Dataset Information

Naloxone therapy in opioid overdose patients: intranasal or intravenous? A randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:This study was designed to compare the effects of intranasal (IN) and intravenous (IV) administration of naloxone in patients who had overdosed on opioids. MATERIAL AND METHODS:This randomized clinical trial study was conducted in the Department of Poisoning Emergencies at Noor and Ali Asghar (PBUH) University Hospital. One hundred opioid overdose patients were assigned by random allocation software into two study groups (n = 50). Both groups received 0.4 mg naloxone: one group IN and the other IV. Outcomes included change in the level of consciousness (measured using a descriptive scale and the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS)), time to response, vital signs (blood pressure, heart rate and respiratory rate), arterial blood O2 saturation before and after naloxone administration, side-effects (agitation) and length of hospital stay. RESULTS:Patients who had been administered IN naloxone demonstrated significantly higher levels of consciousness than those in the IV group using both descriptive and GCS scales (p < 0.001). There was a significant difference in the heart rate between IN and IV groups (p = 0.003). However, blood pressure, respiratory rate and arterial O2 saturation were not significantly different between the two groups after naloxone administration (p = 0.18, p = 0.17, p = 0.32). There was also no significant difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups (p = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS:Intranasal naloxone is as effective as IV naloxone in reversing both respiratory depression and depressive effects on the central nervous system caused by opioid overdose.

SUBMITTER: Sabzghabaee AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4042052 | biostudies-literature | 2014 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Naloxone therapy in opioid overdose patients: intranasal or intravenous? A randomized clinical trial.

Sabzghabaee Ali Mohammad AM Eizadi-Mood Nastaran N Yaraghi Ahmad A Zandifar Samaneh S

Archives of medical science : AMS 20140513 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>This study was designed to compare the effects of intranasal (IN) and intravenous (IV) administration of naloxone in patients who had overdosed on opioids.<h4>Material and methods</h4>This randomized clinical trial study was conducted in the Department of Poisoning Emergencies at Noor and Ali Asghar (PBUH) University Hospital. One hundred opioid overdose patients were assigned by random allocation software into two study groups (n = 50). Both groups received 0.4 mg naloxone: ...[more]

PMID: 24904666

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePrevious unblinded clinical trials suggested that the intranasal route of naloxone hydrochloride was inferior to the widely used intramuscular route for the reversal of opioid overdose.ObjectiveTo test whether a dose of naloxone administered intranasally is as effective as the same dose of intramuscularly administered naloxone in reversing opioid overdose.Design, setting, and participantsA double-blind, double-dummy randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Uniting Medically Supervised Injecting Centre in Sydney, Australia. Clients of the center were recruited to participate from February 1, 2012, to January 3, 2017. Eligible clients were aged 18 years or older with a history of injecting drug use (n = 197). Intention-to-treat analysis was performed for all participants who received both intranasal and intramuscular modes of treatment (active or placebo).InterventionsClients were randomized to receive 1 of 2 treatments: (1) intranasal administration of naloxone hydrochloride 800 μg per 1 mL and intramuscular administration of placebo 1 mL or (2) intramuscular administration of naloxone hydrochloride 800 μg per 1 mL and intranasal administration of placebo 1 mL.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome measure was the need for a rescue dose of intramuscular naloxone hydrochloride (800 μg) 10 minutes after the initial treatment. Secondary outcome measures included time to adequate respiratory rate greater than or equal to 10 breaths per minute and time to Glasgow Coma Scale score greater than or equal to 13.ResultsA total of 197 clients (173 [87.8%] male; mean [SD] age, 34.0 [7.82] years) completed the trial, of whom 93 (47.2%) were randomized to intramuscular naloxone dose and 104 (52.8%) to intranasal naloxone dose. Clients randomized to intramuscular naloxone administration were less likely to require a rescue dose of naloxone compared with clients randomized to intranasal naloxone administration (8 [8.6%] vs 24 [23.1%]; odds ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.66; P = .002). A 65% increase in hazard (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.21-2.25; P = .002) for time to respiratory rate of at least 10 and an 81% increase in hazard (hazard ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.28-2.56; P = .001) for time to Glasgow Coma Scale score of at least 13 were observed for the group receiving intranasal naloxone compared with the group receiving intramuscular naloxone. No major adverse events were reported for either group.Conclusions and relevanceThis trial showed that intranasally administered naloxone in a supervised injecting facility can reverse opioid overdose but not as efficiently as intramuscularly administered naloxone can, findings that largely replicate those of previous unblinded clinical trials. These results suggest that determining the optimal dose and concentration of intranasal naloxone to respond to opioid overdose in real-world conditions is an international priority.Trial registrationanzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12611000852954.

