Opportunities to boost naloxone awareness among people who misuse opioid analgesics who have not used illegal opioids.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Increasing naloxone awareness and carrying among individuals who misuse opioid analgesic medications (OAs) could reduce opioid overdose mortality. Methods: Self-report surveys were completed by 322 adults receiving residential addiction treatment who misused OAs in the past year. Descriptive analyses and prevalence ratios (using Poisson generalized estimating equations) examined whether illegal opioid (e.g., heroin) initiation was associated with naloxone awareness. Results: Among this sample of participants who misused OAs, naloxone awareness was lowest among those who never used illegal opioids (26%) and highest among those who transitioned from OAs to illegal opioid use over time (83%). Naloxone awareness remained higher among participants who had used illegal opioids after adjustment for sociodemographic and substance use characteristics. Those who used OAs before initiating illegal opioids were 2.3-fold (95% CI: 1.5-3.3) more likely to have naloxone awareness than those who had only misused OAs after adjustment. Half of participants who had only used OAs had experienced an overdose, 75% had witnessed an overdose, and 61% were prescribed OAs to treat pain in the past 6 months. Conclusions: Implementing overdose education and naloxone distribution programs during addiction treatment could bolster naloxone awareness among people who misuse OAs but who have not used illegal opioids.
SUBMITTER: Gicquelais RE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7854843 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The increased use of opioid pain medication has been mirrored by the increased misuse and abuse of these drugs. As part of a multidisciplinary approach to this epidemic, pharmaceutical companies, with the encouragement of the Food and Drug Administration, have increased the development of abuse-deterrent formulations. While all have the goal of treating pain while mitigating misuse and abuse, there are different technologies utilized to impart the abuse-deterrent properties. The goal of this paper is to review the basis of abuse-deterrent formulations, the different types and approaches of some of the abuse-deterrent products, and their current regulatory status in the USA.
| S-EPMC3550267 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesThis study explored adolescents' awareness about prescription opioid misuse, sources of medication information, and educational preferences.DesignAn online survey explored adolescents' understanding and perceptions of prescription opioids and opioid misuse and safety, medication information sources, and educational preferences.Setting and participantsEligible participants included students from 3 Wisconsin high schools who could speak and understand English. Participants were recruited through "backpack mail" and completed surveys online at school.Outcome measursSurvey responses were compared across demographic information of the study participants. Binary response items were compared across demographic strata by Fisher exact tests, and Likert responses were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis tests.ResultsA total of 190 students (53% female, 53% white, 32% Hispanic) were surveyed. Most (83.5%) considered using someone else's opioid medication to be misuse, 85.2% identified using opioids at a higher dose or frequency than prescribed as misuse, and 67.6% considered using an opioid prescription after its expiration date to be misuse. Approximately 90% of students perceived that opioid misuse causes some, quite a bit, or a great deal of harm to a person's physical and mental health and school ability. Many students were able to correctly identify examples and consequences of misuse, however 24.7% believed that flushing opioids down the drain was dangerous. The most common source for finding information about opioids was Google or other search engines (67.6%), followed by talking with parents (56.7%), talking with a doctor or nurse (54.9%), and online videos (42.3%).ConclusionAdolescents have some opioid safety knowledge, but there is a clear opportunity to increase knowledge and understanding of risks. Adolescents could benefit from opioid safety education, particularly on safe storage and disposal, harms of misuse, and strategies for discouraging peer opioid misuse.
