-
Clinical Toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) Dec 2014The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup was created to provide evidence and consensus-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup was created to provide evidence and consensus-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in poisoning.
OBJECTIVES
To perform a systematic review and provide clinical recommendations for ECTR in carbamazepine poisoning.
METHODS
After a systematic literature search, the subgroup extracted the data and summarized the findings following a pre-determined format. The entire workgroup voted via a two-round modified Delphi method to reach a consensus on voting statements, using a RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to quantify disagreement. Anonymous votes were compiled, returned, and discussed in person. A second vote determined the final recommendations.
RESULTS
Seventy-four articles met inclusion criteria. Articles included case reports, case series, descriptive cohorts, pharmacokinetic studies, and in-vitro studies; two poor-quality observational studies were identified, yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Data on 173 patients, including 6 fatalities, were reviewed. The workgroup concluded that carbamazepine is moderately dialyzable and made the following recommendations: ECTR is suggested in severe carbamazepine poisoning (2D). ECTR is recommended if multiple seizures occur and are refractory to treatment (1D), or if life-threatening dysrhythmias occur (1D). ECTR is suggested if prolonged coma or respiratory depression requiring mechanical ventilation are present (2D) or if significant toxicity persists, particularly when carbamazepine concentrations rise or remain elevated, despite using multiple-dose activated charcoal (MDAC) and supportive measures (2D). ECTR should be continued until clinical improvement is apparent (1D) or the serum carbamazepine concentration is below 10 mg/L (42 the μ in μmol/L looks weird.) (2D). Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred ECTR (1D), but both intermittent hemoperfusion (1D) or continuous renal replacement therapies (3D) are alternatives if hemodialysis is not available. MDAC therapy should be continued during ECTR (1D).
CONCLUSION
Despite the low quality of the available clinical evidence and the high protein binding capacity of carbamazepine, the workgroup suggested extracorporeal removal in cases of severe carbamazepine poisoning.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Child; Child, Preschool; Consensus; Delphi Technique; Drug Overdose; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Hemoperfusion; Humans; Infant; Male; Middle Aged; Renal Dialysis; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 25355482
DOI: 10.3109/15563650.2014.973572 -
Europace : European Pacing,... Oct 2023Limited real-world data show that rivaroxaban following dosage criteria from either ROCKET AF [20 mg/day or 15 mg/day if creatinine clearance (CrCl) < 50 mL/min]... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparisons of effectiveness and safety between on-label dosing, off-label underdosing, and off-label overdosing in Asian and non-Asian atrial fibrillation patients treated with rivaroxaban: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
AIMS
Limited real-world data show that rivaroxaban following dosage criteria from either ROCKET AF [20 mg/day or 15 mg/day if creatinine clearance (CrCl) < 50 mL/min] or J-ROCKET AF (15 mg/day or 10 mg/day if CrCl < 50 mL/min) is associated with comparable risks of thromboembolism and bleeding with each other in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). We are aimed to study whether these observations differ between Asian and non-Asian subjects.
METHODS AND RESULTS
A systematic review and meta-analysis with random effects was conducted to estimate the aggregate hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using PubMed and MEDLINE databases from 8 September 2011 to 31 December 2022 searched for adjusted observational studies that reported relevant clinical outcomes of NVAF patients receiving rivaroxaban 10 mg/day if CrCl > 50 mL/min, on-label dose rivaroxaban eligible for ROCKET AF or J-ROCKET AF, and rivaroxaban 20 mg/day if CrCl < 50 mL/min. Effectiveness and safety endpoints were compared between ROCKET AF and J-ROCKET AF dosing regimen in Asian and non-Asian subjects, separately. Also, risks of events of rivaroxaban 10 mg/day despite of CrCl > 50 mL/min and rivaroxaban 20 mg/day despite of CrCl < 50 mL/min were compared to that of 'ROCKET AF/J-ROCKET AF dosing'. Sensitivity analyses were performed by sequential elimination of each study from the pool. The meta-regression analysis was performed to explore the influence of potential factors on the effectiveness and safety outcomes. Eighteen studies involving 67 571 Asian and 54 882 non-Asian patients were included. Rivaroxaban following J-ROCKET AF criteria was associated with comparable risks of thromboembolism in the Asian subgroup, whereas rivaroxaban following J-ROCKET AF criteria was associated with higher risks of all-cause mortality (HR:1.30; 95% CI:1.05-1.60) compared with that of ROCKET