Comparison of the Pharmacokinetic Properties of Naloxone Following the Use of FDA-Approved Intranasal and Intramuscular Devices Versus a Common Improvised Nasal Naloxone Device.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Krieter PA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6606390 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC5593165 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6902775 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Naloxone (17-allyl-4,5α-epoxy-3,14-dihydroxymorphinan-6-one HCl), a μ-opioid receptor antagonist, is administered intranasally to reverse an opioid overdose but its short half-life may necessitate subsequent doses. The addition of naltrexone [17-(cyclopropylmethyl)-4,5α-epoxy-3,14-dihydroxymorphinan-6-one], another μ-receptor antagonist, which has a reported half-life of 3 1/2 hours, may extend the available time to receive medical treatment. In a phase 1 pharmacokinetic study, healthy adults were administered naloxone and naltrexone intranasally, separately and in combination. When administered with naloxone, the C max value of naltrexone decreased 62% and the area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC0-inf) decreased 38% compared with when it was given separately; lower concentrations of naltrexone were observed as early as 5 minutes postdose. In contrast, the C max and AUC0-inf values of naloxone decreased only 18% and 16%, respectively, when given with naltrexone. This apparent interaction was investigated further to determine if naloxone and naltrexone shared a transporter. Neither compound was a substrate for organic cation transporter (OCT) 1, OCT2, OCT3, OCTN1, or OCTN2. There was no evidence of the involvement of a transmembrane transporter when they were tested separately or in combination at concentrations of 10 and 500 µM using Madin-Darby canine kidney II cell monolayers at pH 7.4. The efflux ratios of naloxone and naltrexone increased to six or greater when the apical solution was pH 5.5, the approximate pH of the nasal cavity; there was no apparent interaction when the two were coincubated. The importance of understanding how opioid antagonists are absorbed by the nasal epithelium is magnified by the rise in overdose deaths attributed to long-lived synthetic opioids and the realization that better strategies are needed to treat opioid overdoses.
| S-EPMC6548978 | biostudies-literature
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).
| S-EPMC7662429 | biostudies-literature
Project description:At the beginning of the artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) era, the expectations are high, and experts foresee that AI/ML shows potential for diagnosing, managing and treating a wide variety of medical conditions. However, the obstacles for implementation of AI/ML in daily clinical practice are numerous, especially regarding the regulation of these technologies. Therefore, we provide an insight into the currently available AI/ML-based medical devices and algorithms that have been approved by the US Food & Drugs Administration (FDA). We aimed to raise awareness of the importance of regulatory bodies, clearly stating whether a medical device is AI/ML based or not. Cross-checking and validating all approvals, we identified 64 AI/ML based, FDA approved medical devices and algorithms. Out of those, only 29 (45%) mentioned any AI/ML-related expressions in the official FDA announcement. The majority (85.9%) was approved by the FDA with a 510(k) clearance, while 8 (12.5%) received de novo pathway clearance and one (1.6%) premarket approval (PMA) clearance. Most of these technologies, notably 30 (46.9%), 16 (25.0%), and 10 (15.6%) were developed for the fields of Radiology, Cardiology and Internal Medicine/General Practice respectively. We have launched the first comprehensive and open access database of strictly AI/ML-based medical technologies that have been approved by the FDA. The database will be constantly updated.
| S-EPMC7486909 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo measure and evaluate clinical response to nasal naloxone in opioid overdoses in the pre-hospital environment.DesignRandomised, controlled, double-dummy, blinded, non-inferiority trial, and conducted at two centres.SettingParticipants were included by ambulance staff in Oslo and Trondheim, Norway, and treated at the place where the overdose occurred.ParticipantsMen and women age above 18 years with miosis, rate of respiration ≤8/min, and Glasgow Coma Score <12/15 were included. Informed consent was obtained through a deferred-consent procedure.Intervention and comparatorA commercially available 1.4 mg/0.1 mL intranasal naloxone was compared with 0.8 mg/2 mL naloxone administered intramuscularly.MeasurementsThe primary end-point was restoration of spontaneous respiration of ≥10 breaths/min within 10 minutes. Secondary outcomes included time to restoration of spontaneous respiration, recurrence of overdose within 12 hours and adverse events.FindingsIn total, 201 participants were analysed in the per-protocol population. Heroin was suspected in 196 cases. With 82% of the participants being men, 105 (97.2%) in the intramuscular group and 74 (79.6%) in the intranasal group returned to adequate spontaneous respiration within 10 minutes after one dose. The estimated risk difference was 17.5% (95% CI, 8.9%-26.1%) in favour of the intramuscular group. The risk of receiving additional naloxone was 19.4% (95% CI, 9.0%-29.7%) higher in the intranasal group. Adverse reactions were evenly distributed, except for drug withdrawal reactions, where the estimated risk difference was 6.8% (95% CI, 0.2%-13%) in favour of the intranasal group in a post hoc analysis.ConclusionIntranasal naloxone (1.4 mg/0.1 mL) was less efficient than 0.8 mg intramuscular naloxone for return to spontaneous breathing within 10 minutes in overdose patients in the pre-hospital environment when compared head-to-head. Intranasal naloxone at 1.4 mg/0.1 mL restored breathing in 80% of participants after one dose and had few mild adverse reactions.
