Search

Background: The increasing toxicity of opioids in the unregulated drug market has led to escalating numbers of overdoses in Canada and worldwide; takehome naloxone (THN) is an evidence-based intervention that distributes kits containing naloxone to people in the community who may witness an overdose. The purpose of this guidance is to provide policy recommendations for territorial, provincial and federal THN programs, using evidence from scientific and grey literature and community evidence that reflects 11 years of THN distribution in Canada. Methods: The Naloxone Guidance Development Group — a multidisciplinary team including people with lived and living experience and expertise of drug use — used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument to inform development of this guidance. We considered published evidence identified through systematic reviews of all literature types, along with community evidence and expertise, to generate recommendations between December 2021 and September 2022. We solicited feedback on preliminary recommendations through an External Review Committee and a public input process. The project was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research through the Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Misuse. We used the Guideline International Network principles for managing competing interests. Recommendations: Existing evidence from the literature on THN was of low quality. We incorporated evidence from scientific and grey literature, and community expertise to develop our recommendations. These were in 3 areas: routes of naloxone administration, THN kit contents and overdose response. Take-home naloxone programs should offer the choice of both intramuscular and intranasal formulations of naloxone in THN kits. Recommended kit contents include naloxone, a naloxone delivery device, personal protective equipment, instructions and a carrying case. Trained community overdose responders should prioritize rescue breathing in the case of respiratory depression, and conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the case of cardiac arrest, among other interventions. Interpretation: This guidance development project provides direction for THN programs in Canada in the context of limited published evidence, with recommendations developed in collaboration with diverse stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a correction notice for an article discussing the role of community pharmacies in providing take-home naloxone in British Columbia. The correction states that there was an error in Table 4, which has been corrected in the document. The article presents data on the distribution of take-home naloxone kits in British Columbia, showing that 4.0% of individuals personally at risk of overdose received a kit, while 12.9% of those not personally at risk received a kit. The reasons for collecting a kit varied, and the data also provides information on the distribution of kits by health authority. [Extracted from the article]

British Columbia (BC) Canada has a large take-home naloxone (THN) program, implemented as part of the provincial response to the ongoing toxic unregulated drug supply emergency. Ascertaining the rate of use of THN kits is vital to understanding the full impact of the program. However, this is a challenging problem due to under-reporting of kit distribution. This study aims to estimate the total number of THN kits used based on the number of THN kits shipped, the number of THN kits reported as distributed, and the number of THN kits reported as used. We used BC THN shipment and distribution records (February 2015 to August 2023) to inform a simple Bayesian model of naloxone kit distribution and use. A logistic regression term by health region and distribution site type was incorporated to account for variable under-reporting, and a convolution term was incorporated to account for kit distribution. We find the number of THN kits reported as used, and the number of total THN kits distributed, are largely under-reported. An estimated 1,500 (95 % CrI: 1,430 - 1,590) THN kits per 10,000 BC population were used, of which 288 per 10,000 had been reported as used. Of all the THN kits shipped, the model estimated that 43 % (95 % CrI: 41–45 %) of kits were used. We also found variation in both distribution and use by distribution site type, with kits distributed from overdose prevention sites having the highest rate of use (56 %; 95 % CrI: 53–59 %). Across all sites, kit use is approximately five times higher than has been reported. Our framework can also be applied to other localities where THN programs operate, in order to better estimate the true reach and impact of take home naloxone distribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Take-Home Naloxone (THN) is a core intervention aimed at addressing the toxic illicit opioid drug supply crisis. Although THN programs are available in all provinces and territories throughout Canada, there are currently no standardized guidelines for THN programs. The Delphi method is a tool for consensus building often used in policy development that allows for engagement of stakeholders. Methods: We used an adapted anonymous online Delphi method to elicit priorities for a Canadian guideline on THN as a means of facilitating meaningful stakeholder engagement. A guideline development group generated a series of key questions that were then brought to a 15-member voting panel. The voting panel was comprised of people with lived and living experience of substance use, academics specializing in harm reduction, and clinicians and public health professionals from across Canada. Two rounds of voting were undertaken to score questions on importance for inclusion in the guideline. Results: Nine questions that were identified as most important include what equipment should be in THN kits, whether there are important differences between intramuscular and intranasal naloxone administration, how stigma impacts access to distribution programs, how effective THN programs are at saving lives, what distribution models are most effective and equitable, storage considerations for naloxone in a community setting, the role of CPR and rescue breathing in overdose response, client preference of naloxone distribution program type, and what aftercare should be provided for people who respond to overdoses. Conclusions: The Delphi method is an equitable consensus building process that generated priorities to guide guideline development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The British Columbia (BC) Take-Home Naloxone (THN) program provides naloxone to people at risk of experiencing or witnessing an opioid overdose for use in reversing suspected overdose events. This study seeks to examine trends and correlates of individuals obtaining a THN kit in BC between 2017 and 2020.Methods: Records of THN kits distributed between 2017 and 2020 were the primary source of data for this analysis. Frequency tables were used to describe characteristics of people obtaining kits from THN sites. Correlates of individuals obtaining a THN kit to replace a previous kit reported as used to reverse an overdose were assessed with multivariate logistic regression.Results: Between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2020, 240,606 THN kits were reported distributed by registered sites to members of the public, with 90,011 records indicating that a kit was obtained to replace a previous kit that had been used to reverse an overdose. There was a significant trend in increasing kits reported used by year (p < 0.01). The kit recipient's risk of overdose was a significant predictor of having reported using a THN kit, and the strength of the association was dependent on gender (Male: Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 5.37 [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.08 - 5.67]; Female: AOR 8.35 [95% CI 7.90 - 8.82]; Trans and gender expansive: AOR 3.68 [95% CI 2.82 - 4.79]).Conclusions: Between 2017 and 2020, THN kits were used to reverse tens of thousands of overdose events in BC, with people at risk of overdose (i.e. people who use drugs [PWUD]) having greater odds of using a kit to reverse an overdose than those not at risk. Thus, PWUD are responsible for reversing the vast majority of overdoses. THN kits are being distributed to the people who use them most. However, additional strategies in conjunction with community-based naloxone distribution programs are needed to address the rising number of illicit drug toxicity deaths. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aims to describe knowledge of Canada's Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act (GSDOA) and take home naloxone (THN) training and kit possession among people being released from provincial correctional facilities in British Columbia. Design/methodology/approach: The authors conducted surveys with clients of the Unlocking the Gates Peer Health Mentoring program on their release. The authors compared the characteristics of people who had and had not heard of the GSDOA and who were in possession of a THN kit. Findings: In this study, 71% people had heard of the GSDOA, and 55.6% were in possession of a THN kit. This study found that 99% of people who had heard of the GSDOA indicated that they would call 911 if they saw an overdose. Among people who perceived themselves to be at risk of overdose, 28.3% did not have a THN kit. Only half (52%) of participants had a mobile phone, but 100% of those with a phone said they would call 911 if they witnessed an overdose. Originality/value: The authors found that people with knowledge of the GSDOA were likely to report that they would call 911 for help with an overdose. Education about the GSDOA should be a standard component of naloxone training in correctional facilities. More than one in four people at risk of overdose were released without a naloxone kit, highlighting opportunities for training and distribution. Access to a cellphone is important in enabling calls to 911 and should be included in discharge planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Take-Home Naloxone programs have been introduced across North America in response to rising opioid overdose deaths. There is currently limited real-world data on bystander naloxone administration, overdose outcomes, and evidence related to adverse events following bystander naloxone administration. Methods: The research team used descriptive statistics from Take-Home Naloxone administration forms. We explored reported demographic variables and adverse events among people who received by-stander administered naloxone in a suspected opioid overdose event between August 31, 2012 and December 31, 2018 in British Columbia. We examined and contextualized differences across years given policy, program and drug toxicity changes. We used multivariate logistic regression to examine whether an association exists between number of ampoules of naloxone administered and the odds that the recipient will experience withdrawal symptoms. Results: A large majority (98.1%) of individuals who were administered naloxone survived their overdose and 69.2% had no or only mild withdrawal symptoms. Receiving three (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) 1.64 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.08–2.48)) or four or more (AOR 2.19 (95% CI: 1.32–3.62)) ampoules of naloxone was significantly associated with odds of moderate or severe withdrawal compared to receiving one ampoule of naloxone. Conclusions: This study provides evidence from thousands of bystander reversed opioid overdoses using Take-Home Naloxone kits in British Columbia, and suggests bystander-administered naloxone is safe and effective for opioid overdose reversal. Data suggests an emphasis on titration during bystander naloxone training in situations where the person experiencing overdose can be adequately ventilated may help avoid severe withdrawal symptoms. We identified a decreasing trend in the likelihood of moderate or severe withdrawal over the study period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Limited research examines buprenorphine-naloxone interest among adolescents and young adults (AYA). This longitudinal study examined factors associated with initial buprenorphine-naloxone interest and the time to a positive change in buprenorphine-naloxone interest or enrollment, in addition to identifying reasons for buprenorphine-naloxone disinterest. The study derived data from a cohort of street-involved AYA in Vancouver, Canada between December 2014 and June 2018. The analysis was restricted to AYA who reported weekly or daily illicit opioid use in the last six months but had not initiated buprenorphine-naloxone. The study examined factors associated with initial buprenorphine-naloxone interest using multivariable logistic regression, while multivariable Cox regression identified factors associated with the time to a positive change in buprenorphine-naloxone interest or actual enrollment over follow-up among AYA initially disinterested in buprenorphine-naloxone. Of 281 participants who reported weekly illicit opioid use but were not on buprenorphine-naloxone, 52 (18.5 %) AYA reported initial buprenorphine-naloxone interest, while 68 (24.2 %) AYA who were initially disinterested in buprenorphine-naloxone reported interest or enrollment over follow-up. In multivariable logistic regression, initial interest was positively associated with older age (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 1.09, 95 % Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.03–1.15), but negatively associated with self-reported Indigenous identity (AOR = 0.22, 95 % CI: 0.07–0.68). In multivariable Cox regression, recent detoxification program access (Adjusted Hazard Ratio [AHR] = 0.85, 95 % CI: 0.73–0.98) was positively associated with the time to a positive change in buprenorphine-naloxone interest or enrollment. Common reasons for buprenorphine-naloxone disinterest included not wanting opioid agonist treatments (OAT) (initial n = 67, follow-up n = 105); not wanting to experience precipitated withdrawal (initial n = 42, follow-up n = 54), being satisfied with or preferring other OAT (initial n = 33, follow-up n = 52), not knowing what buprenorphine-naloxone is (initial n = 27, follow-up n = 9), previous negative treatment experiences (initial n = 19, follow-up n = 20), and wanting to continue opioid use (initial n = 13, follow-up n = 9), among others. We documented persistent disinterest in buprenorphine-naloxone among AYA, though participants' reasons for disinterest provide insight into the potential benefits of expanding micro-dosing induction; ensuring treatment is culturally safe; and communicating changes in buprenorphine-naloxone programming to AYA. Nevertheless, a need remains to improve the continuum of harm reduction and treatment supports for AYA. • Young people reported low interest in buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NAL). • Race-based factors were negatively associated with initial BUP-NAL interest. • Recent detoxification was positively associated with BUP-NAL interest or enrolment over follow-up. • A continuum of harm reduction and treatment supports for young people is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]