AF criteria in the non-Asian population. There were no differences in risks of major bleeding between rivaroxaban following J-ROCKET AF vs. ROCKET AF criteria either in the Asian or non-Asian population. The use of rivaroxaban 10 mg despite of CrCl > 50 mL/min was associated with a higher risk of thromboembolism (HR:1.64; 95% CI:1.28-2.11) but lower risk of major bleeding (HR:0.72; 95% CI:0.57-0.90) compared with eligible dosage criteria. The use of rivaroxaban 20 mg despite of CrCl < 50 mL/min was associated with worse clinical outcomes in the risks of thromboembolism (HR:1.32; 95% CI:1.09-1.59), mortality (HR:1.33; 95% CI:1.10-1.59), and major bleeding (HR:1.26; 95% CI:1.03-1.53) compared with eligible dosage criteria. The pooled results were generally in line with the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes by removing a single study at one time. Meta-regression analyses failed to detect the bias in most potential patient characteristics associated with the clinical outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Rivaroxaban dosing regimen following J-ROCKET criteria may serve as an alternative to ROCKET AF criteria for the Asian population with NVAF, whereas the dosing regimen following ROCKET AF criteria was more favourable for the non-Asian population. The use of rivaroxaban 10 mg despite of CrCl > 50 mL/min was associated with a higher risk of thromboembolism but a lower risk of major bleeding, while use of rivaroxaban 20 mg despite of CrCl < 50 mL/min was associated with worse outcome in most clinical events.
Topics: Humans; Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Hemorrhage; Off-Label Use; Rivaroxaban; Stroke; Thromboembolism; Treatment Outcome; Warfarin; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37738425
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euad288 -
Journal of Hospital Medicine Sep 2022Hospitalizations related to the consequences of opioid use are rising. National guidelines directing in-hospital opioid use disorder (OUD) management do not exist. OUD...
BACKGROUND
Hospitalizations related to the consequences of opioid use are rising. National guidelines directing in-hospital opioid use disorder (OUD) management do not exist. OUD treatment guidelines intended for other treatment settings could inform in-hospital OUD management.
OBJECTIVE
Evaluate the quality and content of existing guidelines for OUD treatment and management.
DATA SOURCES
OVID MEDLINE, PubMed, Ovid PsychINFO, EBSCOhost CINHAL, ERCI Guidelines Trust, websites of relevant societies and advocacy organizations, and selected international search engines.
STUDY SELECTION
Guidelines published between January 2010 to June 2020 addressing OUD treatment, opioid withdrawal management, opioid overdose prevention, and care transitions among adults.
DATA EXTRACTION
We assessed quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Nineteen guidelines met the selection criteria. Most recommendations were based on observational studies or expert consensus. Guidelines recommended the use of nonstigmatizing language among patients with OUD; to assess patients with unhealthy opioid use for OUD using the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Diseases-5th Edition criteria; use of methadone or buprenorphine to treat OUD and opioid withdrawal; use of multimodal, nonopioid therapy, and when needed, short-acting opioid analgesics in addition to buprenorphine or methadone, for acute pain management; ensuring linkage to ongoing methadone or buprenorphine treatment; referring patients to psychosocial treatment; and ensuring access to naloxone for opioid overdose reversal.
CONCLUSIONS
Included guidelines were informed by studies with various levels of rigor and quality. Future research should systematically study buprenorphine and methadone initiation and titration among people using fentanyl and people with pain, especially during hospitalization.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Hospitalization; Humans; Methadone; Opiate Overdose; Opioid-Related Disorders
PubMed: 35880821
DOI: 10.1002/jhm.12908 -
The International Journal on Drug Policy Oct 2021Evidence supports integrating drug use treatment, harm reduction, and HIV prevention services to address dual epidemics of drug use disorders and HIV. These dual... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Evidence supports integrating drug use treatment, harm reduction, and HIV prevention services to address dual epidemics of drug use disorders and HIV. These dual epidemics have spurred a rise in legally-enforced compulsory drug abstinence programs (CDAP), despite limited evidence on its effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the association between CDAP exposure and HIV and overdose-related risk.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EBSCOhost and Sociological Abstracts for studies that contained an individual-level association between CDAP exposure and related HIV or overdose risks, with no date restrictions. Meta-analyses were conducted on data abstracted from eligible studies, using pooled random-effects models and I-squared statistics. We assessed quality of the studies across 14 criteria for observational studies.
