) in patients undergoing breast surgery. Patients and Methods: A total of 105 patients scheduled for elective breast surgery under general anesthesia were selected and randomly assigned into three groups: normal saline (Group C), low-dose nalmefene 0.1 µg·kg-1 (Group LN), and high-dose nalmefene 0.25 µg·kg-1 (Group HN). Sufentanil 0.5 µg·kg-1 was injected intravenously within 2 s after 5 min of intervention. The count and severity of cough within 2 min after sufentanil injection, as well as the time to first cough, were recorded. In addition, we also collected intraoperative hemodynamic data, postoperative pain scores, the incidence of receiving rescue analgesics, and side effects up to 24 h after surgery. Results: Compared to Group C, the incidence of SIC was significantly lower in Group LN and HN (64.7% vs 30.3% and 14.7%, respectively; P < 0.001), but no significant difference was observed between the two groups (P=0.126). Compared to Group C, the risk factors decreased by 53.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] =0.181-0.735, P=0.008) in Group LN and by 75.9% (95% CI=0.432-0.898, P=0.001) in Group HN. Of the patients with SIC, less frequent SIC within 2 min after induction and a lower proportion of severe coughs were observed than Group C (P < 0.05), and no difference was detected between Group LN and HN. Additionally, the onset time to the first SIC did not differ significantly between the groups. Intraoperative hemodynamic data, postoperative pain scores, and side effects in the first 24 h did not differ among the groups. Conclusion: Preadministration of nalmefene prior to induction of general anesthesia effectively suppressed SIC in patients undergoing breast surgery, without affecting intraoperative hemodynamic fluctuation and postoperative pain intensity.

Brief intervention for chronic liver disease patients with alcohol use disorder in a hepatology outpatient unit: Effects and limitations.

AIM: It is not uncommon to encounter outpatients in the hepatology department with harmful alcohol habits. When treating such chronic liver disease (CLD) patients, an adequate intervention method for harm reduction of alcohol use, such as brief intervention (BI) or BI and nalmefene, should be considered. This study aimed to elucidate the clinical effectiveness of BI for CLD patients affected by harmful alcohol use. METHODS: From June 2021 to 2023, 123 Japanese CLD outpatients (hepatitis B virus : hepatitis C virus : alcoholic liver disease : others = 32:18:42:31) with an Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) score of ≥8 at the initial interview and a repeat interview with AUDIT 9 months later were enrolled. Clinical features related to patient behavior following the initial AUDIT interview were retrospectively evaluated, and compared between patients without and with BI treatment. RESULTS: For the non-BI and BI groups, baseline AUDIT score (median 10 [interquartile range (IQR) 9-13] vs. 12 [IQR 10-17], p = 0.016) and relative change in AUDIT score (median 0 [IQR -3 to 2] vs. -3 [IQR -7 to 0], p < 0.01) showed significant differences, whereas there was no significant difference between the groups for AUDIT score at the time of the second interview (p = 0.156). Following BI, significant improvements were observed for items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10 of AUDIT (each p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients with an alcohol use disorder as well as those with alcohol dependency who received BI showed a significant decline in AUDIT score, although the score of the follow-up AUDIT indicated continued alcohol use disorder. In addition to BI, medication with nalmefene should be considered, based on individual factors.

Nalmefene, an opioid receptor modulator, aggravates atherosclerotic plaque formation in apolipoprotein E knockout mice by enhancing oxidized low-density lipoprotein uptake in macrophages.

Nalmefene, an antagonist of mu- and delta-opioid receptors and a partial agonist of kappa-opioid receptors, has shown promise in reducing alcohol consumption among patients with alcohol dependence. Opioid receptors play pivotal roles in various physiological processes, including those related to peripheral inflammatory diseases such as colitis and arthritis, as well as functions in the immune system and phagocytosis. Atherosclerosis, a chronic inflammatory disease, progresses through the phagocytosis and uptake of oxidized low-density lipoprotein (oxLDL) by macrophages in atherosclerotic plaques. Despite this knowledge, it remains unclear whether nalmefene influences the formation of atherosclerotic plaques and increases the risk of serious cardiovascular events. This study aims to elucidate the impact of nalmefene on atherosclerosis in apolipoprotein E knockout (ApoE KO) mice and peritoneal macrophages in vitro. In this experiment, 8-week-old male ApoE KO mice were fed a high-fat diet intraperitoneally administered either vehicle (saline) or nalmefene (1 mg and 3 mg kg-1 day-1) for 21 days. Oil red O-staining and immunohistochemistry with an anti-MOMA2 (monocyte/macrophage) antibody showed that a dose-dependent increase in atherosclerotic plaque formation and augmentation of macrophage-rich plaque formation in ApoE-KO mice. Further investigations focused on the effects of nalmefene on the expression of scavenger receptor CD36 in RAW264.7 cells, conducted through western blotting analysis. Nalmefene demonstrated a significant increase in CD36 protein expression in RAW264.7 cells. To explore the impact on oxidized LDL uptake in peritoneal macrophages, cells were treated with nalmefene (300 µg/mL) for 24 h, followed by the addition of DiI-labeled oxLDL (DiI-oxLDL) for 4 h. Nalmefene significantly enhanced DiI-oxLDL uptake in macrophages. Additionally, treatment with nalmefene (300 µg/mL) for 24 h decreased the mRNA expression of mu-, delta-, and kappa-opioid receptors in RAW264.7 cells. In conclusion, nalmefene may augment oxLDL uptake by macrophages through increased CD36 expression and decreased opioid receptor, thereby contributing to atherosclerotic plaque formation and vulnerability. Consequently, the use of nalmefene may be associated with an elevated risk of cardiovascular events.

