Kelly E Dunn1, Frederick S Barrett2, George E Bigelow2. 1. Behavioral Pharmacology Research Unit, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States. Electronic address: kdunn9@jhmi.edu. 2. Behavioral Pharmacology Research Unit, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Opioid-related overdose has increased 137% in the past decade. Training nonmedical bystanders to administer naloxone (Narcan™) is a widely-researched intervention that has been associated with decreases in overdose rates in the communities in which it has been implemented. A recent review advocated for noninjectable formulations of naloxone, however patient preference for naloxone formulations has not yet been examined (Strang et al., 2016). METHODS: Two cohorts of respondents (N1 = 501, N2 = 172) who reported currently being prescribed an opioid for pain management were recruited through the crowd-sourcing program Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to assess their preference for naloxone formulations. All respondents were provided a description of different formulations and asked to indicate all formulations they would be willing to administer for overdose reversal and to then rank formulations in order of preference. RESULTS: Results were remarkably similar across both cohorts. Specifically, respondents preferred noninjectable formulations (intranasal, sublingual, buccal) over injectable (intravenous, intramuscular) formulations. A small percent (8.9%-9.8%) said they would never be willing to administer naloxone. An identical percent of respondents in both cohorts (44.9%) rated intranasal as their most preferred formulation. CONCLUSIONS: Two independent cohorts of respondents who were receiving opioid medications for pain management reported a preference for noninjectable over injectable formulations of naloxone to reverse an opioid overdose. Though initial preference is only one of many factors that impacts ultimate public acceptance and uptake of a new product, these results support the additional research and development of noninjectable naloxone formulations.
BACKGROUND: Opioid-related overdose has increased 137% in the past decade. Training nonmedical bystanders to administer naloxone (Narcan™) is a widely-researched intervention that has been associated with decreases in overdose rates in the communities in which it has been implemented. A recent review advocated for noninjectable formulations of naloxone, however patient preference for naloxone formulations has not yet been examined (Strang et al., 2016). METHODS: Two cohorts of respondents (N1 = 501, N2 = 172) who reported currently being prescribed an opioid for pain management were recruited through the crowd-sourcing program Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to assess their preference for naloxone formulations. All respondents were provided a description of different formulations and asked to indicate all formulations they would be willing to administer for overdose reversal and to then rank formulations in order of preference. RESULTS: Results were remarkably similar across both cohorts. Specifically, respondents preferred noninjectable formulations (intranasal, sublingual, buccal) over injectable (intravenous, intramuscular) formulations. A small percent (8.9%-9.8%) said they would never be willing to administer naloxone. An identical percent of respondents in both cohorts (44.9%) rated intranasal as their most preferred formulation. CONCLUSIONS: Two independent cohorts of respondents who were receiving opioid medications for pain management reported a preference for noninjectable over injectable formulations of naloxone to reverse an opioid overdose. Though initial preference is only one of many factors that impacts ultimate public acceptance and uptake of a new product, these results support the additional research and development of noninjectable naloxone formulations.
Authors: Abdulmalik Alqurshi; Zahrae Kumar; Rebecca McDonald; John Strang; Asma Buanz; Shagufta Ahmed; Elizabeth Allen; Peter Cameron; James A Rickard; Verity Sandhu; Chris Holt; Rebecca Stansfield; David Taylor; Ben Forbes; Paul G Royall Journal: Mol Pharm Date: 2016-03-28 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: D S Weinberg; C E Inturrisi; B Reidenberg; D E Moulin; T J Nip; S Wallenstein; R W Houde; K M Foley Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 1988-09 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Joanne Neale; Adrian Farrugia; Aimee N Campbell; Paul Dietze; Robyn Dwyer; Renae Fomiatti; Jermaine D Jones; Sandra D Comer; Suzanne Fraser; John Strang Journal: Drugs (Abingdon Engl) Date: 2021-02-22
Authors: Lewei Allison Lin; Chad M Brummett; Jennifer F Waljee; Michael J Englesbe; Vidhya Gunaseelan; Amy S B Bohnert Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 5.128