Search

People leaving incarceration are at high risk of opioid-related overdose. Overdose fatalities are preventable with administration of naloxone. In response to this risk, overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) programs have been implemented in a handful of jails and prisons in the United States. We document the history, structure, and data from the San Francisco County Jail OEND program. During 4 years of operation, 637 people participated; 67% received naloxone upon release, of whom only 3.5% had been previously trained in community-based OEND programs. Of those who received naloxone, 32% reported reversing an overdose and 44% received refills from community-based programs after reentry. This confirms that implementation of OEND in criminal justice settings is feasible and reaches people who have not previously been trained as well as those willing to act as overdose responders.

This report documents a successful intervention by a community-based naloxone distribution program in San Francisco. The program and its partner organizations, working with participants who use drugs, first identified the appearance of illicitly made fentanyl and increased outreach and naloxone distribution. Distribution of naloxone and reported use of naloxone to reverse opioid-involved overdoses increased significantly while the number of opioid-involved and fentanyl-involved overdose deaths did not. Community-based programs that provide training and naloxone to people who use drugs can serve as an early warning system for overdose risk and adaptively respond to the rapidly changing overdose risk environment.

Naloxone access through established healthcare settings is critical to responding to the opioid crisis. We conducted a systematic review to assess the acceptability and feasibility of prescribing naloxone to patients in primary care. We queried PubMed, EmBase and CINAHL for US-based, peer-reviewed, full-length, original articles relating to acceptability or feasibility of prescribing naloxone in primary care. Searches yielded 270 unduplicated articles; one analyst reviewed all titles and abstracts. Two analysts independently reviewed eligible articles for study design, study outcome, and acceptability and/or feasibility. Analyses were compared and a third reviewer consulted if discrepancies emerged. Seventeen articles were included. Providers' willingness to prescribe naloxone appeared to increase over time. Most studies provided prescribers in-person naloxone trainings, including how to write a prescription and indications for prescribing. Most studies implemented universal prescribing, whereby anyone prescribed long-term opioids or otherwise at risk for overdose was eligible for naloxone. Patient education was largely provided by prescribers and most studies provided take-home educational materials. Providers reported concerns around naloxone prescribing including lack of knowledge around prescribing and educating patients. Providers also reported benefits such as improving difficult conversations around opioids and resetting the culture around opioids and overdose. Current literature supports the acceptability and feasibility of naloxone prescribing in primary care. Provision of naloxone through primary care may help normalize such medication safety interventions, support larger opioid stewardship efforts, and expand access to patients not served by a community distribution program., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Naloxone is effective for reversing opioid overdose, but optimal strategies for out-of-hospital use are uncertain., Purpose: To synthesize evidence on 1) the effects of naloxone route of administration and dosing for suspected opioid overdose in out-of-hospital settings on mortality, reversal of overdose, and harms, and 2) the need for transport to a health care facility after reversal of overdose with naloxone., Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE (1946 through September 2017), PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) materials, and reference lists., Study Selection: English-language cohort studies and randomized trials that compared different doses of naloxone, administration routes, or transport versus nontransport after reversal of overdose with naloxone. Main outcomes were mortality, reversal of overdose, recurrence of overdose, and harms., Data Extraction: Dual extraction and quality assessment of individual studies; consensus assessment of overall strength of evidence (SOE)., Data Synthesis: Of 13 eligible studies, 3 randomized controlled trials and 4 cohort studies compared different administration routes. At the same dose (2 mg), 1 trial found similar efficacy between higher-concentration intranasal naloxone (2 mg/mL) and intramuscular naloxone, and 1 trial found that lower-concentration intranasal naloxone (2 mg/5 mL) was less effective than intramuscular naloxone but was associated with decreased risk for agitation (low SOE). Evidence was insufficient to evaluate other comparisons of route of administration. Six uncontrolled studies reported low rates of death and serious adverse events (0% to 1.25%) in nontransported patients after successful naloxone treatment., Limitation: There were few studies, all had methodological limitations, and none evaluated FDA-approved autoinjectors or highly concentrated intranasal formulations., Conclusion: Higher-concentration intranasal naloxone (2 mg/mL) seems to have efficacy similar to that of intramuscular naloxone for reversal of opioid overdose, with no difference in adverse events. Nontransport after reversal of overdose with naloxone seems to be associated with a low rate of serious harms, but no study evaluated risks of transport versus nontransport., Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42016053891).