| S-EPMC9302677 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePostoperative packing in nasal surgery often results in nasal obstruction and discomfort. Commercially available silicone intranasal airways (IAs) serve as dual-nasal airway tubes aimed at alleviating this process, but the safety and efficacy of these devices are unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of an intraoperatively placed IA device in rhinoplasty and nasal surgery.Design, setting, and participantsIn this retrospective record review, the medical records of patients undergoing nasal surgery with insertion of the IA at a single institution from 2012 to 2017 were reviewed. After review of over 200 patients, a questionnaire was developed to assess device efficacy.ExposuresUse of the IA device. The IA is 12 cm long, anchored across the columella, extends distally along the nasal floor, and has a proximal external portion used for cleaning and maintaining patency. Placed intraoperatively, the device aims to support air flow postoperatively in the face of edema, hemorrhage, and packing.ResultsA total of 302 operations in 300 patients were analyzed, including primary and revision septorhinoplasty. A total of 24 (7.9%) patients self-removed or inadvertently dislodged the IA. Minor acute postoperative complications not unique to airway insertion included cellulitis in 4 (1.3%) participants and epistaxis in 6 (2%). Postoperatively, 1 (0.3%) patient developed dehiscence along transcolumellar incisions. A total of 59 patients (100% compliance) completed the efficacy questionnaire. The mean breathing score was between good and average (2.9 of 5), comfort scores between comfortable and average (2.9 of 5), and mean ease of irrigation score was between very easy and easy (1.96 of 5). The device was irrigated on average 3.57 times per day. A total of 43 (76%) particpiants had full patency or only partial obstruction, compared with 13 (24%) patients with total obstruction. In all patients, with or without obstruction, the effect lasted an average of 4 days.Conclusions and relevanceThe device is safe and well-tolerated for maintaining patency of the nasal airway in patients undergoing rhinoplasty and nasal reconstruction without increased risk of incisional dehiscence.Level of evidence4.
| S-EPMC6439732 | biostudies-literature
Project description:THPdb (http://crdd.osdd.net/raghava/thpdb/) is a manually curated repository of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved therapeutic peptides and proteins. The information in THPdb has been compiled from 985 research publications, 70 patents and other resources like DrugBank. The current version of the database holds a total of 852 entries, providing comprehensive information on 239 US-FDA approved therapeutic peptides and proteins and their 380 drug variants. The information on each peptide and protein includes their sequences, chemical properties, composition, disease area, mode of activity, physical appearance, category or pharmacological class, pharmacodynamics, route of administration, toxicity, target of activity, etc. In addition, we have annotated the structure of most of the protein and peptides. A number of user-friendly tools have been integrated to facilitate easy browsing and data analysis. To assist scientific community, a web interface and mobile App have also been developed.
| S-EPMC5536290 | biostudies-other
Project description:The NLRP3 inflammasome is dysregulated in autoinflammatory disorders caused by inherited mutations and contributes to the pathogenesis of several chronic inflammatory diseases. In this study, we discovered that disulfiram, a safe FDA-approved drug, specifically inhibits the NLRP3 inflammasome, but not the NLRC4 or AIM2 inflammasomes. Disulfiram suppresses caspase-1 activation, ASC speck formation, and pyroptosis induced by several stimuli that activate NLRP3. Mechanistically, NLRP3 is palmitoylated at cysteine 126, a modification required for its localization to the trans-Golgi network and inflammasome activation which was inhibited by disulfiram. Administration of disulfiram to animals inhibited the NLRP3, but not the NLRC4 inflammasome in vivo. Our study uncovers a mechanism by which disulfiram targets NLRP3 and provides a rationale for using a safe FDA-approved drug for the treatment of NLRP3-associated inflammatory diseases.
2024-07-25 | PXD054126 | Pride
Project description:BackgroundComaneci (Rapid Medical) is a compliant, adjustable mesh that provides temporary scaffolding during coiling of wide-necked intracranial aneurysms (WNAs) that preserves antegrade flow. We report our early multi-institutional experience with the Comaneci device in the USA.MethodWe reviewed all patients with WNAs that were treated using the Comaneci device for coil remodeling of ruptured and unruptured aneurysms at 4 institutions between July 2019 and May 2020. Clinical characteristics, angiographic variables, and endovascular results were assessed.ResultsA total of 26 patients were included (18 women). The mean age was 62.7 years (range 44-81). Fifteen patients presented with ruptured aneurysms and 11 with unruptured aneurysms. The mean aneurysm neck width was 3.91 mm (range 1.9-6.5) with a mean dome-to-neck ratio of 1.57 (range 0.59-3.39). The mean maximum width was 5.80 mm (range 3.0-9.9) and the mean maximum height was 5.61 mm (range 2.0-11.8). Successful aneurysm occlusion was achieved in 25 of 26 patients. Complete occlusion was achieved in 16 patients, near-complete occlusion was observed in 9 patients, and 1 patient demonstrated residual filling. The mean time of device exposure was 24 min (range 8-76). No vasospasm was observed at the device location. Clot formation on the device was noted in 2 separate cases, but there were no clinical sequelae. There was 1 intraprocedural complication in a case that involved the simultaneous use of 2 Comaneci devices.ConclusionsOur initial experience shows that the Comaneci device is a promising and reliable tool that can safely support coil remodeling of WNAs.
| S-EPMC8315690 | biostudies-literature