Project description:ObjectivesDistribution of take-home naloxone is suggested to reduce opioid-related fatalities, but few studies have examined the effects on overdose deaths in the general population of an entire community. This study aimed to assess the effects on overdose deaths of a large-scale take-home naloxone programme starting in June 2018, using an observational design with a historic control period.DesignFrom the national causes of death register, deaths diagnosed as X42 or Y12 (International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, ICD-10) were registered as overdoses. Numbers of overdoses were calculated per 100 000 inhabitants in the general population, and controlled for data including only individuals with a prior substance use disorder in national patient registers, to focus on effects within the primary target population of the programme. The full intervention period (2019-2021) was compared with a historic control period (2013-2017).SettingSkåne county, Sweden.ParticipantsGeneral population.InterventionsLarge-scale take-home naloxone distribution to individuals at risk of overdose.Primary and secondary outcome measuresDecrease in overdose deaths per 100 000 inhabitants, in total and within the population with substance use disorder diagnosis.ResultsAnnual average number of overdose deaths decreased significantly from 3.9 to 2.8 per 100 000 inhabitants from the control period to the intervention period (a significant decrease in men, from 6.7 to 4.3, but not in women, from 1.2 to 1.3). Significant changes remained when examining only prior substance use disorder patients, and decreases in overdose deaths could not be attributed to a change in treatment needs for opioid use disorders in healthcare and social services.ConclusionsThe present study, involving 3 years of take-home naloxone distribution, demonstrated a decreased overdose mortality in the population, however, only in men. The findings call for further implementation of naloxone programmes, and for further studies of potential effects and barriers in women.Trial registration numberNCT03570099.

Project description:IMPORTANCE:Opioid-dependent patients often use the emergency department (ED) for medical care. OBJECTIVE:To test the efficacy of 3 interventions for opioid dependence: (1) screening and referral to treatment (referral); (2) screening, brief intervention, and facilitated referral to community-based treatment services (brief intervention); and (3) screening, brief intervention, ED-initiated treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone, and referral to primary care for 10-week follow-up (buprenorphine). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:A randomized clinical trial involving 329 opioid-dependent patients who were treated at an urban teaching hospital ED from April 7, 2009, through June 25, 2013. INTERVENTIONS:After screening, 104 patients were randomized to the referral group, 111 to the brief intervention group, and 114 to the buprenorphine treatment group. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Enrollment in and receiving addiction treatment 30 days after randomization was the primary outcome. Self-reported days of illicit opioid use, urine testing for illicit opioids, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk, and use of addiction treatment services were the secondary outcomes. RESULTS:Seventy-eight percent of patients in the buprenorphine group (89 of 114 [95% CI, 70%-85%]) vs 37% in the referral group (38 of 102 [95% CI, 28%-47%]) and 45% in the brief intervention group (50 of 111 [95% CI, 36%-54%]) were engaged in addiction treatment on the 30th day after randomization (P?<?.001). The buprenorphine group reduced the number of days of illicit opioid use per week from 5.4 days (95% CI, 5.1-5.7) to 0.9 days (95% CI, 0.5-1.3) vs a reduction from 5.4 days (95% CI, 5.1-5.7) to 2.3 days (95% CI, 1.7-3.0) in the referral group and from 5.6 days (95% CI, 5.3-5.9) to 2.4 days (95% CI, 1.8-3.0) in the brief intervention group (P?<?.001 for both time and intervention effects; P?=?.02 for the interaction effect). The rates of urine samples that tested negative for opioids did not differ statistically across groups, with 53.8% (95% CI, 42%-65%) in the referral group, 42.9% (95% CI, 31%-55%) in the brief intervention group, and 57.6% (95% CI, 47%-68%) in the buprenorphine group (P?=?.17). There were no statistically significant differences in HIV risk across groups (P?=?.66). Eleven percent of patients in the buprenorphine group (95% CI, 6%-19%) used inpatient addiction treatment services, whereas 37% in the referral group (95% CI, 27%-48%) and 35% in the brief intervention group (95% CI, 25%-37%) used inpatient addiction treatment services (P?<?.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Among opioid-dependent patients, ED-initiated buprenorphine treatment vs brief intervention and referral significantly increased engagement in addiction treatment, reduced self-reported illicit opioid use, and decreased use of inpatient addiction treatment services but did not significantly decrease the rates of urine samples that tested positive for opioids or of HIV risk. These findings require replication in other centers before widespread adoption. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00913770.