Community-based overdose prevention programs first emerged in the 1990's and are now the leading public health intervention for overdose. Key elements of these programs are overdose education and naloxone distribution to people who use opioids and their social networks. We review the evolution of naloxone programming through the heroin overdose era of the 1990's, the prescription opioid era of the 2000's, and the current overdose crisis stemming from the synthetic opioid era of illicitly manufactured fentanyl and its analogues in the 2010's. We present current challenges arising in this new era of synthetic opioids, including variable potency of illicit drugs due to erratic adulteration of the drug supply with synthetic opioids, potentially changing efficacy of standard naloxone formulations for overdose rescue, potentially shorter overdose response time, and reports of fentanyl exposure among people who use drugs but are opioid naïve. Future directions for adapting naloxone programming to the dynamic opioid epidemic are proposed, including scale-up to new venues and social networks, new standards for post-overdose care, expansion of supervised drug consumption services, and integration of novel technologies to detect overdose and deliver naloxone., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Naloxone co-prescription is recommended for patients on long-term opioids for pain, yet there are few data on the practice., Objective: To explore naloxone co-prescribing acceptability among primary care providers for patients on long-term opioids., Design: 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., Key Results: 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., Conclusions: 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.

Background: Improving the safety of prescribed opioids in clinical settings is a national priority. While co-prescribing naloxone is increasingly recommended, there is little understanding of the optimal way to implement this practice., Methods: We developed and delivered an academic detailing intervention to 40 randomly selected opioid-prescribing primary care providers in San Francisco from February to May 2015. Process outcomes were tracked and included provider demographics, number and type of contact attempts, reason for refusal (if applicable), name of detailer, duration of intervention, topics covered, provider concerns, and follow-up plan. Outcome evaluation included changes in the rate of naloxone prescriptions 4 months before and after academic detailing by provider based on de-identified Medi-Cal claims data. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we developed a negative binomial regression model to compare changes in naloxone prescribing to Medi-Cal patients between providers that did and did not receive the intervention., Results: Eighty-three percent of 48 providers contacted accepted the intervention after a mean of 2.6 contacts. Detailing lasted a mean of 28 minutes (range 5-60 minutes) and most frequently covered indications for naloxone, examples of naloxone prescriptions, language to use with patients, and pharmacy outreach. Those who received the academic detailing had a significantly greater increase in naloxone prescriptions compared to those who did not receive the intervention (IRR=11.0, 95%CI=1.8-67.8, P=.010)., Conclusions: Academic detailing addressing opioid safety and naloxone prescribing was well-received by primary care providers and associated with an increase in naloxone prescriptions filled by Medi-Cal patients.

Purpose: Notwithstanding a paucity of data, prescription of the opioid antagonist naloxone to patients prescribed opioids is increasingly recommended in opioid stewardship guidelines. The aim of this study was to evaluate chronic pain patients' attitudes toward being offered a naloxone prescription and their experience with naloxone., Methods: We interviewed 60 patients who received naloxone prescriptions across 6 safety-net primary care clinics (10 patients per clinic) from October 2013 to October 2015. We used a standardized questionnaire to collect information on substance use, perception of personal overdose risk, history of overdose, and experiences with naloxone prescription, including initial reaction, barriers to filling the prescription, storage and use of naloxone, associated behavioral changes, and opinions about future prescribing., Results: Respondents were demographically similar to all clinic patients receiving opioid prescriptions. Ninety percent had never previously received a naloxone prescription, 82% successfully filled a prescription for naloxone, and 97% believed that patients prescribed opioids for pain should be offered naloxone. Most patients had a positive (57%) or neutral (22%) response to being offered naloxone, and 37% reported beneficial behavior changes after receiving the prescription; there were no harmful behavior changes reported. Although 37% had personally experienced an opioid-poisoning event (17% of which were described as bad reactions but consistent with an overdose) and 5% reported that the prescribed naloxone had been used on them, 77% estimated their risk of overdose as low., Conclusions: Primary care patients on opioids reported that receiving a prescription for naloxone was acceptable, the prescription reached patients who had not had access to naloxone, and having naloxone may be associated with beneficial changes in opioid use behaviors. Patients prescribed opioids may not interpret the terminology describing overdose to imply unintentional opioid poisoning., (© 2016 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Background: Unintentional overdose involving opioid analgesics is a leading cause of injury-related death in the United States., Objective: To evaluate the feasibility and effect of implementing naloxone prescription to patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain., Design: 2-year nonrandomized intervention study., Setting: 6 safety-net primary care clinics in San Francisco, California., Participants: 1985 adults receiving long-term opioid therapy for pain., Intervention: Providers and clinic staff were trained and supported in naloxone prescribing., Measurements: Outcomes were proportion of patients prescribed naloxone, opioid-related emergency department (ED) visits, and prescribed opioid dose based on chart review., Results: 38.2% of 1985 patients receiving long-term opioids were prescribed naloxone. Patients prescribed higher doses of opioids and with an opioid-related ED visit in the past 12 months were independently more likely to be prescribed naloxone. Patients who received a naloxone prescription had 47% fewer opioid-related ED visits per month in the 6 months after receipt of the prescription (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.53 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.83]; P = 0.005) and 63% fewer visits after 1 year (IRR, 0.37 [CI, 0.22 to 0.64]; P < 0.001) compared with patients who did not receive naloxone. There was no net change over time in opioid dose among those who received naloxone and those who did not (IRR, 1.03 [CI, 0.91 to 1.27]; P = 0.61)., Limitation: Results are observational and may not be generalizable beyond safety-net settings., Conclusion: Naloxone can be coprescribed to primary care patients prescribed opioids for pain. When advised to offer naloxone to all patients receiving opioids, providers may prioritize those with established risk factors. Providing naloxone in primary care settings may have ancillary benefits, such as reducing opioid-related adverse events., Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Background: While drug users are frequently equipped with naloxone for lay opioid overdose reversal, the amount of education needed to ensure knowledge of indications and administration is unknown., Methods: We administered four instruments, assessing comfort and knowledge around opioid overdose and naloxone administration, to opioid users receiving naloxone for the first time (N=60) and upon returning for a refill (N=54) at community distribution programs. Participants completed the instruments prior to receiving naloxone; first-time recipients repeated the instruments immediately after the standardized 5-10min education., Results: Comfort with recognition of, response to, and administration of naloxone for an overdose event significantly increased after brief education among first-time recipients (p<0.05). Knowledge of appropriate responses to opioid overdose was high across all assessments; 96% of participants could identify at least one acceptable action to assess and one acceptable action to care for an opioid overdose. Facility with naloxone administration was high across all assessments and significantly increased for intranasal administration after education for first-time recipients (p<0.001). First-time recipients (before and after education) and refillers demonstrated a high level of knowledge on the Brief Overdose Recognition and Response Assessment, correctly identifying a mean of 13.7 out of 16 overdose scenarios., Conclusions: Opioid users seeking naloxone in San Francisco have a high level of baseline knowledge around recognizing and responding to opioid overdose and those returning for refills retain that knowledge. Brief education is sufficient to improve comfort and facility in recognizing and managing overdose., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Opioid overdoses are an important public health concern. Concerns about police involvement at overdose events may decrease calls to 911 for emergency medical care thereby increasing the chances than an overdose becomes fatal. To address this concern, Washington State passed a law that provides immunity from drug possession charges and facilitates the availability of take-home-naloxone (the opioid overdose antidote) to bystanders in 2010. To examine the knowledge and opinions regarding opioid overdoses and this new law, police (n = 251) and paramedics (n = 28) in Seattle, WA were surveyed. The majority of police (64 %) and paramedics (89 %) had been at an opioid overdose in the prior year. Few officers (16 %) or paramedics (7 %) were aware of the new law. While arrests at overdose scenes were rare, drugs or paraphernalia were confiscated at 25 % of the most recent overdoses police responded to. Three quarters of officers felt it was important they were at the scene of an overdose to protect medical personnel, and a minority, 34 %, indicated it was important they were present for the purpose of enforcing laws. Police opinions about the immunity and naloxone provisions of the law were split, and we present a summary of the reasons for their opinions. The results of this survey were utilized in public health efforts by the police department which developed a roll call training video shown to all patrol officers. Knowledge of the law was low, and opinions of it were mixed; however, police were concerned about the issue of opioid overdose and willing to implement agency-wide training.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of distributing naloxone to illicit opioid users for lay overdose reversal in Russian cities., Method: This study adapted an integrated Markov and decision analytic model to Russian cities. The model took a lifetime, societal perspective, relied on published literature, and was calibrated to epidemiologic findings., Results: For each 20% of heroin users reached with naloxone distribution, the model predicted a 13.4% reduction in overdose deaths in the first 5 years and 7.6% over a lifetime; on probabilistic analysis, one death would be prevented for every 89 naloxone kits distributed (95% CI = 32-260). Naloxone distribution was cost-effective in all deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and cost-saving if resulting in a reduction in overdose events. Naloxone distribution increased costs by US$13 (95% CI = US$3-US$32) and QALYs by 0.137 (95% CI = 0.022-0.389) for an incremental cost of US$94 per QALY gained (95% CI = US$40-US$325). In a worst-case scenario where overdose was rarely witnessed and naloxone was rarely used, minimally effective, and expensive, the incremental cost was US$1987 per QALY gained. If national expenditures on drug-related HIV, tuberculosis, and criminal justice were applied to heroin users, the incremental cost was US$928 per QALY gained., Conclusions: Naloxone distribution to heroin users for lay overdose reversal is highly likely to reduce overdose deaths in target communities and is robustly cost-effective, even within the constraints of this conservative model.

Background: Opioid overdose is a leading cause of accidental death in the United States., Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of distributing naloxone, an opioid antagonist, to heroin users for use at witnessed overdoses., Design: Integrated Markov and decision analytic model using deterministic and probabilistic analyses and incorporating recurrent overdoses and a secondary analysis assuming heroin users are a net cost to society., Data Sources: Published literature calibrated to epidemiologic data., Target Population: Hypothetical 21-year-old novice U.S. heroin user and more experienced users with scenario analyses., Time Horizon: Lifetime., Perspective: Societal., Intervention: Naloxone distribution for lay administration., Outcome Measures: Overdose deaths prevented and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)., Results of Base-Case Analysis: In the probabilistic analysis, 6% of overdose deaths were prevented with naloxone distribution; 1 death was prevented for every 227 naloxone kits distributed (95% CI, 71 to 716). Naloxone distribution increased costs by $53 (CI, $3 to $156) and quality-adjusted life-years by 0.119 (CI, 0.017 to 0.378) for an ICER of $438 (CI, $48 to $1706)., Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Naloxone distribution was cost-effective in all deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity and scenario analyses, and it was cost-saving if it resulted in fewer overdoses or emergency medical service activations. In a "worst-case scenario" where overdose was rarely witnessed and naloxone was rarely used, minimally effective, and expensive, the ICER was $14 000. If national drug-related expenditures were applied to heroin users, the ICER was $2429., Limitation: Limited sources of controlled data resulted in wide CIs., Conclusion: Naloxone distribution to heroin users is likely to reduce overdose deaths and is cost-effective, even under markedly conservative assumptions., Primary Funding Source: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Preliminary research suggests that naloxone (Narcan), a short-acting opiate antagonist, could be provided by prescription or distribution to heroin users to reduce the likelihood of fatality from overdose. We conducted a random postal survey of 1100 prescription-authorized health care providers in New York City to determine willingness to prescribe naloxone to patients at risk of an opiate overdose. Among 363 nurse practitioners, physicians, and physician assistants responding, 33.4% would consider prescribing naloxone, and 29.4% were unsure. This preliminary study suggests that a substantial number of New York City health care providers would prescribe naloxone for opiate overdose prevention.

BackgroundFentanyl has replaced most other non-prescribed opioids in much of North America. There is controversy over whether a hypothetical reduced efficacy of naloxone in reversing fentanyl is a major contributor to the coincident rising overdose mortality.MethodsWe modified an existing Markov decision analytic model of heroin overdose and naloxone distribution to account for known risks of fentanyl by adjusting overdose risk, the likelihood of death in the event of overdose, and the proportion of cases in which available naloxone was administered in time to prevent death. We assumed near-universal survival when naloxone was administered promptly for heroin or fentanyl overdose, but allowed that to decline in sensitivity analyses for fentanyl. We varied the proportion of use that was fentanyl and adjusted the modified parameters accordingly to estimate mortality as the dominant opioid shifted.ResultsAbsent naloxone, the annual overdose death rate was 1.0% and 4.1% for heroin and fentanyl, respectively. With naloxone reaching 80% of those at risk, the overdose death rate was 0.7% and 3.6% for heroin and fentanyl, respectively, representing reductions of 26.4% and 12.0%. Monte Carlo simulations resulted in overdose mortality with fentanyl of 3.3-5.2% without naloxone and 2.6-4.9% with naloxone, with 95% certainty. Positing reduced efficacy for naloxone in reversing fentanyl resulted in 3.6% of fentanyl overdose deaths being prevented by naloxone.ConclusionsHeightened risk for overdose and subsequent death, alongside the time-sensitive need for naloxone administration, fully account for increased mortality when fentanyl replaces heroin, assuming optimal pharmacologic efficacy of naloxone.

Introduction: In response to the ongoing opioid overdose crisis, US officials urged the expansion of access to naloxone for opioid overdose reversal. Since then, emergency medical services’ (EMS) dispensing of naloxone kits has become an emerging harm reduction strategy.  Methods: We created a naloxone training and low-barrier distribution program in San Francisco: Project FRIEND (First Responder Increased Education and Naloxone Distribution). The team assembled an advisory committee of stakeholders and subject-matter experts, worked with local and state EMS agencies to augment existing protocols, created training curricula, and developed a naloxone-distribution data collection system. Naloxone kits were labeled for registration and data tracking. Emergency medical technicians and paramedics were asked to distribute naloxone kits to any individuals (patient or bystander) they deemed at risk of experiencing or witnessing an opioid overdose, and to voluntarily register those kits.  Results: Training modalities included a video module (distributed to over 700 EMS personnel) and voluntary, in-person training sessions, attended by 224 EMS personnel. From September 25, 2019–September 24, 2020, 1,200 naloxone kits were distributed to EMS companies. Of these, 232 kits (19%) were registered by EMS personnel. Among registered kits, 146 (63%) were distributed during encounters for suspected overdose, and 103 (44%) were distributed to patients themselves. Most patients were male (n = 153, 66%) and of White race (n = 124, 53%); median age was 37.5 years (interquartile range 31-47). Conclusion: We describe a successful implementation and highlight the feasibility of a low-threshold, leave-behind naloxone program. Collaboration with multiple entities was a key component of the program’s success.

The United States underwent massive expansion in opioid prescribing from 1990–2010, followed by opioid stewardship initiatives and reduced prescribing. Opioids are no longer considered first-line therapy for most chronic pain conditions and clinicians should first seek alternatives in most circumstances. Patients who have been treated with opioids long-term should be managed differently, sometimes even continued on opioids due to physiologic changes wrought by long-term opioid therapy and documented risks of discontinuation. When providing long-term opioid therapy, clinicians should document opioid stewardship measures, including assessments, consents, medication reconciliation, and offering naloxone, along with the rationale to continue opioid therapy. Clinicians should screen regularly for opioid use disorder and arrange for or directly provide treatment. In particular, buprenorphine can be highly useful for co-morbid pain and opioid use disorder. Addressing other substance use disorders, as well as preventive health related to substance use, should be a priority in patients with opioid use disorder. Patient-centered practices, such as shared decision-making and attending to related facets of a patient's life that influence health outcomes, should be implemented at all points of care. Although opioids are no longer considered first-line therapy for most chronic pain, management of patients already taking long-term opioid therapy must be individualised. Documentation of opioid stewardship measures can help to organise opioid prescribing and protect clinicians from regulatory scrutiny. Management of resultant opioid use disorder should include provision of medications, most often buprenorphine, and several additional screening and preventive measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Drug overdose mortality continues to increase, now driven by fentanyl. Prevention tools such as naloxone and medications to treat opioid use disorder are not sufficient to control overdose rates; additional strategies are urgently needed. Objective: We sought to adapt a behavioral intervention to prevent opioid overdose (repeated-dose behavioral intervention to reduce opioid overdose [REBOOT]) that had been successfully piloted in San Francisco, California, United States, to the setting of Boston, Massachusetts, United States, and the era of fentanyl for a full efficacy trial. Methods: We used the assessment, decision, adaptation, production, topical experts, integration, training, and testing (ADAPT-ITT) framework for intervention adaptation. We first identified opioid overdose survivors who were actively using opioids as the population of interest and REBOOT as the intervention to be adapted. We then performed theater testing and elicited feedback with 2 focus groups (n=10) in Boston in 2018. All participants had used opioids that were not prescribed to them in the past year and experienced an opioid overdose during their lifetime. We incorporated focus group findings into our initial draft of the adapted REBOOT intervention. The adapted intervention was reviewed by 3 topical experts, and their feedback was integrated into a subsequent draft. We trained study staff on the intervention and made final refinements based on internal piloting. This paper describes the overall ADAPT-ITT process for intervention adaptation, as well as a qualitative analysis of the focus groups. Working independently, 2 authors (VMM and JA) reviewed the focus group transcripts and coded them for salient and common themes using the constant comparison method, meeting to discuss any discrepancies until consensus was reached. Codes and themes were then mapped onto the REBOOT counseling steps. Results: Focus group findings contributed to substantial changes in the counseling intervention to better address fentanyl overdose risk. Participants described the widespread prevalence of fentanyl and said that, although they tried to avoid it, avoidance was becoming impossible. Using alone and lower opioid tolerance were identified as contributors to overdose risk. Slow shots or tester shots were acceptable and considered effective to reduce risk. Naloxone was considered an effective reversal strategy. Although calling emergency services was not ruled out, participants described techniques to prevent the arrival of police on the scene. Expert review and internal piloting improved the intervention manual through increased participant centeredness, clarity, and usability Conclusions: We successfully completed the ADAPT-ITT approach for an overdose prevention intervention, using theater testing with people who use opioids to incorporate the perspectives of people who use drugs into a substance use intervention. In the current crisis, overdose prevention strategies must be adapted to the context of fentanyl, and innovative strategies must be deployed, including behavioral interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The San Francisco Department of Public Health initiated naloxone prescribing at 6 safety net clinics. We