Dataset Information

Comparison of a New Intranasal Naloxone Formulation to Intramuscular Naloxone: Results from Hypothesis-generating Small Clinical Studies.

ABSTRACT: Easy-to-use naloxone formulations are needed to help address the opioid overdose epidemic. The pharmacokinetics of i.v., i.m., and a new i.n. naloxone formulation (2 mg) were compared in six healthy volunteers. Relative to i.m. naloxone, geometric mean (90% confidence interval [CI]) absolute bioavailability of i.n. naloxone was modestly lower (55%; 90% CI, 43-70% vs. 41%; 90% CI, 27-62%), whereas average (±SE) mean absorption time was substantially shorter (74 ± 8.8 vs. 6.7 ± 4.9 min). The opioid-attenuating effects of i.n. naloxone were compared with i.m. naloxone (2 mg) after administration of oral alfentanil (4 mg) to a separate group of six healthy volunteers pretreated with 240 mL of water or grapefruit juice. The i.m. and i.n. naloxone attenuated miosis by similar extents after water (40 ± 15 vs. 41 ± 21 h*%) and grapefruit juice (49 ± 18 vs. 50 ± 22 h*%) pretreatment. Results merit further testing of this new naloxone formulation.

SUBMITTER: Gufford BT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5593165 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of a New Intranasal Naloxone Formulation to Intramuscular Naloxone: Results from Hypothesis-generating Small Clinical Studies.

Gufford B T BT Ainslie G R GR White J R JR Layton M E ME Padowski J M JM Pollack G M GM Paine M F MF

Clinical and translational science 20170523 5

Easy-to-use naloxone formulations are needed to help address the opioid overdose epidemic. The pharmacokinetics of i.v., i.m., and a new i.n. naloxone formulation (2 mg) were compared in six healthy volunteers. Relative to i.m. naloxone, geometric mean (90% confidence interval [CI]) absolute bioavailability of i.n. naloxone was modestly lower (55%; 90% CI, 43-70% vs. 41%; 90% CI, 27-62%), whereas average (±SE) mean absorption time was substantially shorter (74 ± 8.8 vs. 6.7 ± 4.9 min). The opioi ...[more]

PMID: 28504483

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: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).

Dataset Information

Comparison of a New Intranasal Naloxone Formulation to Intramuscular Naloxone: Results from Hypothesis-generating Small Clinical Studies.

Publications

Comparison of a New Intranasal Naloxone Formulation to Intramuscular Naloxone: Results from Hypothesis-generating Small Clinical Studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets