Dataset Information

Comparison of the Pharmacokinetic Properties of Naloxone Following the Use of FDA-Approved Intranasal and Intramuscular Devices Versus a Common Improvised Nasal Naloxone Device.

ABSTRACT: For more than a decade, first responders and the general public have been able to treat suspected opioid overdoses using an improvised nasal naloxone device (INND) constructed from a prefilled syringe containing 2 mg of naloxone (1 mg/mL) attached to a mucosal atomization device. In recent years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved Ezvio, an autoinjector that delivers 2 mg by intramuscular injection and Narcan nasal spray (2- and 4-mg strengths; 0.1 mL/dose) for the emergency treatment of a known or suspected opioid overdose. The present study was conducted to compare the pharmacokinetics of naloxone using the FDA-approved devices (each administered once) and either 1 or 2 administrations using the INND. When naloxone was administered twice using the improvised device, the doses were separated by 2 minutes. The highest maximum plasma concentration was achieved using the 4-mg FDA-approved spray. The highest exposures at 5 minutes postdose, based on AUC values, were after administration with the autoinjector and the 4-mg FDA-approved spray; at 10, 15, and 20 minutes postdose, the latter yielded the greatest exposure. Even after 2 administrations, the INND failed to achieve naloxone plasma levels comparable to the FDA-approved devices at any time. The ease of use and higher plasma concentrations achieved using the 4-mg FDA-approved spray, compared with the INND, should be considered when deciding which naloxone device to use.

SUBMITTER: Krieter PA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6606390 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of the Pharmacokinetic Properties of Naloxone Following the Use of FDA-Approved Intranasal and Intramuscular Devices Versus a Common Improvised Nasal Naloxone Device.

Krieter Philip A PA Chiang C Nora CN Gyaw Shwe S McCann David J DJ

Journal of clinical pharmacology 20190312 8

For more than a decade, first responders and the general public have been able to treat suspected opioid overdoses using an improvised nasal naloxone device (INND) constructed from a prefilled syringe containing 2 mg of naloxone (1 mg/mL) attached to a mucosal atomization device. In recent years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved Ezvio, an autoinjector that delivers 2 mg by intramuscular injection and Narcan nasal spray (2- and 4-mg strengths; 0.1 mL/dose) for the emergency tr ...[more]

PMID: 30861160

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).

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.

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.

Dataset Information

Comparison of the Pharmacokinetic Properties of Naloxone Following the Use of FDA-Approved Intranasal and Intramuscular Devices Versus a Common Improvised Nasal Naloxone Device.

Publications

Comparison of the Pharmacokinetic Properties of Naloxone Following the Use of FDA-Approved Intranasal and Intramuscular Devices Versus a Common Improvised Nasal Naloxone Device.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets