Search

Non-pharmaceutical fentanyl and its analogs have driven striking increases in opioid-associated overdose deaths. These highly potent opioids can be found at low concentrations in biological specimens. Little is known regarding the concentrations of these substances among survivors of non-fatal overdoses. In a locale where fentanyl is responsible for the majority of non-fatal opioid overdoses, we compared the concentration of fentanyl in blood to naloxone dosing in the presence and absence of a concurrent sedative-hypnotic exposure. In this pilot study, we enrolled adult patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) who: (1) arrived after an overdose requiring naloxone for the reversal of respiratory depression; and (2) who required venipuncture or intravenous access as part of their clinical care. Blood specimens (n = 20) underwent comprehensive toxicology testing, including the quantitation of fentanyl, fentanyl analogs, and naloxone, as well as the detection of common sedative-hypnotics and a wide range of other illicit and pharmaceutical substances. We then compared fentanyl concentrations to naloxone dosing in participants with and without a concomitant sedative-hypnotic exposure. Nineteen of twenty participants (95%) were exposed to fentanyl prior to their overdose; the remaining participant tested positive for heroin metabolites. No participants reported pharmaceutical fentanyl use. Fentanyl analogs – acetylfentanyl or carfentanil – were present in three specimens. In 11 cases, fentanyl and its metabolites were the only opioids identified. Among the fentanyl-exposed, blood concentrations ranged from <0.1–19 ng/mL with a mean of 6.2 ng/mL and a median of 3.6 ng/mL. There was no relationship between fentanyl concentration and naloxone dose administered for reversal. We detected sedative-hypnotics (including benzodiazepines, muscle relaxants, and antidepressants) in nine participants. Among the sedative-hypnotic exposed, fentanyl concentrations were lower, but naloxone dosing was similar to those without a concomitant exposure. In this study, we found that: 1) fentanyl was present in the blood of nearly all participants; 2) fentanyl concentrations were lower among study participants with concomitant sedative-hypnotic exposure; and 3) the dose of naloxone administered for overdose reversal was not associated with the measured fentanyl concentration in blood specimens. Our results underscore the role that tolerance and concomitant drug exposure play in the precipitation and resuscitation of management of opioid overdose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Respiratory variation in carotid artery peak systolic velocity (ΔVpeak) assessed by point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been proposed as a noninvasive means to predict fluid responsiveness. We aimed to evaluate the ability of carotid ΔVpeak as assessed by novice physician sonologists to predict fluid responsiveness. Methods: This study was conducted in 2 intensive care units. Spontaneously breathing, nonintubated patients with signs of volume depletion were included. Patients with atrial fibrillation/flutter, cardiogenic, obstructive or neurogenic shock, or those for whom further intravenous (IV) fluid administration would be harmful were excluded. Three novice physician sonologists were trained in POCUS assessment of carotid ΔVpeak. They assessed the carotid ΔVpeak in study participants prior to the administration of a 500 mL IV fluid bolus. Fluid responsiveness was defined as a ≥10% increase in cardiac index as measured using bioreactance. Results: Eighty-six participants were enrolled, 50 (58.1%) were fluid responders. Carotid ΔVpeak performed poorly at predicting fluid responsiveness. Test characteristics for the optimum carotid ΔVpeak of 8.0% were: area under the receiver operating curve = 0.61 (95% CI: 0.48-0.73), sensitivity = 72.0% (95% CI: 58.3-82.56), specificity = 50.0% (95% CI: 34.5-65.5). Conclusions: Novice physician sonologists using POCUS are unable to predict fluid responsiveness using carotid ΔVpeak. Until further research identifies key limiting factors, clinicians should use caution directing IV fluid resuscitation using carotid ΔVpeak. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended three changes to HIV testing methods in US healthcare settings: (1) an opt-out approach, (2) removal of separate signed consent, and (3) optional HIV prevention counseling. These recommendations led to a public debate about their moral acceptability. Methods We interviewed 25 members from the fields of US HIV advocacy, care, policy, and research about the ethical merits and demerits of the three changes to HIV testing methods. We performed a qualitative analysis of the participant responses in the interviews and summarized the major themes. Results In general, arguments in favor of the methods were based upon their ultimate contribution to increasing HIV testing and permitting the consequent benefits of identifying those who are HIV infected and linking them to further care. Conclusions The prevailing theme of ethical concern focused on suspicions that the methods might not be properly implemented, and that further safeguards might be needed.

In the article, the authors present their study to assess how older adult (AO) patients in emergency departments (ED) accurately recall their medications and avoid adverse drug events (ADE). Also cited are the use of the American Geriatric Society Beers Criteria to reduce new prescriptions for potentially inappropriate medications, and the commonly omitted drugs like antibiotics, urologicals and cardiac therapy medications.