Dataset Information

Comparative Usability Study of a Novel Auto-Injector and an Intranasal System for Naloxone Delivery.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The standard of care for reversal of opioid-induced respiratory depression associated with opioid overdose is injectable naloxone. This study compared the usability of two naloxone delivery devices, a naloxone auto-injector (NAI) and a naloxone intranasal delivery system (NXN), in the administration of naloxone during a simulated opioid overdose emergency. NAI (EVZIO (®) ; kaleo, Inc., Richmond, VA, USA) is a Food and Drug Administration approved single-use pre-filled auto-injector containing 0.4 mg of naloxone.

Methods

Study participants were randomly assigned to administer naloxone using NAI and NXN, sequentially. The primary endpoint was successful administration of a simulated dose of naloxone into a mannequin during a simulated opioid emergency, both before and after receiving training. Secondary endpoints included using the NAI or NXN in accordance with the instructions-for-use and the comparative measurement of successful completion time of administration for both NAI and NXN.

Results

A total of 42 healthy participants aged 18-65 years were enrolled in the study. The proportion of participants able to successfully administer a simulated dose of naloxone was significantly greater for NAI compared to NXN both before (90.5% vs. 0.0%, respectively, P < 0.0001) and after (100% vs. 57.1%, respectively, P < 0.0001) participant training. The proportion of participants able to administer a simulated dose of naloxone in accordance with the instructions-for-use was also significantly greater for NAI compared to NXN before (85.7% vs. 0.0%, respectively, P < 0.0001) and after (100% vs. 0.0%, respectively, P < 0.0001) participant training. The average time to task completion for administration attempt before training was 0.9 ± 0.25 min for NAI versus 6.0 ± 4.76 min for NXN and after training was 0.5 ± 0.15 min for NAI versus 2.0 ± 2.15 min for NXN.

Conclusion

Laypersons experienced substantially greater success administering a simulated dose of naloxone, both before and after training, using NAI versus NXN during a simulated opioid overdose emergency. No participants correctly used NXN without training.

SUBMITTER: Edwards ET

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4470965 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIntranasal (IN) naloxone is widely used to treat opioid overdoses. The advantage of nasal administration compared with injection lies in its suitability for administration by lay people as it is needless. Approved formulations of nasal naloxone with bioavailability of approximately 50% have only undergone trials in healthy volunteers, while off-label nasal sprays with low bioavailability have been studied in patients. Randomised clinical trials are needed to investigate efficacy and safety of approved IN naloxone in patients suffering overdose. This study investigates whether the administration of 1.4 mg naloxone in 0.1 mL per dose is non-inferior to 0.8 mg intramuscular injection in patients treated for opioid overdose.Methods and analysisSponsor is the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. The study has been developed in collaboration with user representatives. The primary endpoint is the restoration of spontaneous respiration≥10 breaths/min based on a sample of 200 opioid overdose cases. Double-dummy design ensures blinding, which will be maintained until the database is locked.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the Norwegian Medicines Agency and Regional Ethics Committees (REC: 2016/2000). It adheres to the Good Clinical Practice guidelines as set out by the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use.Informed consent will be sought through a differentiated model. This allows for deferred consent after inclusion for patients who have regained the ability to consent. Patients who are unable to consent prior to discharge by emergency services are given written information and can withdraw at a later date in line with user recommendations. Metadata will be published in the Norwegian University of Science and Technology Open repository. Deidentified individual participant data will be made available to recipients conditional of data processor agreement being entered.Trial registration numbersEudraCT Registry (2016-004072-22) and Clinicaltrials.gov Registry (NCT03518021).

Project description:BackgroundIntramuscular (IM) injection of epinephrine (adrenaline) at the mid-anterolateral (AL) thigh is the international standard therapy for acute anaphylaxis. Concerns exist regarding implications of epinephrine auto-injector needles not penetrating the muscle in patients with greater skin-to-muscle-distances (STMD).MethodsThis open-label, randomized, crossover study investigated pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics following injection of epinephrine in healthy volunteers. Individuals were stratified by maximally compressed STMD (low, < 15 mm; moderate, 15-20 mm; high, > 20 mm). Participants received epinephrine injections via EpiPen® Auto-Injector (EpiPen; 0.3 mg/0.3 mL) or IM syringe (0.3 mg/0.3 mL) at mid-AL thigh or received saline by IM syringe in a randomized order. Eligible participants received a fourth treatment (EpiPen [0.3 mg/0.3 mL] at distal-AL thigh). Model-independent pharmacokinetic parameters and pharmacodynamics were assessed.ResultsThere were numerical trends toward higher peak epinephrine concentrations (0.52 vs 0.35 ng/mL; geometric mean ratio, 1.40; 90% CI 117.6-164.6%) and more rapid exposure (time to peak concentration, 20 vs 50 min) for EpiPen vs IM syringe at mid-AL thigh across STMD groups. Absorption was faster over the first 30 min for EpiPen vs IM syringe (partial area under curve [AUC] over first 30 min: geometric mean ratio, 2.13; 90% CI 159.0-285.0%). Overall exposure based on AUC to the last measurable concentration was similar for EpiPen vs IM syringe (geometric mean ratio, 1.13; 90% CI 98.8-129.8%). Epinephrine pharmacokinetics after EpiPen injection were similar across STMD groups. Treatments were well tolerated.ConclusionsEpinephrine delivery via EpiPen resulted in greater early systemic exposure to epinephrine vs IM syringe as assessed by epinephrine plasma levels. Delivery via EpiPen was consistent across participants with a wide range of STMD, even when the needle may not have penetrated the muscle.Trial registrationsThis trial was registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00011263; secondary ID, EudraCT 2016-000104-29) on 23 March 2017.

Project description:BackgroundChildren with medical complexity (CMC) are a group of young people who have severe complex chronic conditions, substantial family-identified service needs, functional limitations, and high health care resource use. Technology-enabled hospital-to-home interventions designed to deliver comprehensive care in the home setting are needed to ease CMC family stress, provide proactive and comprehensive care to this fragile population, and avoid hospital admissions, where possible.ObjectiveIn this usability testing study, we aimed to assess areas of strength and opportunity within the DigiComp Kids system, a hospital-to-home intervention for CMC and their families and care providers.MethodsHospital-based clinicians, family members of medically complex children, and home-based clinicians participated in DigiComp Kids usability testing. Participants were recorded and tasked to think aloud while completing usability testing tasks. Participants were scored on the metrics of effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction, and the total usability score was calculated using the Single Usability Metric. Participants also provided insights into user experiences during the postusability testing interviews.ResultsA total of 15 participants (5 hospital-based clinicians, 6 family members, and 4 home-based clinicians) participated in DigiComp Kids usability testing. The participants were able to complete all assigned tasks independently. Error-free rates for tasks ranged from 58% to 100%; the average satisfaction rating across groups was ≥80%, as measured by the Single Ease Question. Task times of participants were variable compared with the task times of an expert DigiComp Kids user. Single Usability Metric scores ranged from 80.5% to 89.5%. In qualitative interviews, participants stressed the need to find the right fit between user needs and the effort required to use the system. Interviews also revealed that the value of the DigiComp Kids system was in its ability to create a digital bridge between hospital and home, enabling participants to foster and maintain connections across boundaries.ConclusionsUsability testing revealed strong scores across the groups. Insights gained include the importance of tailoring the implementation of the system to match individual user needs, streamlining key system features, and consideration of the meaning attached to system use by participants to allow for insight into system adoption and sustainment.