RESULTS
Out of 2,226 abstracts screened, we included 8 studies (5253 individuals/776 events) across China, Mexico, Thailand, Norway, and the United States. All but two were cross-sectional analyses, limiting strength of observed associations. In the two studies that reported association between CDAP and HIV seropositivity or receptive syringe sharing, findings were inconsistent and did not indicate that those with exposure to CDAP had increased odds of HIV or syringe sharing. However, we found the odds of experiencing non-fatal overdose in lifetime and in the last 6-12 months were 2.02 (95% CI 0.22 - 18.86, p = 0.16) to 3.67 times higher (95% CI 0.21 - 62.88, p = 0.39), respectively, among those with CDAP exposure than those without.
CONCLUSION
Research assessing HIV risk associated with CDAP is scant and inconclusive, while evidence of robust associations between CDAP and overdose risk continues to mount. More rigorous, longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate the causal relationships between CDAP and these health outcomes. Aside from the growing evidence base on collateral harms, ethical considerations dictate that voluntary, evidence-based drug treatment should be prioritized to address the drivers of excess morbidity and mortality among people who use drugs.
Topics: Cross-Sectional Studies; Drug Overdose; HIV Infections; Humans; Needle Sharing; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Substance Abuse, Intravenous
PubMed: 34389218
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103401 -
Annals of Emergency Medicine Dec 2009Metformin is known to cause potentially fatal metabolic acidosis with an increased lactate level in both overdose and therapeutic use. No association between mortality... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY OBJECTIVE
Metformin is known to cause potentially fatal metabolic acidosis with an increased lactate level in both overdose and therapeutic use. No association between mortality and serum pH, lactate level, or metformin concentrations, though intuitive, has yet been described. This systematic literature review is designed to evaluate the association between mortality and serum pH, lactate level, and metformin concentrations in acute metformin overdose.
METHODS
We reviewed the literature by using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and TOXNET databases for cases of metformin overdose with documented mortality data and values of serum pH, lactate level, and metformin concentrations. When available, patient age, patient sex, and whether patients received intravenous sodium bicarbonate therapy or hemodialysis were also analyzed. Cases meeting inclusion criteria were analyzed to determine whether a difference in distribution of nadir serum pH, peak serum lactate level, or peak serum metformin concentrations existed between overdose survivors and nonsurvivors.
RESULTS
We identified 10 articles that had 1 or more cases meeting our inclusion criteria. In total, there were 22 cases of metformin overdose (5/22 died) that met inclusion criteria. No intentional overdose patients died whose serum pH nadir was greater than 6.9, maximum lactate concentration less than 25 mol/L, or maximum metformin concentration less than 50 microg/mL (therapeutic range 1 to 2 microg/mL). Intentional overdose patients with a nadir serum pH less than 6.9 had 83% mortality (5/6), those with lactate concentration greater than 25 mmol/L had 83% mortality (5/6), and those with metformin concentration greater than 50 microg/mL had 38% mortality (5/12). Nadir serum pH and peak serum lactate and metformin concentration distributions in survivors and nonsurvivors revealed that survivors had a median nadir pH of 7.30, interquartile range (IQR) 7.22, 7.36; nonsurvivors, a median nadir pH of 6.71, IQR 6.71, 6.73; survivors, a median peak lactate level of 10.8 mmol/L, IQR 4.2, 12.9; nonsurvivors, a median peak lactate level of 35.0 mmol/L, IQR 33.3, 39.0; survivors, a median peak metformin level of 42 microg/mL, IQR 6.6, 67.6; and nonsurvivors, a median peak metformin level of 110 microg/mL, IQR 110, 110.
CONCLUSION
No cases of acute metformin overdose meeting the study's inclusion criteria were found in which patients with a nadir serum pH greater than 6.9, peak serum lactate concentrations less than 25 mmol/L, or peak serum metformin concentrations less than 50 microg/mL died. Patients with acute metformin overdose who died had much lower serum pH nadirs and much higher peak serum lactate and metformin concentrations than those who survived.
Topics: Acidosis, Lactic; Acute Disease; Adult; Drug Overdose; Female; Humans; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration; Hypoglycemic Agents; Lactic Acid; Male; Metformin; Middle Aged; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 19556031
DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.04.023 -
Annals of Emergency Medicine Aug 2015Salicylate poisoning is a challenging clinical entity associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. The indications for extracorporeal treatments such as... (Review)
Review
STUDY OBJECTIVE
Salicylate poisoning is a challenging clinical entity associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. The indications for extracorporeal treatments such as hemodialysis are poorly defined. We present a systematic review of the literature along with evidence- and consensus-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatment in salicylate poisoning.
