Dataset Information

Opioid education and nasal naloxone rescue kits in the emergency department.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Emergency departments (EDs) may be high-yield venues to address opioid deaths with education on both overdose prevention and appropriate actions in a witnessed overdose. In addition, the ED has the potential to equip patients with nasal naloxone kits as part of this effort. We evaluated the feasibility of an ED-based overdose prevention program and described the overdose risk knowledge, opioid use, overdoses, and overdose responses among participants who received overdose education and naloxone rescue kits (OEN) and participants who received overdose education only (OE).

Methods

Program participants were surveyed by telephone after their ED visit about their substance use, overdose risk knowledge, history of witnessed and personal overdoses, and actions in a witnessed overdose including use of naloxone.

Results

A total of 415 ED patients received OE or OEN between January 1, 2011 and February 28, 2012. Among those, 51 (12%) completed the survey; 37 (73%) of those received a naloxone kit, and 14 (27%) received OE only. Past 30-day opioid use was reported by 35% OEN and 36% OE, and an overdose was reported by 19% OEN and 29% OE. Among 53% (27/51) of participants who witnessed another individual experiencing an overdose, 95% OEN and 88% OE stayed with victim, 74% OEN and 38% OE called 911, 26% OEN and 25% OE performed rescue breathing, and 32% OEN (n=6) used a naloxone kit to reverse the overdose. We did not detect statistically significant differences between OEN and OE-only groups in opioid use, overdose or response to a witnessed overdose.

Conclusion

This is the first study to demonstrate the feasibility of ED-based opioid overdose prevention education and naloxone distribution to trained laypersons, patients and their social network. The program reached a high-risk population that commonly witnessed overdoses and that called for help and used naloxone, when available, to rescue people. While the study was retrospective with a low response rate, it provides preliminary data for larger, prospective studies of ED-based overdose prevention programs.

SUBMITTER: Dwyer K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4427207 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Opioid education and nasal naloxone rescue kits in the emergency department.

Dwyer Kristin K Walley Alexander Y AY Langlois Breanne K BK Mitchell Patricia M PM Nelson Kerrie P KP Cromwell John J Bernstein Edward E

The western journal of emergency medicine 20150401 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>Emergency departments (EDs) may be high-yield venues to address opioid deaths with education on both overdose prevention and appropriate actions in a witnessed overdose. In addition, the ED has the potential to equip patients with nasal naloxone kits as part of this effort. We evaluated the feasibility of an ED-based overdose prevention program and described the overdose risk knowledge, opioid use, overdoses, and overdose responses among participants who received overdose ed ...[more]

PMID: 25987910

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundEmergency departments (EDs) are important venues for the distribution of naloxone to patients at high risk of opioid overdose, but less is known about patient perceptions on naloxone or best practices for patient education and communication. Our aim was to conduct an in-depth exploration of knowledge and attitudes toward ED naloxone distribution among patients who received a naloxone prescription.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 25 adult participants seen and discharged from three urban, academic EDs in Philadelphia, PA, with a naloxone prescription between November 2020 and February 2021. Interviews focused on awareness of naloxone as well as attitudes and experiences receiving naloxone in the ED. We used thematic content analysis to identify key themes reflecting patient attitudes and experiences.ResultsOf the 25 participants, 72% had previously witnessed an overdose and 48% had personally experienced a non-fatal overdose. Nineteen participants (76%) self-disclosed a history of substance use or overdose, and one reported receiving an opioid prescription during their ED visit and no history of substance use. In interviews, we identified wide variability in participant levels of knowledge about overdose risk, the role of naloxone in reducing risk, and naloxone access. A subset of participants was highly engaged with community harm reduction resources and well versed in naloxone access and use. A second subset was familiar with naloxone, but largely obtained it through healthcare settings such as the ED, while a final group was largely unfamiliar with naloxone. While most participants expressed positive attitudes about receiving naloxone from the ED, the quality of discussions with ED providers was variable, with some participants not even aware they were receiving a naloxone prescription until discharge.ConclusionsNaloxone prescribing in the ED was acceptable and valued by most participants, but there are missed opportunities for communication and education. These findings underscore the critical role that EDs play in mitigating risks for patients who are not engaged with other healthcare or community health providers and can inform future work about the effective implementation of harm reduction strategies in ED settings.

Project description:Background and aimsTake-home naloxone can prevent death from heroin/opioid overdose, but pre-provision is difficult because naloxone is usually given by injection. Non-injectable alternatives, including naloxone nasal sprays, are currently being developed. To be effective, the intranasal (i.n.) spray dose must be adequate but not excessive, and early absorption must be comparable to intramuscular (i.m.) injection. We report on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of a specially produced concentrated novel nasal spray. The specific aims were to: (1) estimate PK profiles of i.n. naloxone, (2) compare early systemic exposure with i.n. versus i.m. naloxone and (3) estimate i.n. bioavailability.DesignOpen-label, randomized, five-way cross-over PK study.SettingClinical trials facility (Croydon, UK).ParticipantsThirty-eight healthy volunteers (age 20-54 years; 11 female).Intervention and comparatorThree doses of i.n. (1 mg/0.1 ml, 2 mg/0.1 ml, 4 mg/0.2 ml) versus 0.4 mg i.m. (reference) and 0.4 mg intravenous (i.v.) naloxone.MeasurementsRegular blood samples were taken, with high-frequency sampling during the first 15 minutes to capture early systemic exposure. PK parameters were determined from plasma naloxone concentrations. Exploratory analyses involved simulation of repeat administration.FindingsMean peak concentration (Cmax ) values for 1 mg (1.51 ng/ml), 2 mg (2.87 ng/ml) and 4 mg (6.02 ng/ml) i.n. exceeded 0.4 mg i.m. (1.27 ng/ml) naloxone. All three i.n. doses rapidly achieved plasma levels > 50% of peak concentrations (T50%) by 10 minutes, peaking at 15-30 minutes (Tmax ). For comparison, the i.m. reference reached Tmax at 10 minutes. Mean bioavailability was 47-51% for i.n. relative to i.m. naloxone. Simulation of repeat dosing (2 × 2 mg i.n. versus 5 × 0.4 mg i.m. doses) at 3-minute intervals showed that comparable plasma naloxone concentrations would be anticipated.ConclusionsConcentrated 2 mg intranasal naloxone is well-absorbed and provides early exposure comparable to 0.4 mg intramuscular naloxone, following the 0.4 mg intramuscular curve closely in the first 10 minutes post-dosing and maintaining blood levels above twice the intramuscular reference for the next 2 hours.

Project description:Background and aimsIn a recent randomized trial, patients with opioid dependence receiving brief intervention, emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine and ongoing follow-up in primary care with buprenorphine (buprenorphine) were twice as likely to be engaged in addiction treatment compared with referral to community-based treatment (referral) or brief intervention and referral (brief intervention). Our aim was to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of these three methods of intervening on opioid dependence in the ED.DesignMeasured health-care use was converted to dollar values. We considered a health-care system perspective and constructed cost-effectiveness acceptability curves that indicate the probability each treatment is cost-effective under different thresholds of willingness-to-pay for outcomes studied.SettingAn urban ED in the United States.ParticipantsOpioid-dependent patients aged 18 years or older.MeasurementsSelf-reported 30-day assessment data were used to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for patient engagement in formal addiction treatment at 30 days and the number of days illicit opioid-free in the past week.FindingsConsidering only health-care system costs, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicate that at all positive willingness-to-pay values, ED-initiated buprenorphine treatment was more cost-effective than brief intervention or referral. For example, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1000 for 30-day treatment engagement, we are 79% certain ED-initiated buprenorphine is most cost-effective compared with other studied treatments. Similar results were found for days illicit opioid-free in the past week. Results were robust to secondary analyses that included patients with missing cost data, included crime and patient time costs in the numerator, and to changes in unit price estimates.ConclusionIn the United States, emergency department-initiated buprenorphine intervention for patients with opioid dependence provides high value compared with referral to community-based treatment or combined brief intervention and referral.

Dataset Information

Opioid education and nasal naloxone rescue kits in the emergency department.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Opioid education and nasal naloxone rescue kits in the emergency department.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets