Dataset Information

Systematic review of the emerging literature on the effectiveness of naloxone access laws in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aims

Naloxone access laws (NALs) have been suggested to be an important strategy to reduce opioid-related harm. We describe the evolution of NALs across states and over time and review existing evidence of their overall association with naloxone distribution and opioid overdose as well as the potential effects of specific NAL components.

Methods

Descriptive analysis of temporal variation in US regional adoption of NAL components, accompanied by a systematic search of 13 databases for studies (published between 2005 and 20 December 2019) assessing the effects of NALs on naloxone distribution or opioid-related health outcomes. Eleven studies, all published since 2018, met inclusion criteria. Study time-frames spanned 1999-2017. Opioid-related overdose mortality, emergency department episodes and naloxone distribution were correlated with the presence of a NAL and, where data were available, NAL components.

Results

Existing evidence suggests mixed, but generally beneficial, effects for NALs. Nearly all studies show that NALs, particularly those that permit naloxone distribution without patient-specific prescriptions, are associated with increased naloxone access [incidence rate ratios (IRR) range from 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.15-1.66 to 7.75, 95% CI = 1.22-49.35] and increased opioid-related emergency department visits (IRR range from 1.14, 95% CI = 1.07-1.20 to 1.15, 95% CI = 1.02-1.29). Most studies show NALs are associated with reduced overdose mortality, although findings vary depending on the specific NAL components and time-period analyzed (IRR range from 0.66, 95% CI = 0.42-0.90 to 1.27, 95% CI = 1.27-1.27). Few studies account for the variation in opioid environments (i.e. illicit versus prescription) or other policy dimensions that may be correlated with outcomes.

Conclusions

The existing literature on naloxone access laws in the United States supports beneficial effects for increased naloxone distribution, but provides inconclusive evidence for reduced fatal opioid overdose. Mixed findings may reflect variation in the laws' design and implementation, confounding effects of concurrent policy adoption, or differential effectiveness in light of changing opioid environments.

SUBMITTER: Smart R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8051142 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTo mitigate the opioid overdose crisis, states have implemented a variety of legal interventions aimed at increasing access to the opioid antagonist naloxone. Recently, Virginia and Vermont mandated the coprescription of naloxone for potentially at-risk patients.ObjectiveTo assess the association between naloxone coprescription legal mandates and naloxone dispensing in retail pharmacies.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a population-based, state-level cohort study. The sample included all prescriptions dispensed for naloxone in the retail pharmacy setting contained in IQVIA's national prescription audit, which represents 90% of all retail pharmacies in the United States. The unit of observation was state-month and the study period was January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2017.ExposuresState legal intervention mandating naloxone coprescription.Main outcomes and measuresNumber of naloxone prescriptions dispensed. State rates of naloxone prescriptions dispensed per month per 100 000 standard population were calculated.ResultsThe rate of naloxone dispensing increased after implementation of legal mandates for naloxone coprescription. An estimated 88 naloxone prescriptions per 100 000 were dispensed in Virginia and 111 prescriptions per 100 000 were dispensed in Vermont during the first full month the legal requirement was effective. In comparison, 16 naloxone prescriptions per 100 000 were dispensed in the 10 states (including the District of Columbia) with the highest opioid overdose death rates and 6 prescriptions per 100 000 were dispensed in the 39 remaining states. The number of naloxone prescriptions dispensed was associated with the legal mandate for naloxone coprescription (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 7.75; 95% CI, 1.22-49.35). Implementation of the naloxone coprescription mandate was associated with an estimated 214 additional naloxone prescriptions dispensed per month in the period following the mandates, holding all other variables constant. Among covariates, naloxone access laws (IRR, 1.37; 1.05-1.78), opioid overdose death rates (IRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.08), the percentage of naloxone prescriptions paid by third-party payers (IRR 1.009; 1.008-1.010), and time (IRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.05-1.07) were significantly associated with naloxone prescription dispensing.Conclusions and relevanceThese study findings suggest that legally mandated naloxone prescription for those at risk for opioid overdose may be associated with substantial increases in naloxone dispensing and further reduction in opioid-related harm.

Project description:AimsTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in order to estimate the effect of US medical marijuana laws (MMLs) on past-month marijuana use prevalence among adolescents.MethodsA total of 2999 papers from 17 literature sources were screened systematically. Eleven studies, developed from four ongoing large national surveys, were meta-analyzed. Estimates of MML effects on any past-month marijuana use prevalence from included studies were obtained from comparisons of pre-post MML changes in MML states to changes in non-MML states over comparable time-periods. These estimates were standardized and entered into a meta-analysis model with fixed-effects for each study. Heterogeneity among the study estimates by national data survey was tested with an omnibus F-test. Estimates of effects on additional marijuana outcomes, of MML provisions (e.g. dispensaries) and among demographic subgroups were abstracted and summarized. Key methodological and modeling characteristics were also described. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed.ResultsNone of the 11 studies found significant estimates of pre-post MML changes compared with contemporaneous changes in non-MML states for marijuana use prevalence among adolescents. The meta-analysis yielded a non-significant pooled estimate (standardized mean difference) of -0.003 (95% confidence interval = -0.012, +0.007). Four studies compared MML with non-MML states on pre-MML differences and all found higher rates of past-month marijuana use in MML states pre-MML passage. Additional tests of specific MML provisions, of MML effects on additional marijuana outcomes and among subgroups generally yielded non-significant results, although limited heterogeneity may warrant further study.ConclusionsSynthesis of the current evidence does not support the hypothesis that US medical marijuana laws (MMLs) until 2014 have led to increases in adolescent marijuana use prevalence. Limited heterogeneity exists among estimates of effects of MMLs on other patterns of marijuana use, of effects within particular population subgroups and of effects of specific MML provisions.