| S-EPMC8040673 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOne in five adolescents and emerging adults have reported prescription opioid misuse (POM), posing significant risks for opioid-related adverse outcomes. Devising prevention strategies requires a better understanding of the decisional factors underlying risky misuse behavior. This research examined the associations between past opioid use behavior, opioid risk knowledge and perceptions, and intentional POM decisions.MethodsParticipants aged 15-23years completed surveys assessing past prescription opioid use and misuse, opioid risk knowledge, opioid risk perceptions, and pain relief preferences (i.e., analgesic benefit vs. risk aversion preference). The outcome, Willingness to Misuse (i.e., intentional decisions to use a prescription opioid in a non-compliant manner) was measured using hypothetical pain decision scenarios.ResultsSurveys were completed by 972 adolescents and young adults. In total, 44% had taken a prescription opioid and 32% of these reported past POM. Willingness to Misuse was significantly associated with lower opioid misuse risk perceptions (β = .75 [95% CI .66-.86]) and past opioid misuse (β = 1.81 [95% CI 1.13-2.91]) but not simple risk knowledge (β = .81 [95% CI .58-1.11]. The probability of future misuse was highest for those who reported past opioid misuse and had low risk perceptions (58.7% [95% CI 51.3-65.8]) and high pain relief preferences (53.4% [95% CI 45.3%-61.3%]).ConclusionsFindings suggest that simple knowledge of prescription opioid risks is insufficient to curtail misuse among adolescents and emerging adults. Rather, it may be important to heighten opioid risk perceptions and strengthen opioid risk aversion values when prescribing opioid analgesics to better prevent future misuse in this high risk population.
| S-EPMC6658888 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) often use opioids for long periods of time. This may lead to opioid use disorder (OUD) and psychiatric symptoms: mainly depression and anxiety. The current study investigated the effect of buprenorphine/naloxone (BuNa) rotation on opioid misuse, craving, psychiatric symptoms and pain in patients with CNCP and OUD. Forty-three participants with CNCP and OUD were converted from a full mu-receptor agonist opioid (mean morphine equivalent dose: 328.3 mg) to BuNa, in an inpatient setting. Opioid misuse, craving, co-occurring psychiatric symptoms, and pain perception were determined at baseline and after a two-month follow-up, using the following self-report questionnaires: Current Opioid Misuse Measurement (COMM), Visual Analog Scale (VAS-craving and VAS-pain) and Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS), respectively. VAS-craving and VAS-pain were also determined immediately after conversion. A total of 37 participants completed the protocol. The mean COMM decreased from 17.1 to 6.7 (F = 36.5; p < 0.000), the mean VAS-craving decreased from 39.3 to 5.3 (-86.6%; F = 26.5, p < 0.000), the mean DASS decreased from 12.1 to 6.6 (F = 56.3, p < 0.000), and the mean VAS-pain decreased from 51.3 to 37.2 (-27.4%, F = 3.3; p = 0.043). Rotation to BuNa in patients with CNCP and OUD was accompanied by reductions in (i) opioid misuse, (ii) opioid craving, (iii) the severity of co-occurring psychiatric symptoms, and (iv) self-reported pain. BuNa as opioid agonist treatment may therefore be a beneficial strategy in CNCP patients with OUD. The limited sample size and the observational nature of this study underline the need for the replication of the current findings in large-scale, controlled studies.
| S-EPMC8396821 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionBurns are a common trauma that cause acute severe pain in up to 80% of patients. The objective of this narrative review is to evaluate the efficacy of opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, gabapentinoids, ketamine, and lidocaine in the treatment of acute pain in burn victims.MethodologyThe databases explored were PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials, and OpenGrey. The included randomized, controlled clinical trials assessed the analgesic efficacy of these drugs on hospitalized patients, had no age limit, patients were in the acute phase of the burn injury and were compared to placebo or other analgesic drugs. Studies describing deep sedation, chronic opioid use, chronic pain, and patients taken to reconstructive surgeries were excluded. The Jadad scale was used to evaluate quality.ResultsSix randomized controlled clinical trials (397 patients) that evaluated the analgesic efficacy of fentanyl (n = 2), nalbuphine (n = 1), ketamine (n = 1), gabapentin (n = 1), and lidocaine (n = 1) to treat post-procedural pain were included. Fentanyl, nalbuphine, and ketamine were effective, while lidocaine was associated with a slight increase in reported pain and gabapentin showed no significant differences. Two studies were of high quality, one was of medium high quality, and three were of low quality. No studies on the efficacy of NSAIDs or paracetamol were found.ConclusionEvidence of efficacy is very limited. Fentanyl, nalbuphine, and ketamine seem to be effective for controlling acute pain in burn patients, whereas gabapentin and lidocaine did not show any efficacy.
| S-EPMC9515665 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionManagement of opioid misuse and opioid use disorder (OUD) among individuals with serious illness is an important yet understudied issue. Palliative care clinicians caring for individuals with serious illness, many of whom may live for months or years, describe a complex tension between weighing the benefits of opioids, which are considered a cornerstone of pain management in serious illness, and serious opioid-related harms like opioid misuse and OUD. And yet, little literature exists to inform the management of opioid misuse and OUDs among individuals with serious illness. Our objective is to provide evidence-based management guidance to clinicians caring for individuals with serious illness who develop opioid misuse or OUD.Methods and analysisWe chose a modified Delphi approach, which is appropriate when empirical evidence is lacking and expert input must be used to shape clinical guidance. We sought to recruit 60 clinicians with expertise in palliative care, addiction or both to participate in this study. We created seven patient cases that capture important management challenges in individuals with serious illness prescribed opioid therapy. We used ExpertLens, an online platform for conducting modified Delphi panels. Participants completed three rounds of data collection. In round 1, they rated and commented on the appropriateness of management choices for cases. In round 2, participants reviewed and discussed their own and other participants' round 1 numerical responses and comments. In round 3 (currently ongoing), participants again reviewed rounds 1 and 2, and are allowed to change their final numerical responses. We used ExpertLens to automatically identify whether there is consensus, or disagreement, among responses in panels. Only round 3 responses will be used to assess final consensus and disagreement.Ethics and disseminationThis project received ethical approval from the University of Pittsburgh's Institutional Review Board (study 19110301) and the RAND Institutional Research Board (study 2020-0142). Guidance from this work will be disseminated through national stakeholder networks to gain buy-in and endorsement. This study will also form the basis of an implementation toolkit for clinicians caring for individuals with serious illness who are at risk of opioid misuse or OUD.
| S-EPMC8137210 | biostudies-literature
Project description:: Novel synthetic opioids (NSOs) include various analogs of fentanyl and newly emerging non-fentanyl compounds. Together with illicitly manufactured fentanyl (IMF), these drugs have caused a recent spike in overdose deaths, whereas deaths from prescription opioids have stabilized. NSOs are used as stand-alone products, as adulterants in heroin, or as constituents of counterfeit prescription medications. During 2015 alone, there were 9580 deaths from synthetic opioids other than methadone. Most of these fatalities were associated with IMF rather than diverted pharmaceutical fentanyl. In opioid overdose cases, where the presence of fentanyl analogs was examined, analogs were implicated in 17% of fatalities. Recent data from law enforcement sources show increasing confiscation of acetylfentanyl, butyrylfentanyl, and furanylfentanyl, in addition to non-fentanyl compounds such as U-47700. Since 2013, deaths from NSOs in the United States were 52 for acetylfentanyl, 40 for butyrylfentanyl, 128 for furanylfentanyl, and 46 for U-47700. All of these substances induce a classic opioid toxidrome, which can be reversed with the competitive antagonist naloxone. However, due to the putative high potency of NSOs and their growing prevalence, it is recommended to forgo the 0.4 mg initial dose of naloxone and start with 2 mg. Because NSOs offer enormous profit potential, and there is strong demand for their use, these drugs are being trafficked by organized crime. NSOs present major challenges for medical professionals, law enforcement agencies, and policymakers. Resources must be distributed equitably to enhance harm reduction though public education, medication-assisted therapies, and improved access to naloxone.