METHODS
The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) Workgroup is a multidisciplinary group with international representation whose aim is to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments in poisoning. We conducted a systematic literature review followed by data extraction and summarized findings, following a predetermined format. The entire work group voted by a 2-round modified Delphi method to reach consensus on voting statements, using a RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to quantify disagreement. Anonymous votes were compiled, returned, and discussed in person. A second vote determined the final recommendations.
RESULTS
Eighty-four articles met inclusion criteria, including 1 controlled clinical trial, 3 animal studies, and 80 case reports or case series, yielding an overall very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Clinical data on 143 patients (130 sets of which could be analyzed for patient-level entry data), including 14 fatalities, were reviewed. Toxicokinetic data on 87 patients were also included. After the second round of voting, the workgroup concluded that salicylates are dialyzable by hemodialysis and hemoperfusion (level of evidence=B) and recommended extracorporeal treatment in patients with severe salicylate poisoning (1D), including any patient with altered mental status (1D), with acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring supplemental oxygen (1D), and for those in whom standard therapy is deemed to be failing (1D) regardless of the salicylate concentration. High salicylate concentrations warrant extracorporeal treatment regardless of signs and symptoms (>7.2 mmol/L [100 mg/dL] [1D]; and >6.5 mmol/L [90 mg/dL] [2D]), with lower thresholds applied for patients with impaired kidney function (>6.5 mmol/L [90 mg/dL] [1D]; >5.8 mmol/L [80 mg/dL] [2D]). Extracorporeal treatment is also suggested for patients with severe acidemia (pH ≤7.20 in the absence of other indications) (2D). Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred modality (1D), although hemoperfusion (1D) and continuous renal replacement therapies (3D) are acceptable alternatives if hemodialysis is unavailable, as is exchange transfusion in neonates (1D).
CONCLUSION
Salicylates are readily removed by extracorporeal treatment, with intermittent hemodialysis being the preferred modality. The signs and symptoms of salicylate toxicity listed warrant extracorporeal treatment, as do high concentrations regardless of clinical status.
Topics: Delphi Technique; Drug Overdose; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Renal Dialysis; Salicylates
PubMed: 25986310
DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.03.031 -
The International Journal on Drug Policy Nov 2019People who inject drugs (PWID) are at an elevated risk of fatal overdose in the first year after experiencing a non-fatal event. Such non-fatal events may also result in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
People who inject drugs (PWID) are at an elevated risk of fatal overdose in the first year after experiencing a non-fatal event. Such non-fatal events may also result in overdose-related sequelae, ranging from physical injury to paralysis. Given variation in drug markets and treatment availability across countries and regions, we may see similar variations in non-fatal overdose prevalence. Monitoring non-fatal overdose prevalence among PWID is essential for informing treatment intervention efforts, and thus our review aims to estimate the global, regional, and national prevalence of non-fatal overdose, and determine characteristics associated with experiencing such an event.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to estimate country, regional, and global estimates of recent and lifetime non-fatal overdose prevalence among PWID. Using meta-regression analyses we also determined associations between sample characteristics and non-fatal overdose prevalence.
RESULTS
An estimated 3.2 (1.8-5.2) million PWID have experienced at least one overdose in the previous year. Among PWID, 20.5% (15.0-26.1%) and 41.5% (34.6-48.4%) had experienced a non-fatal event in the previous 12 months and lifetime respectively. Frequent injecting was strongly associated with PWID reporting recent and lifetime non-fatal overdose. Estimates of recent non-fatal overdose were particularly high in Asia and North America.
CONCLUSION
Around one in five PWID are at an elevated risk of fatally overdosing every year, however there is substantial geographical variation. In countries with higher rates of non-fatal overdose there is need to introduce or mainstream overdose prevention strategies such as opioid agonist treatment and naloxone administration training programs.
Topics: Drug Overdose; Humans; Naloxone; Narcotic Antagonists; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Substance Abuse, Intravenous
PubMed: 31351755
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.07.030 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Dec 2017Naloxone is effective for reversing opioid overdose, but optimal strategies for out-of-hospital use are uncertain. (Review)
Review
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).
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Analgesics, Opioid; Drug Overdose; Emergency Medical Services; Humans; Injections, Intramuscular; Naloxone; Narcotic Antagonists
PubMed: 29181532
DOI: 10.7326/M17-2224 -
CNS Drugs Feb 2018The rate of an unintentional drug overdose involving prescription opioids continues to rise. An understanding of the threshold dose and dose(s) associated with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The rate of an unintentional drug overdose involving prescription opioids continues to rise. An understanding of the threshold dose and dose(s) associated with unintentional prescription opioid overdose will help to mitigate this epidemic.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this systematic review is to systematically synthesise and meta-analyse studies on doses of prescription opioids and ascertain the doses of opioids that are associated with increased risk of severe opioid poisoning or mortality.
DATA SOURCES
A search of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science from inception to 16 January 2017 was conducted using search strategies and the MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms for studies of adult patients using prescription opioids who experienced an accidental overdose.
STUDY SELECTION
Of the 1332 studies identified, 117 were selected for full article review. Ten met the inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis, but only seven studies were meta-analysed. The included studies were in English, and participants met predetermined International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. Studies were excluded if they included only paediatric participants or the participants met the ICD code for intentional self-harm.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two researchers elaborated and validated a data extraction form. Data were then independently extracted by both reviewers as per this form. We assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for non-randomised studies in meta-analyses. We performed a meta-regression using a random-effect model and summarised the results using relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The threshold dose for an unintentional overdose is 20 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day. There were higher risks with larger doses: (1) ≤ 20 versus ≥ 21 MME/day: RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.09-7.22, p < 0.001; (2) ≤ 50 versus > 50 MME/day: RR 3.87, 95% CI 2.36-6.33, p < 0.001; (3) ≤ 100 versus > 100 MME/day: RR 4.28, 95% CI 2.61-7.1, p < 0.001; and (4) ≤ 50 versus > 50-100 MME/day: RR 3.09, 95% CI 1.84-5.18, p < 0.001). Heterogeneity was explained by the type of overdose event, inpatient or outpatient status, and length of observation. Type of pain (cancer or non-cancer pain) had no impact on heterogeneity.
LIMITATIONS
The definition of exposure in studies included in the meta-analysis was heterogeneous. Some studies defined exposure as the filling of a prescription while others defined exposure as the prescription of an opioid to the patient, and all studies assumed that patients took the prescribed opioid. Medications that may contribute to overdose, such as benzodiazepines and other drugs, were not considered.
CONCLUSIONS
A significantly increased risk of inadvertent prescription opioid overdose was found with 20-50 MME/day, with fatality more likely with opioid doses above 50 MME/day, although extensive heterogeneity was found with the dose comparisons. Clinicians should inform patients of this risk and monitor them closely.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
This protocol was registered with PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017058426.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Drug Overdose; Humans; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 29498021
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-018-0499-3 -
Harm Reduction Journal Oct 2022Opioid overdose epidemic is hitting record highs worldwide, accounting for 76% of mortality related to substance use. Take-home naloxone (THN) strategies are being...
BACKGROUND
Opioid overdose epidemic is hitting record highs worldwide, accounting for 76% of mortality related to substance use. Take-home naloxone (THN) strategies are being implemented in many developed countries that suffer from high opioid overdose death rates. They aim to provide overdose identification and naloxone administration training, along with THN delivery to opioid users and others likely to witness an overdose incident such as family members and peers. However, little is known about such measures in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), where opioid use and opioid-related deaths are reportedly high. This systematic literature review aims to examine the distribution of THN in LMIC, review studies identifying barriers to the implementation of THN programs worldwide, and assess their applicability to LMIC.
METHODS
The literature was searched and analyzed for eligible studies with quality assessment.
RESULTS
Two studies were found from LMIC on THN programs with promising results, and 13 studies were found on the barriers identified in implementing THN programs worldwide. The main barriers to THN strategies were the lack of training of healthcare providers, lack of privileges, time constraints, cost, legislative/policy restrictions, stigma, fear of litigation, and some misperceptions around THN.
CONCLUSIONS
The barriers outlined in this paper are probably applicable to LMIC, but more difficult to overcome considering the differences in their response to opioid overdose, their cultural attitudes and norms, the high cost, the waivers required, the legislative differences and the severe penalties for drug-related offenses in some of these countries. The solutions suggested to counter-act these obstacles can also be more difficult to achieve in LMIC. Further research is required in this area with larger sample sizes to provide a better understanding of the obstacles to the implementation, feasibility, accessibility, and utilization of THN programs in LMIC.
Topics: Humans; Naloxone; Developing Countries; Narcotic Antagonists; Analgesics, Opioid; Opiate Overdose; Drug Overdose; Opioid-Related Disorders
PubMed: 36266701
DOI: 10.1186/s12954-022-00700-x