Justin C Strickland1, Katherine R Marks2, Kirsten E Smith3, Jennifer D Ellis4, J Gregory Hobelmann5, Andrew S Huhn5. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 5510 Nathan Shock Drive, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA; Ashley Addiction Treatment, 800 Tydings Ln, Havre De Grace, MD 21078, USA. Electronic address: jstric14@jhmi.edu. 2. Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, 1100 Veterans Drive, Medical Behavioral Science Building Room 140, Lexington, KY 40536, USA. Electronic address: katie.marks@uky.edu. 3. National Institute on Drug Abuse Intramural Research Program, 251 Bayview Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 5510 Nathan Shock Drive, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. 5. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 5510 Nathan Shock Drive, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA; Ashley Addiction Treatment, 800 Tydings Ln, Havre De Grace, MD 21078, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Higher-dose formulations of naloxone were recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of opioid overdose. These products were developed based on projected saturation of high-potency fentanyl analogues in the illicit marketplace although the evidence base for their necessity is still under scrutiny. Concern has been raised that unintended reductions in patient acceptance of naloxone may occur due to increased precipitated withdrawal risk associated with higher naloxone doses. A well-founded and time-sensitive call for representation of people who use drugs in this decision-making process has been made. This study provides the first data on patient perceptions of higher-dose formulations to inform this scientific debate and distribution efforts. METHODS: Patients (N=1152) entering treatment for opioid use disorder at one of 49 addiction treatment facilities located across the United States completed a preference assessment of naloxone nasal spray formulations. Patients selected a formulation preference across three scenarios (administration for self, administration to others, community responder administration). RESULTS: A majority of respondents that had been administered naloxone previously reported that their most recent overdose reversal included two or more naloxone administrations (59.9%). Most respondents either had no preference (48.4%) or preferred a higher-dose formulation (35.9%) if personally experiencing an overdose. Similar preference distributions were observed for administration to others and by community responders. Relative to standard-dose preference, respondents preferring higher-dose formulations had a greater odds of recent suspected fentanyl exposure. CONCLUSIONS: These data inform patients, advocates, and policy-makers considering distribution and utilization of naloxone formulations by reporting perspectives of patients with opioid use and overdose experience. Limited evidence for widespread avoidance of higher-dose formulations was found. As real-world evidence of acceptability and effectiveness emerges, either supporting or refuting the widespread need for higher-dose naloxone formulations, it is the responsibility of the scientific and public health community to be responsive to those data. Published by Elsevier B.V.
BACKGROUND: Higher-dose formulations of naloxone were recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of opioid overdose. These products were developed based on projected saturation of high-potency fentanyl analogues in the illicit marketplace although the evidence base for their necessity is still under scrutiny. Concern has been raised that unintended reductions in patient acceptance of naloxone may occur due to increased precipitated withdrawal risk associated with higher naloxone doses. A well-founded and time-sensitive call for representation of people who use drugs in this decision-making process has been made. This study provides the first data on patient perceptions of higher-dose formulations to inform this scientific debate and distribution efforts. METHODS: Patients (N=1152) entering treatment for opioid use disorder at one of 49 addiction treatment facilities located across the United States completed a preference assessment of naloxone nasal spray formulations. Patients selected a formulation preference across three scenarios (administration for self, administration to others, community responder administration). RESULTS: A majority of respondents that had been administered naloxone previously reported that their most recent overdose reversal included two or more naloxone administrations (59.9%). Most respondents either had no preference (48.4%) or preferred a higher-dose formulation (35.9%) if personally experiencing an overdose. Similar preference distributions were observed for administration to others and by community responders. Relative to standard-dose preference, respondents preferring higher-dose formulations had a greater odds of recent suspected fentanyl exposure. CONCLUSIONS: These data inform patients, advocates, and policy-makers considering distribution and utilization of naloxone formulations by reporting perspectives of patients with opioid use and overdose experience. Limited evidence for widespread avoidance of higher-dose formulations was found. As real-world evidence of acceptability and effectiveness emerges, either supporting or refuting the widespread need for higher-dose naloxone formulations, it is the responsibility of the scientific and public health community to be responsive to those data. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Authors: Sarah Bessen; Stephen A Metcalf; Elizabeth C Saunders; Sarah K Moore; Andrea Meier; Bethany McLeman; Olivia Walsh; Lisa A Marsch Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2019-10-04
Authors: Lauren Dayton; Rachel E Gicquelais; Karin Tobin; Melissa Davey-Rothwell; Oluwaseun Falade-Nwulia; Xiangrong Kong; Michael Fingerhood; Abenaa A Jones; Carl Latkin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Nicholas C Peiper; Sarah Duhart Clarke; Louise B Vincent; Dan Ciccarone; Alex H Kral; Jon E Zibbell Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2018-10-03
Authors: Alex J Krotulski; Brittany P Chapman; Sarah J Marks; Sam T Ontiveros; Katharine Devin-Holcombe; Melissa F Fogarty; Hai Trieu; Barry K Logan; Roland C Merchant; Kavita M Babu Journal: Clin Toxicol (Phila) Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 4.467