Reversal of Opioid-Induced Respiratory Depression in Healthy Volunteers: Comparison of Intranasal Nalmefene and Intranasal Naloxone.

An open-label, randomized, crossover study in healthy volunteers compared the reversal of remifentanil-induced respiratory depression by intranasal (IN) naloxone hydrochloride (4 mg) to IN nalmefene (2.7 mg) (NCT04828005). Subjects were administered a hypercapnic gas mixture which produces an elevation in minute ventilation (MV), a result of the ventilatory response to hypercapnia. Subjects breathed a hypercapnic gas mixture through a tight-fitting mask for an initial period of 46 min prior to a series of mask "holidays" introduced to reduce subject discomfort and encourage study completion. Ten minutes after initiating the hypercapnic gas mixture, a remifentanil bolus was administered, and an infusion continued for the study duration. Subjects were administered either naloxone or nalmefene 15 min after initiating the remifentanil infusion and MV monitored for 21 min followed by a mask holiday. Both nalmefene and naloxone produced a time-dependent reversal of remifentanil-induced reductions in MV measured 2.5-20 min post administration. At the primary endpoint (5 min post administration), nalmefene increases in MV (5.75 L/min) were nearly twice that produced by naloxone (3.01 L/min) (P < .0009); the point estimate favors nalmefene, demonstrating non-inferiority and superiority. In this model of opioid-induced respiratory depression, nalmefene has a more rapid onset of action than naloxone, which required 20 min to achieve a comparable reversal of respiratory depression. Both nalmefene and naloxone were well tolerated by healthy volunteers. This rapid onset of action may prove particularly valuable in an era when over 90% of fatalities are linked to synthetic opioid overdose.

Different doses of nalmefene combined with hydromorphone hydrochloride for postoperative analgesia after colorectal surgery: a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Hydromorphone hydrochloride has a satisfactory postoperative analgesic effect for patients with colorectal cancer but is accompanied by a relatively high incidence of adverse events. Low-doses of naloxone combined with opioids for patient-controlled analgesia can reduce the incidence of drug-related adverse events. Nalmefene is a more selective opioid receptor antagonist than naloxone. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of low-doses of nalmefene on the analgesic effect and incidence of adverse events of patients with hydromorphone patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) undergoing colorectal radical surgery. METHODS: Ninety-nine patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or hand-assisted laparoscopic radical surgery under general anaesthesia were randomly divided into three groups. Group N1 received hydromorphone hydrochloride 0.15 mg/kg + nalmefene 2 µg/kg; Group N2 received hydromorphone hydrochloride 0.15 mg/kg + nalmefene 0.5 µg/kg; and the control group (Group C) received hydromorphone hydrochloride 0.15 mg/kg. All medications were diluted to 100 ml with normal saline. The primary outcome was pain intensity at 12 h after surgery; the secondary outcomes were the occurrence of nausea, vomiting and pruritus and the total analgesic consumption of the PCA pump at 1 h, 6 h, 12 h, 24 and 48 h after surgery. RESULTS: The NRS scores of Group N1 (2 µg/kg) were significantly lower than those of Group C (P = 0.025), and no difference was found between group N2 and group C (P > 0.05). Among the three groups, the NRS scores of Group N1 (2 µg/kg) were significantly lower than those of Group C at 12 h (P = 0.01) and 48 h (P = 0.01) postoperatively. Compared with 12 h postoperatively, the NRS scores were lower at 24 h postoperatively in Group N1 and Group C (P < 0.05) and significantly lower at 48 h postoperatively in all three groups (P < 0.001). There was a significant difference in the incidence of pruritus among the three groups (P = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Nalmefene at a dosage of 2 µg/kg enhances the postoperative analgesic effect of hydromorphone hydrochloride and reduces the occurrence of postoperative pruritus. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration number: ChiCTR2000033520, date: 03/06/2020).

Stronger, longer, better opioid antagonists? Nalmefene is NOT a naloxone replacement.

The fatal overdose crisis claims nearly 200 lives daily in the United States (U.S). Evolutions in the illicit drug supply, such as the addition of sedative adulterants and a shift to synthetic opioids such as fentanyl, have driven increasing rates of both fatal and non-fatal overdose. Specifically, synthetic opioid usage of fentanyl was implicated in 68 % of the U.S. drug overdose deaths in 2022 alone. This has placed tremendous burden on communities, emergency medical services, and healthcare systems, and contributed to tragedy and grief both in the U.S. and worldwide. Despite the availability of effective opioid antagonist medications and standards of care, there has been increased interest in research and development of alternative opioid overdose reversal agents by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in partnership with pharmaceutical manufacturers over the last decade. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved nalmefene (Opvee) a mu-opioid receptor antagonist that boasts an extended half-life and stronger mu-receptor affinity compared to the standard of care use of naloxone for opioid reversal. In this article, we explore the medical need and ramifications of the introduction of longer-acting opioid antagonists in the current opioid overdose landscape. Existing data highlight the effectiveness of already available naloxone products as a safe and effective standard of care. These data support the notion that stronger, longer-acting agents may be unnecessary, and their existence may cause undue harm, such as more severe and/or prolonged withdrawal symptoms, lead to challenging patient interactions, and complicate the initiation of medications for opioid use disorder. More evidence is needed before healthcare professionals should implement the use of stronger, longer-acting opioid antagonists for reversing opioid overdose over evidence-based, cost-effective naloxone.

Pharmacokinetic Properties of an FDA-approved Intranasal Nalmefene Formulation for the Treatment of Opioid Overdose.

Nalmefene is a high-affinity, long-duration opioid antagonist that was approved in 1995 as an injection for the treatment of opiate overdose, but subsequently withdrawn (2008) for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. The dramatic rise in opioid overdose deaths over the past 7-8 years catalyzed the development of an intranasal (IN) formulation of nalmefene for the emergency treatment of opioid overdose. The studies described here compare the pharmacokinetic properties and safety profiles of an IN formulation containing nalmefene (2.7 mg in 0.1 mL) to an approved 1 mg intramuscular (IM) dose. IN nalmefene produced maximum plasma concentrations that were significantly higher than observed following the IM dose (12.2 and 1.77 ng/mL, respectively). The time to reach maximum plasma concentrations was also faster following IN administration (0.25 and 0.33 hours, respectively) with significant differences in plasma concentrations manifested as early as 2.5 minutes after administration (NCT04759768). The plasma half-life of nalmefene was similar following IM and IN administration (10.6-11.4 hours). Furthermore, dose-normalized nalmefene exposure was similar for both 1 spray in each nostril and 2 sprays in the same nostril compared to a single spray in each nostril (NCT05219669). There were no sex differences in the pharmacokinetic properties of either IN or IM nalmefene. In an era when almost 90% of opioid overdose deaths have been linked to high-potency synthetic opioids, the ability to rapidly deliver high concentrations of nalmefene could represent an important tool for reducing both morbidity and mortality.

Prophylatic use of IV nalmefene to prevent epidural opioid-induced pruritus: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The incidence of pruritus from neuraxial opioids is about 60%. Pruritus causes discomfort and decreases the quality of recovery. This randomized double-blinded clinical trial was aimed to evaluate the prophylactic effects of a single dose IV nalmefene on the incidence and severity of epidural opioid-induced pruritus within 24 h after surgeries. DESIGN: A two-center, randomized, double blinded, controlled clinical trial. SETTING: The study was conducted from March 2022 to February 2023 at two tertiary care hospitals in China. PATIENTS: Patients aged between 18 and 80 years-old who underwent elective surgeries and received epidural analgesia intra- and post-operatively were screened for study enrollment. A total of 306 patients were enrolled, 302 patients underwent randomization and 296 patients were included in the final analysis. INTERVENTIONS: The nalmefene group was prophylactically given 0.5 µg/kg nalmefene intravenously while the control group was given the same volume of saline. MEASUREMENTS: The primary endpoint was the incidence of pruritus within 24 h after surgeries. The secondary endpoints included time of the first patient-reported pruritus, severity of pruritus after surgeries, severity of acute pain scores after surgeries and other anesthesia/analgesia related side effects. MAIN RESULTS: Pruritus occurred in 51 of the 147 (34.69%) patients in the control group and 35 of the 149 (23.49%) patients in the nalmefene group (odds ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.96; P = 0.034) within 24 h postoperatively. Nalmefene group demonstrated delayed onset of pruritus, reduced severity of pruritus and decreased vomiting within 24 h after surgery. There were no significant differences in postoperative analgesia and the incidence of other anesthesia/analgesia associated side effects. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of 0.5 µg/kg nalmefene intravenously significantly reduced the incidence and severity of epidural-opioid induced pruritus within 24 h after surgery without affecting the efficacy of epidural analgesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (www.chictr.org.cn) and the registration number is ChiCTR2100050463. Registered on August 27th, 2021.

American College of Medical Toxicology and the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology position statement: nalmefene should not replace naloxone as the primary opioid antidote at this time.

BACKGROUND: Nalmefene is a potent opioid antagonist that has recently been reintroduced in the United States to treat known or suspected opioid overdose. NALMEFENE CLINICAL TRIAL DATA: The injection formulation, which had been withdrawn in 2008, was reintroduced in 2022, and in 2023 the United States Food and Drug Administration approved a new intranasal formulation of nalmefene. Because nalmefene had been previously approved for use in 1995 via injection, the new intranasal formulation did not require new clinical data as it was approved under an Abbreviated New Drug Application. Inherent to this abbreviated approval process, intranasal nalmefene was not studied in patients currently suffering opioid overdose. NALOXONE AND NALMEFENE: Nalmefene also has unique characteristics compared with naloxone, the current standard opioid antidote. Nalmefene has a higher affinity for opioid receptors and a longer duration of action than naloxone. Comparative effectiveness data regarding naloxone and nalmefene are sparse, and it is unclear if the inherent properties of nalmefene are beneficial in opioid overdose. We have decades of experience using naloxone safely and effectively as the primary opioid antidote, even in cases of fentanyl and fentanyl analog overdoses. There is, however, evidence to suggest nalmefene may result in more prolonged and severe opioid withdrawal than naloxone, which could be harmful to patients. POSITION: As nalmefene is untested in the current clinical environment of synthetic opioid overdoses and has the potential to cause harm via prolonged withdrawal, it is the opinion of the American College of Medical Toxicology and the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology that nalmefene should not replace naloxone as the primary opioid antidote at this time. RECOMMENDATIONS: We recommend additional clinical studies of nalmefene, administered via all approved routes, be conducted in a comparative fashion with naloxone, and that safety and effectiveness outcomes be evaluated before nalmefene is recommended as a primary opioid antidote.

Opioid receptor antagonism and neural response to monetary rewards: Pilot studies in light and heavy alcohol users.

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a prevalent condition associated with high degree of comorbidity and mortality. Among the few approved pharmacotherapies for AUD, two involve opioid receptor antagonism. Naltrexone and nalmefene are thought to act via opioid receptor blockage to reduce neural response to alcohol and drug-associated cues and consumption, but there have been limited efforts to characterize these effects in humans. In these studies, we sought to test the magnitude of opioid antagonism effects on neural response to monetary rewards in two groups: light drinkers (for the naltrexone study) and heavy drinkers (for the nalmefene study). We conducted double-blind, randomized, crossover pilot studies of reward activation in the brain following acute administration of opioid antagonist and placebo in 11 light and 9 heavy alcohol users. We used a monetary incentive delay task during functional MRI. We found a main effect of cue type on BOLD activation in the nucleus accumbens, demonstrating a neural reward response. The effect of opioid antagonism, relative to placebo, was small and nonsignificant for reward activation in the accumbens for both light and heavy alcohol users. Based on the results of two pilot studies, opioid antagonist medications do not appear to decrease neural activation to monetary rewards in the nucleus accumbens relative to placebo.

The efficacy of nalmefene on anesthetic recovery of patients: a study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: So far, the recovery quality after general anesthesia is still unsatisfied. Nalmefene is a drug to treat opioid overdose and reverse opioid actions. We aim to investigate the efficacy of nalmefene on optimizing the recovery quality of patients after general anesthesia. METHODS: It is a prospective, placebo-controlled, two-arm parallel groups, multicentre, double-blind, randomized (PPPMDR) clinical trial. The participants (n = 520) will be randomly assigned into two groups. Each patient will receive either: a single dose of nalmefene 0.25 µg/kg in the intervention group, or the same volume of 0.9% NaCl solution in the control group at the end of the surgery. The primary outcome will be the time interval between the end of anaesthesia and recovery endpoints achieved (Aldrete recovery score ≥ 9) in post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). The other variables are the time interval from the end of operation to extubation; Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) score at extubation; the time at Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA) orientation score ≥ 5; visual analog scale (VAS) score and adverse effects including postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and pruritus in PACU and 24 h postoperatively. ANALYSIS: This trial aims to study whether small dose of nalmefene can shorten the time from the end of surgery to Aldrete score ≥ 9 and improve opioid-induced side effects.This trial focuses on providing the reliable clinical evidence for satisfactory quality of recovery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This clinical trial has been approved and supported by the ethics committee of the Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University, School of Medicine (KY2020-150); Shanghai Tongren Hospital (2021-030-01);The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University (2021-032); and The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University(2021-KY-0495-003). Analysis of the study results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04713358, Registered on September 23, 2021.