Search

Introduction: To expand access to naloxone, the state of Illinois implemented a standing order allowing registered pharmacies to dispense the drug without an individual prescription. To participate under the standing order, pharmacies were required to opt in through a formal registration process. In our study we aimed to evaluate the availability and price of naloxone at registered pharmacies., Methods: This was a prospective, de-identified, cross-sectional telephone survey. Trained interviewers posed as potential customers and used a standardized script to determine the availability of naloxone between February-December, 2019. The primary outcome was defined as a pharmacy indicating it carried naloxone, currently had naloxone in stock, and was able to dispense it without an individual prescription., Results: Of 948 registered pharmacies, 886 (93.5%) were successfully contacted. Of those, 792 (83.4%) carried naloxone, 659 (74.4%) had naloxone in stock, and 472 (53.3%) allowed purchase without a prescription. Naloxone nasal spray (86.4%) was the formulation most commonly stocked. Chain pharmacies were more likely to carry naloxone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.97-5.01, P  < 0.01) and have naloxone in stock (aOR 2.72, 95% CI 1.76-4.20, P  < 0.01), but no more likely to dispense it without a prescription. Pharmacies in higher population areas (aOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-0.99, P  < 0.05) and rural areas adjacent to metropolitan areas (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 025-0.98, P  < 0.05) were less likely to have naloxone available without a prescription. Associations of naloxone availability based on other urbanicity designations, overdose count, and overdose rate were not significant., Conclusion: Among pharmacies in Illinois that formally registered to dispense naloxone without a prescription, the availability of naloxone remains limited. Additional interventions may be needed to maximize the potential impact of a statewide standing order., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: By the WestJEM article submission agreement, all authors are required to disclose all affiliations, funding sources and financial or management relationships that could be perceived as potential sources of bias. No author has professional or financial relationships with any companies that are relevant to this study. There are no conflicts of interest or sources of funding to declare.

Introduction: Opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) for use by laypersons are safe and effective at preventing deaths from opioid overdose, but emergency department (ED) implementation is challenging. Curricula addressing OEND could enable students to serve in value-added roles on the clinical team, overcome challenges of naloxone distribution, and improve patient care., Methods: We created a 1-hour didactic session on opioid use disorder and OEND for first-year medical students in the emergency medicine elective. During two clinical shifts, students used this knowledge to perform screenings to identify patients at high risk of overdose. If a patient screened positive, students performed patient education and then notified the physician, who ordered a naloxone kit., Results: Thirty students received the didactic and conducted screening shifts. Of 147 patients screened, 40% ( n = 59) were positive for naloxone eligibility, 21% ( n = 31) reported that someone close to them used opioids, 18% ( n = 26) had witnessed an opioid overdose, 12% ( n = 17) had previously overdosed themselves, and 12% ( n = 18) previously knew what naloxone was. Fifty-nine naloxone kits were distributed over the 3-month pilot versus 13 naloxone prescriptions for patients discharged from the ED the prior year., Discussion: Through didactic training and structured patient engagement, medical students gained knowledge of and hands-on experience with addiction medicine, discussed sensitive topics with patients, and identified a high volume of patients eligible to receive naloxone. Medical student screening for OEND in ED patients is feasible and adds significant value to the clinical team., (© 2021 Moore et al.)

Importance: As opioid-related mortality continues to increase, naloxone remains a critical intervention in preventing overdose death. Opportunities to expand access through the health care setting should be optimized., Objective: To determine the characteristics of naloxone prescribing for US patients at high risk of opioid overdose., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used Truven Health MarketScan data from October 1, 2015, through December 31, 2016, of individuals with International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision codes related to opioid use, misuse, dependence, and overdose. The cohort included 138 108 commercially insured individuals aged 15 years or older in the United States with claims related to opioid misuse or dependence, opioid-related overdose, or both., Exposures: Outpatient naloxone pharmacy claims., Main Outcomes and Measures: Demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, health care service use, and proportion prescribed naloxone were included in multivariable logistic regression analyses to test the association of opioid risk group with naloxone claim., Results: Of 138 108 high-risk individuals (mean [SD] age, 43.4 [0.4] years; 72 435 [52.4%] men), 2135 (1.5%) were prescribed naloxone. Having prior diagnoses of both opioid misuse or dependence and overdose was associated with a greater likelihood of receiving naloxone (odds ratio [OR], 2.32; 95% CI, 1.98-2.72; P < .001) compared with having a prior diagnosis of opioid misuse or dependence without overdose. Having a prior diagnosis of opioid overdose alone was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving naloxone (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94; P = .01) compared with having a prior diagnosis of opioid misuse or dependence without overdose. Factors associated with lower naloxone prescription included being aged 30 to 44 years (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62-0.84; P < .001) and being from the Midwest (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.54-0.71; P < .001) or West (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.98; P = .03). Opioid use disorder treatment, such as use of medication-assisted therapy (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.53-1.86; P < .001), visiting a detoxification facility (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.31-1.76; P < .001), or receiving other substance use disorder treatment (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.30; P = .01), were associated with increased likelihood of receiving naloxone, as were receiving outpatient care from a pain specialist (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.40-1.76; P < .001), psychologist (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.29-1.70; P < .001), or surgeon (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.32; P < .001). Overall, 98.5% (n = 135 973) of high-risk patients did not received naloxone, despite many interactions with the health care system, including 88 618 hospitalizations, 229 680 emergency department visits, 298 058 internal medicine visits, and 568 448 family practice visits., Conclusions and Relevance: Patients at high risk of opioid overdose rarely received prescriptions for naloxone despite numerous interactions with the health care system. Prescribing in emergency, inpatient, and outpatient settings represents an opportunity to improve access.

Introduction: To expand access to naloxone, the state of Illinois implemented a standing order allowing registered pharmacies to dispense the drug without an individual prescription. To participate under the standing order, pharmacies were required to opt in through a formal registration process. In our study we aimed to evaluate the availability and price of naloxone at registered pharmacies.Methods: This was a prospective, de-identified, cross-sectional telephone survey. Trained interviewers posed as potential customers and used a standardized script to determine the availability of naloxone between February–December, 2019. The primary outcome was defined as a pharmacy indicating it carried naloxone, currently had naloxone in stock, and was able to dispense it without anindividual prescription.Results: Of 948 registered pharmacies, 886 (93.5%) were successfully contacted. Of those, 792 (83.4%) carried naloxone, 659 (74.4%) had naloxone in stock, and 472 (53.3%) allowed purchase without a prescription. Naloxone nasal spray (86.4%) was the formulation most commonly stocked. Chain pharmacies were more likely to carry naloxone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.97–5.01, P < 0.01) and have naloxone in stock (aOR 2.72, 95% CI 1.76–4.20, P < 0.01), but no more likely to dispense it without a prescription. Pharmacies in higher population areas (aOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99–0.99, P < 0.05) and rural areas adjacent to metropolitan areas (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 025–0.98, P < 0.05) were less likely to have naloxone available without a prescription. Associations of naloxone availability based on other urbanicity designations, overdose count, and overdose rate were not significant.Conclusion: Among pharmacies in Illinois that formally registered to dispense naloxone without a prescription, the availability of naloxone remains limited. Additional interventions may be needed to maximize the potential impact of a statewide standing order.

Background: The United States' (US) opioid overdose epidemic has evolved into a combined stimulant/opioid epidemic, a pattern driven in part by mitigating opioid overdose risk, variable substance availability, and personal preferences. This study aimed to investigate the association between self-reported substance preference (heroin or methamphetamine) and behavioral/health outcomes among individuals who used both heroin and methamphetamine in the rural US. Methods: The Rural Opioid Initiative is a consortium of 8 research cohorts from 10 states and 65 rural counties that recruited individuals reporting past 30-day injection of any substance or opioid substance use by any route from 1/2018 to 3/2020. Analyses were restricted to participants ⩾18 years, who self-reported either heroin or methamphetamine as their preferred substance and past 30-day use of both heroin and methamphetamine. We examined cross-sectional associations between preferred substance (heroin versus methamphetamine) and behavioral and health outcomes using random effects meta-analysis with adjusted regression models. Results: Among 1239 participants, 61% (n = 752) reported heroin as their preferred substance. Adjusting for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, methamphetamine preference was associated with lower prevalence ratios for current naloxone possession (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 0.68; 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI] = 0.59-0.78; P -value ⩽.001), of ever being told they had the hepatitis C virus (HCV; aPR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.61-0.85; P -value ⩽.001) and a personal history of overdose (aPR = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.73-0.90; P -value ⩽.001). Conclusion: In our study analyzing associations between preferred substance and various behavioral and health outcomes amongst people who use both heroin and methamphetamine, a majority of participants preferred heroin. Methamphetamine preference was associated with lower prevalence of naloxone possession, ever being told they had HCV, and prior history of an overdose. This study underscores the need for targeted harm reduction services for people who prefer methamphetamine in rural areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) for use by laypersons has been shown to be safe and effective, but implementation in the emergency department (ED) setting is challenging. Recent literature has shown a discouragingly low rate of obtainment of naloxone that is prescribed in the ED setting. We conducted a study to evaluate the feasibility of point-of-care (POC) distribution of naloxone in an ED, hypothesizing a rate of obtainment higher than prescription fill rates reported in previous studies. Summary A multidisciplinary team of experts, including pharmacists, physicians, nurses, and case management professionals used an iterative process to develop a protocol for POC OEND in the ED. The protocol includes 5 steps: (1) patient screening, (2) order placement in the electronic health record (EHR), (3) a patient training video, (4) dispensing of naloxone kit, and (5) written discharge instructions. The naloxone kits were assembled, labeled to meet requirements for a prescription, and stored in an automated dispensing cabinet. Two pharmacists, 30 attending physicians, 65 resident physicians, and 108 nurses were trained. In 8 months, 134 orders for take-home naloxone were entered and 117 naloxone kits were dispensed, resulting in an obtainment rate of 87.3%. The indication for take-home naloxone kit was heroin use for 61 patients (92.4%). Conclusion POC naloxone distribution is feasible and yielded a rate of obtainment significantly higher than previous studies in which naloxone was prescribed. POC distribution can be replicated at other hospitals with low rates of obtainment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stigma is a known barrier to treating substance use disorders and dramatically diminishes the quality of life of people who use drugs (PWUD) nonmedically. Stigma against PWUD may be especially pronounced in rural areas due to their decreased anonymity and residents' limited access, or resistance, to "neutralizing" information on factors associated with drug use. Stigma often manifests in the attitudes of professionals whom stigmatized individuals regularly interact with and often materially impact. We analyzed interviews conducted between July 2018 and February 2019 with professional stakeholders in rural southern Illinois who interact with PWUD, specifically those who use opioids nonmedically or who inject drugs (n = 30). We further analyzed interview data from a complementary PWUD sample (n = 22). Interviews addressed perspectives around nonmedical drug use and treatment/harm reduction, with analysis centered around the Framework Integrating Normative Influences on Stigma and its focus on micro, meso and macro level stigmatization processes. Stakeholder participants included professionals from local law enforcement, courts, healthcare organizations, emergency management services, and faith-based and social services organizations. Most stakeholders, particularly law enforcement, negatively perceived PWUD and nonmedical drug use in general, questioned the character, agency and extrinsic value of PWUD, and used labels (e.g. "addict," "abuser," etc.) that may be regarded as stigmatizing. Further, most respondents, including PWUD, characterized their communities as largely unaware or dismissive of the bio-medical and sociocultural explanations for opioid use, drug injection and towards harm reduction services (e.g., syringe exchanges) and naloxone, which were frequently framed as undeserved usages of taxpayer funds. In conclusion, rural stigma against PWUD manifested and was framed as a substantial issue, notably activating at micro, meso and macro levels. Stigma prevention efforts in these communities should aim to improve public knowledge on the intricate factors contributing to opioid use and drug injection and harm reduction programming's moral and fiscal value. • Antagonism for treatment and prevention arises from perceived taxpayer cost burden. • Stakeholders often contest the character and agency of PWUD. • Stakeholders commonly use potentially stigmatizing terms on drug use/user milieu. • Perceived class traits—e.g., appearance/behavior—may activate negative PWUD views. • Rural public viewed as unaware of/unsympathetic to PWUD general challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]