evaluated this intervention, demonstrating that naloxone prescribing from primary care clinics is feasible and acceptable. Objective: To evaluate acceptability of naloxone dispensing to patients prescribed opioids among pharmacists serving clinics participating in a naloxone intervention. Methods: We surveyed 58 pharmacists from November 2013 through January 2015 at pharmacies that serviced San Francisco safety net clinics. Surveys collected information on demographics, experiences in dispensing naloxone, and interest in prescriptive authority. We conducted descriptive analyses and assessed bivariate relationships. Results: Most respondents were staff (56.9%) or supervising pharmacists (34.5%). Most (92.9%) were aware their pharmacy stocked naloxone and 86.8% felt it should be prescribed to some or all patients on long-term opioids. Most (82.1%) dispensed naloxone at least once in the past 12 months. More than half were comfortable providing naloxone education. Nearly half (43.4%) indicated they would want authority to furnish without a prescription. Over half (55.2%) reported no problems dispensing. The common problem was insufficient naloxone knowledge. Only 12% reported more than one problem in dispensing naloxone, which was associated with being uncomfortable with educating patients (P =.03). Conclusion: Naloxone dispensing was acceptable among pharmacists. Their most cited problem was insufficient naloxone education. This may be resolved with improved instructional materials, incentives for patient education, or mandatory training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Naloxone co-prescription is recommended for patients on long-term opioids for pain, yet there are few data on the practice.Objective: To explore naloxone co-prescribing acceptability among primary care providers for patients on long-term opioids.Design: 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.Key Results: 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.Conclusions: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies show that people who inject drugs (PWID) underestimate their overdose risk. We sought to explore this phenomenon by comparing how PWID perceive causes of personal overdoses compared to witnessed overdoses. Methods: We analyzed 40 interviews from participants enrolled in a randomized-controlled behavioral intervention to reduce overdose among at-risk PWID in San Francisco from 2014 to 2016. Subjects were current illicit opioid injectors with opioid use disorder, had received take-home naloxone, and had overdosed within five years. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Using thematic content analysis, three analysts coded the interviews and measured interrater reliability. The analysts developed a codebook of a priori and inductively generated codes, and applied it to all interviews. Coding discrepancies were discussed. Results: We used two theoretical frameworks – actor observer bias (AOB) and intragroup stigma – to analyze participants' descriptions of personal and witnessed overdoses. AOB suggests individuals may assign responsibility of their actions to external factors, while assigning responsibility for others' actions to internal mechanisms. Intragroup stigma describes the process whereby people perpetuate stigma within their own group. Related to these concepts, two principal themes were used to describe personal overdose: (1) drug volatility and (2) ascribing blame to others, and witnessed overdoses: (1) greed and (2) inexperience/foolishness. Conclusion/Importance: The differences in perceived causes of personal versus witnessed overdose align with AOB and intragroup stigma. Understanding how these theories shape overdose experiences may improve behavioral interventions by introducing peer based supports and encouraging PWIDs to employ evidence-based safety precautions when using opioids. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Emergency Medical Services (EMS) data may provide insight into opioid overdose incidence, clinical characteristics, and medical response. This analysis describes patient characteristics, clinical features, and EMS response to opioid overdoses, comparing heroin and pharmaceutical opioid (PO) overdoses, using a structured opioid overdose case criteria definition.Methods: A case series study was conducted. EMS medical staff screened cases for possible overdoses and study staff categorized the likelihood of opioid overdose. Medical form data were abstracted. Patient characteristics, clinical presentation, and medical response to heroin and PO-involved overdoses were compared with bi-variate test statistics.Results: We identified 229 definite or probable opioid overdose cases over six months: heroin in 98 (43%) cases (10 also involved PO), PO without heroin in 85 (37%) cases, and 46 (20%) that could not be categorized and were excluded from analyses. Heroin overdose patients were younger than PO (median age 33 v 41 (p<0.05)), more often male (80% v 61% (p=<0.01)), intubated less (8% v 22%, p<0.01) and more likely to be administered naloxone (72% v 51%, p<0.01). No significant differences were found between heroin and PO overdoses for initial respiratory rate, Glasgow Coma Scale score, or co-ingestants, but heroin users were more likely to have miotic pupils (p<0.01).Conclusions: While heroin and PO events presented similarly, heroin-involved cases were more likely to receive naloxone and less likely to be intubated. Standardized case definitions and data documentation could aid opioid overdose surveillance as well as provide data for measuring the impact of professional and lay interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Fentanyl has replaced most other non-prescribed opioids in much of North America. There is controversy over whether a hypothetical reduced efficacy of naloxone in reversing fentanyl is a major contributor to the coincident rising overdose mortality.Methods: We modified an existing Markov decision analytic model of heroin overdose and naloxone distribution to account for known risks of fentanyl by adjusting overdose risk, the likelihood of death in the event of overdose, and the proportion of cases in which available naloxone was administered in time to prevent death. We assumed near-universal survival when naloxone was administered promptly for heroin or fentanyl overdose, but allowed that to decline in sensitivity analyses for fentanyl. We varied the proportion of use that was fentanyl and adjusted the modified parameters accordingly to estimate mortality as the dominant opioid shifted.Results: Absent naloxone, the annual overdose death rate was 1.0% and 4.1% for heroin and fentanyl, respectively. With naloxone reaching 80% of those at risk, the overdose death rate was 0.7% and 3.6% for heroin and fentanyl, respectively, representing reductions of 26.4% and 12.0%. Monte Carlo simulations resulted in overdose mortality with fentanyl of 3.3-5.2% without naloxone and 2.6-4.9% with naloxone, with 95% certainty. Positing reduced efficacy for naloxone in reversing fentanyl resulted in 3.6% of fentanyl overdose deaths being prevented by naloxone.Conclusions: Heightened risk for overdose and subsequent death, alongside the time-sensitive need for naloxone administration, fully account for increased mortality when fentanyl replaces heroin, assuming optimal pharmacologic efficacy of naloxone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As resources are deployed to address the opioid overdose epidemic in the USA, it is essential that we understand the correlates of more frequent opioid injections-which has been associated not only with HIV and HCV transmission, but also with overdose risk-to inform the development and targeting of effective intervention strategies like overdose prevention and naloxone distribution programs. However, no studies have explored how characteristics of opioid use partnerships may be associated within injection frequency with opioid partnerships.Methods: Using baseline data from a trial of a behavioural intervention to reduce overdose among opioid users in San Francisco, CA, we calculated assortativity among opioid use partnerships by race, gender, participant-reported HIV- and HCV-status, and opioids used using Newman's assortativity coefficient (NC). Multivariable generalized estimating equations linear regression was used to examine associations between individual- and partnership-level characteristics and injection frequency within opioid use partnerships.Results: Opioid use partnerships (n=134) reported by study participants (n=55) were assortative by race (NC=0.42, 95%CI=0.33-0.50) and participant-reported HCV-status (NC=0.42, 95%CI=0.31-0.52). In multivariable analyses, there were more monthly injections among sexual/romantic partnerships (β=114.4, 95%CI=60.2-168.7, p<0.001), racially concordant partnerships reported by white study participants (β=71.4, 95%CI=0.3-142.5, p=0.049), racially discordant partnerships reported by African American study participants (β=105.7, 95%CI=1.0-210.5, p=0.048), and partnerships in which either member had witnessed the other experience an overdose (β=81.8, 95%CI=38.9-124.6, p<0.001).Conclusion: Social segregation by race and HCV-status should potentially be considered in efforts to reach networks of opioid users. Due to higher injection frequency and greater likelihood of witnessing their partners experience an overdose, individuals in sexual/romantic opioid use partnerships, white individuals in racially homogenous partnerships, and African American individuals in heterogeneous partnerships may warrant focused attention as part of peer- and network-based overdose prevention efforts, as well as broader HIV/HCV prevention strategies. Developing and targeting overdose prevention education programs that provide information on risk factors and ways to identify overdose, as well as effective responses, including naloxone use and rescue breathing, for more frequently injecting networks may help reduce opioid morbidity and mortality in these most at risk groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]