Project description:Importance:The US opioid crisis was deemed a public health emergency in 2017. More than 130 individuals in the US die daily as a result of unintentional opioid overdose deaths. Objective:To measure use of take-home naloxone for overdose reversals performed by study participants with opioid use disorder receiving treatment at an opioid treatment program. Design, Setting, and Participants:In a year-long cohort study, between April 4, 2016, and May 16, 2017, 395 study participants enrolled at the University of New Mexico Addiction and Substance Abuse Opioid Treatment Program, an outpatient clinic treating substance use disorders. Inclusion criteria included all patients enrolled at University of New Mexico Addiction and Substance Abuse Opioid Treatment Program during the study enrollment period; positive history of opioid use disorder treated with methadone, buprenorphine, or naltrexone; and age 18 years or older. Exclusion criteria included allergy to naloxone and age younger than 18 years. The study closed 1 year after enrollment, on May 17, 2018. Data analysis was performed from May 2018 to July 2019. Exposure:Two doses of take-home naloxone combined with opioid overdose education were provided to study participants. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was to measure the association of take-home naloxone with overdose reversals performed by patients with opioid use disorder enrolled in an opioid treatment program. Results:We enrolled 395 study participants (270 female [68.4%]; mean [SD] age, 35.4 [12.6] years; 260 [65.8%] with Hispanic white race/ethnicity) in the 1-year prospective trial. Sixty-eight female participants (25.2% of all female participants) were pregnant at the time of enrollment. Seventy-three of the 395 study participants (18.0%) performed 114 overdose reversals in the community. All community reversals were heroin related. Most study participants (86.8%) stated that the person on whom they performed an overdose reversal was a friend, relative, acquaintance, or significant other. In the year before enrollment, only 18 study participants (4.5%) had been prescribed naloxone. Conclusions and Relevance:Take-home naloxone as part of overdose education and naloxone distribution provided to patients in an opioid treatment program may be associated with a strategic targeted harm reduction response for reversing opioid overdose-related deaths. Policy makers may consider regulations to mandate overdose education and naloxone distribution in opioid treatment programs.

Project description:AimsTo assess whether naloxone prescribing in clinical contexts targeted pain patients most at risk for opioid overdose.DesignA retrospective cohort study using data from the Health Facts Database.SettingOver 600 United States healthcare facilities.ParticipantsThree patient groups were followed for 2 years during 2009 to 2017: individuals with shoulder or long bone fractures (n = 252 424), chronic pain syndrome (CPS) (n = 76 141), or non-traumatic low back pain (n = 792 956) who received an opioid prescription. Groups were chosen based on previous work.MeasurementsThe outcome was opioid overdose identified by International Classification of Diseases codes (ICDs) and the primary predictor was number of naloxone prescriptions identified by National Drug Codes (NDCs).FindingsOpioid overdoses occurred among 0.16% of fracture patients (average follow-up time to overdose [AFU] = 240 days), 1.28% of CPS patients (AFU = 244 days), and 0.30% low back pain patients (AFU = 264 days). A total of 58 083 bone fracture patients received naloxone prescriptions, and naloxone prescription was associated with subsequent opioid overdose (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.68-2.09), and number of subsequent overdoses (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.69-2.12). A total of 19 529 CPS patients received naloxone prescriptions, and naloxone prescription was associated with subsequent opioid overdose (HR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.61-1.78) and number of subsequent overdoses (IRR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.67-1.83). A total of 110 608 low back pain patients received naloxone prescriptions, and naloxone prescription was associated with subsequent opioid overdose (HR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.27-1.40) and number of subsequent overdoses (IRR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.29-1.41).ConclusionsReceiving a naloxone prescription appears to be associated with increased risk of subsequent opioid overdose among patients with acute and chronic pain, suggesting prescribers often identify patients most in need of naloxone.

Dataset Information

Naloxone therapy in opioid overdose patients: intranasal or intravenous? A randomized clinical trial.

Publications

Naloxone therapy in opioid overdose patients: intranasal or intravenous? A randomized clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets