Dataset Information

Engineering Quick- and Long-acting Naloxone Delivery Systems for Treating Opioid Overdose.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Opioids have been the main factor for drug overdose deaths in the United States. Current naloxone delivery systems are effective in mitigating the opioid effects only for hours. Naloxone-loaded poly(lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) microparticles were prepared as quick- and long-acting naloxone delivery systems to extend the naloxone effect as an opioid antidote.

Methods

The naloxone-PLGA microparticles were made using an emulsification solvent extraction approach with different formulation and processing parameters. Two PLGA polymers with the lactide:glycolide (L:G) ratios of 50:50 and 75:25 were used, and the drug loading was varied from 21% to 51%. Two different microparticles of different sizes with the average diameters of 23 μm and 50 μm were produced using two homogenization-sieving conditions. All the microparticles were critically characterized, and three of them were evaluated with β-arrestin recruitment assays.

Results

The naloxone encapsulation efficiency (EE) was in the range of 70-85%. The EE was enhanced when the theoretical naloxone loading was increased from 30% to 60%, the L:G ratio was changed from 50:50 to 75:25, and the average size of the particles was reduced from 50 μm to 23 μm. The in vitro naloxone release duration ranged from 4 to 35 days. Reducing the average size of the microparticles from 50 μm to 23 μm helped eliminate the lag phase and obtain the steady-state drug release profile. The cellular pharmacodynamics of three selected formulations were evaluated by applying DAMGO, a synthetic opioid peptide agonist to a μ-opioid receptor, to recruit β-arrestin 2.

Conclusions

Naloxone released from the three selected formulations could inhibit DAMGO-induced β-arrestin 2 recruitment. This indicates that the proposed naloxone delivery system is adequate for opioid reversal during the naloxone release duration.

SUBMITTER: Sharifi F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8192039 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAs opioid-related mortality continues to increase, naloxone remains a critical intervention in preventing overdose death. Opportunities to expand access through the health care setting should be optimized.ObjectiveTo determine the characteristics of naloxone prescribing for US patients at high risk of opioid overdose.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used Truven Health MarketScan data from October 1, 2015, through December 31, 2016, of individuals with International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision codes related to opioid use, misuse, dependence, and overdose. The cohort included 138 108 commercially insured individuals aged 15 years or older in the United States with claims related to opioid misuse or dependence, opioid-related overdose, or both.ExposuresOutpatient naloxone pharmacy claims.Main outcomes and measuresDemographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, health care service use, and proportion prescribed naloxone were included in multivariable logistic regression analyses to test the association of opioid risk group with naloxone claim.ResultsOf 138 108 high-risk individuals (mean [SD] age, 43.4 [0.4] years; 72 435 [52.4%] men), 2135 (1.5%) were prescribed naloxone. Having prior diagnoses of both opioid misuse or dependence and overdose was associated with a greater likelihood of receiving naloxone (odds ratio [OR], 2.32; 95% CI, 1.98-2.72; P < .001) compared with having a prior diagnosis of opioid misuse or dependence without overdose. Having a prior diagnosis of opioid overdose alone was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving naloxone (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94; P = .01) compared with having a prior diagnosis of opioid misuse or dependence without overdose. Factors associated with lower naloxone prescription included being aged 30 to 44 years (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62-0.84; P < .001) and being from the Midwest (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.54-0.71; P < .001) or West (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.98; P = .03). Opioid use disorder treatment, such as use of medication-assisted therapy (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.53-1.86; P < .001), visiting a detoxification facility (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.31-1.76; P < .001), or receiving other substance use disorder treatment (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.30; P = .01), were associated with increased likelihood of receiving naloxone, as were receiving outpatient care from a pain specialist (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.40-1.76; P < .001), psychologist (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.29-1.70; P < .001), or surgeon (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.32; P < .001). Overall, 98.5% (n = 135 973) of high-risk patients did not received naloxone, despite many interactions with the health care system, including 88 618 hospitalizations, 229 680 emergency department visits, 298 058 internal medicine visits, and 568 448 family practice visits.Conclusions and relevancePatients at high risk of opioid overdose rarely received prescriptions for naloxone despite numerous interactions with the health care system. Prescribing in emergency, inpatient, and outpatient settings represents an opportunity to improve access.

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:Naloxone co-prescription is recommended for patients on long-term opioids for pain, yet there are few data on the practice.To explore naloxone co-prescribing acceptability among primary care providers for patients on long-term opioids.We surveyed providers at six safety-net primary care clinics in San Francisco that had initiated naloxone co-prescribing. Providers were encouraged to offer naloxone to patients on long-term opioids or otherwise at risk of witnessing or experiencing an overdose. Surveys were administered electronically 4 to 11 months after co-prescribing began.One hundred eleven providers (69 %) responded to the survey, among whom 41.4 % were residents; 40.5 % practiced internal medicine and 55.0 % practiced family medicine. Most (79.3 %) prescribed naloxone, to a mean of 7.7 patients; 99.1 % were likely to prescribe naloxone in the future. Providers reported they were likely to prescribe naloxone to most patients, including those on low doses, defined as <20 morphine equivalent mg daily (59.8 %), ?65 years old (83.9 %), with no overdose history (80.7 %), and with no substance use disorder (73.6 %). Most providers felt that prescribing naloxone did not affect their opioid prescribing, 22.5 % felt that they might prescribe fewer opioids, and 3.6 % felt that they might prescribe more. Concerns about providing naloxone were largely administrative, relating to time and pharmacy or payer logistics. Internists (incidence rate ratio [IRR]?=?0.49, 95 % CI?=?0.26-0.93, p?=?0.029), those licensed for 5-20 years (IRR?=?2.10, 95 % CI?=?1.35-3.25, p?=?0.001), and those with more patients prescribed long-term opioids (IRR?=?1.10, 95 % CI?=?1.05-1.14, p <0.001) were independently more likely to prescribe a greater number of naloxone compared to participants without these exposures.Naloxone co-prescription is considered acceptable among primary care providers. Barriers such as time and dispensing logistics may be alleviated by novel naloxone formulations intended for laypersons recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Project description:Importance:The US opioid crisis was deemed a public health emergency in 2017. More than 130 individuals in the US die daily as a result of unintentional opioid overdose deaths. Objective:To measure use of take-home naloxone for overdose reversals performed by study participants with opioid use disorder receiving treatment at an opioid treatment program. Design, Setting, and Participants:In a year-long cohort study, between April 4, 2016, and May 16, 2017, 395 study participants enrolled at the University of New Mexico Addiction and Substance Abuse Opioid Treatment Program, an outpatient clinic treating substance use disorders. Inclusion criteria included all patients enrolled at University of New Mexico Addiction and Substance Abuse Opioid Treatment Program during the study enrollment period; positive history of opioid use disorder treated with methadone, buprenorphine, or naltrexone; and age 18 years or older. Exclusion criteria included allergy to naloxone and age younger than 18 years. The study closed 1 year after enrollment, on May 17, 2018. Data analysis was performed from May 2018 to July 2019. Exposure:Two doses of take-home naloxone combined with opioid overdose education were provided to study participants. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was to measure the association of take-home naloxone with overdose reversals performed by patients with opioid use disorder enrolled in an opioid treatment program. Results:We enrolled 395 study participants (270 female [68.4%]; mean [SD] age, 35.4 [12.6] years; 260 [65.8%] with Hispanic white race/ethnicity) in the 1-year prospective trial. Sixty-eight female participants (25.2% of all female participants) were pregnant at the time of enrollment. Seventy-three of the 395 study participants (18.0%) performed 114 overdose reversals in the community. All community reversals were heroin related. Most study participants (86.8%) stated that the person on whom they performed an overdose reversal was a friend, relative, acquaintance, or significant other. In the year before enrollment, only 18 study participants (4.5%) had been prescribed naloxone. Conclusions and Relevance:Take-home naloxone as part of overdose education and naloxone distribution provided to patients in an opioid treatment program may be associated with a strategic targeted harm reduction response for reversing opioid overdose-related deaths. Policy makers may consider regulations to mandate overdose education and naloxone distribution in opioid treatment programs.

Project description:Background and aimsTake-home naloxone can prevent death from heroin/opioid overdose, but pre-provision is difficult because naloxone is usually given by injection. Non-injectable alternatives, including naloxone nasal sprays, are currently being developed. To be effective, the intranasal (i.n.) spray dose must be adequate but not excessive, and early absorption must be comparable to intramuscular (i.m.) injection. We report on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of a specially produced concentrated novel nasal spray. The specific aims were to: (1) estimate PK profiles of i.n. naloxone, (2) compare early systemic exposure with i.n. versus i.m. naloxone and (3) estimate i.n. bioavailability.DesignOpen-label, randomized, five-way cross-over PK study.SettingClinical trials facility (Croydon, UK).ParticipantsThirty-eight healthy volunteers (age 20-54 years; 11 female).Intervention and comparatorThree doses of i.n. (1 mg/0.1 ml, 2 mg/0.1 ml, 4 mg/0.2 ml) versus 0.4 mg i.m. (reference) and 0.4 mg intravenous (i.v.) naloxone.MeasurementsRegular blood samples were taken, with high-frequency sampling during the first 15 minutes to capture early systemic exposure. PK parameters were determined from plasma naloxone concentrations. Exploratory analyses involved simulation of repeat administration.FindingsMean peak concentration (Cmax ) values for 1 mg (1.51 ng/ml), 2 mg (2.87 ng/ml) and 4 mg (6.02 ng/ml) i.n. exceeded 0.4 mg i.m. (1.27 ng/ml) naloxone. All three i.n. doses rapidly achieved plasma levels > 50% of peak concentrations (T50%) by 10 minutes, peaking at 15-30 minutes (Tmax ). For comparison, the i.m. reference reached Tmax at 10 minutes. Mean bioavailability was 47-51% for i.n. relative to i.m. naloxone. Simulation of repeat dosing (2 × 2 mg i.n. versus 5 × 0.4 mg i.m. doses) at 3-minute intervals showed that comparable plasma naloxone concentrations would be anticipated.ConclusionsConcentrated 2 mg intranasal naloxone is well-absorbed and provides early exposure comparable to 0.4 mg intramuscular naloxone, following the 0.4 mg intramuscular curve closely in the first 10 minutes post-dosing and maintaining blood levels above twice the intramuscular reference for the next 2 hours.