| S-EPMC5537029 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportanceIt is not known whether decreases in Schedule II (high abuse potential) vs Schedule IV (lower abuse potential) opioid prescriptions overall and among high-risk patients followed publication of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) opioid prescribing guideline on March 15, 2016.ObjectivesTo compare the odds of new Schedule II opioid (codeine, hydrocodone, oxycodone) prescriptions vs Schedule IV opioid (tramadol) prescriptions in the 18-month periods before and after the CDC guideline release to determine whether new prescriptions for Schedule II opioids decreased relative to new prescriptions for tramadol and to assess whether patients with benzodiazepine prescriptions or those with depression, anxiety, or substance use disorders had a greater decrease in receipt of Schedule II vs Schedule IV opioids.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study of Optum's deidentified Integrated Claims-Clinical data set for 5 million US adults 18 months before and 18 months after March 15, 2016. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, free of HIV and cancer diagnoses, and had a noncancer painful condition. Patients received new prescriptions for codeine, hydrocodone, oxycodone, or tramadol. Data were analyzed from September 5, 2014, to September 14, 2017.ExposureThe CDC opioid prescribing guideline published on March 15, 2016.Main outcomes and measuresThe odds of prescriptions for each Schedule II opioid vs tramadol after guideline publication.ResultsData from 279 435 patients were included in the study. The mean (SD) age of patients was 52.9 (16.5) years; 61% were female and 79.4% were White. The prevalence of new prescriptions for each drug before and after guideline publication was as follows: codeine, 7.1% vs 7.0%; hydrocodone, 47.4% vs 45.6%; oxycodone, 22.4% vs 24.0%; and tramadol, 23.0% vs 23.4%. Overall, the odds of being prescribed hydrocodone or oxycodone vs tramadol significantly decreased after guideline publication (odds ratios, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98 and 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.90, respectively). Odds of being prescribed a Schedule II opioid vs tramadol after vs before guideline publication were similar in patients with and without benzodiazepine comedication or psychiatric disorders.Conclusions and relevanceIn the 18 months after compared with the 18 months before publication of the CDC prescribing guideline, a 14% decrease in oxycodone prescriptions was observed relative to tramadol. Little change in prescriptions of other Schedule II opioids was observed. Schedule II opioids continue to be prescribed to high-risk patients 18 months after publication of the CDC guideline.
| S-EPMC7711316 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough naloxone prevents opioid overdose deaths, few patients prescribed opioids receive naloxone, limiting its effectiveness in real-world settings. Barriers to naloxone prescribing include concerns that naloxone could increase risk behavior and limited time to provide necessary patient education.ObjectiveTo determine whether pharmacy-based naloxone co-dispensing affected opioid risk behavior. Secondary objectives were to assess if co-dispensing increased naloxone acquisition, increased patient knowledge about naloxone administration, and affected opioid dose and other substance use.DesignCluster randomized pragmatic trial of naloxone co-dispensing.SettingSafety-net health system in Denver, Colorado, between 2017 and 2020.ParticipantsSeven pharmacies were randomized. Pharmacy patients (N=768) receiving opioids were followed using automated data for 10 months. Pharmacy patients were also invited to complete surveys at baseline, 4 months, and 8 months; 325 survey participants were enrolled from November 15, 2017, to January 8, 2019.InterventionIntervention pharmacies implemented workflows to co-dispense naloxone while usual care pharmacies provided usual services.Main measuresSurvey instruments assessed opioid risk behavior; hazardous drinking; tobacco, cannabis, and other drug use; and knowledge. Naloxone dispensings and opioid dose were evaluated using pharmacy data among pharmacy patients and survey participants. Intention-to-treat analyses were conducted using generalized linear mixed models accounting for clustering at the pharmacy level.Key resultsOpioid risk behavior did not differ by trial group (P=0.52; 8-month vs. baseline adjusted risk ratio [ARR] 1.07; 95% CI 0.78, 1.47). Compared with usual care pharmacies, naloxone dispensings were higher in intervention pharmacies (ARR 3.38; 95% CI 2.21, 5.15) and participant knowledge increased (P=0.02; 8-month vs. baseline adjusted mean difference 1.05; 95% CI 0.06, 2.04). There was no difference in other substance use by the trial group.ConclusionCo-dispensing naloxone with opioids effectively increased naloxone receipt and knowledge but did not increase self-reported risk behavior.Trial registrationRegistered at ClinicalTrials.gov ; Identifier: NCT03337100.
| S-EPMC9411391 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Pain is both a major clinical and economic problem, affecting more people than diabetes, heart disease, and cancer combined. While a variety of prescribed or over-the-counter (OTC) medications are available for pain management, opioid medications, especially those acting on the ?-opioid receptor (?OR) and related pathways, have proven to be the most effective, despite some serious side effects including respiration depression, pruritus, dependence, and constipation. It is therefore imperative that both academia and industry develop novel ?OR analgesics which retain their opioid analgesic properties but with fewer or no adverse effects. In this review we outline recent progress towards the discovery of safer opioid analgesics.
| S-EPMC5690544 | biostudies-literature