Naloxone “Moral Hazard” Debate Pits Economists Against Physicians

The effect of untargeted naloxone distribution on opioid overdose outcomes

Opioid overdose has claimed the lives of over 340,000 Americans in the last decade. Over that same period, policymakers have taken steps to increase the availability of naloxone-an opioid antagonist used to rescue overdose victims-to people in the community. Previous studies, most of which have examined the effects of state laws designed to facilitate access to naloxone, have reached mixed conclusions about the effects of naloxone access on fatal and non-fatal overdoses. This paper exploits a unique policy experiment provided by two naloxone giveaways intended to increase naloxone possession among the general public in Pennsylvania to estimate the causal impact of naloxone distribution on fatal overdoses and opioid-related emergency department (ED) visits. Using a difference-in-differences design, I find evidence that opioid overdose deaths fell immediately following the first giveaway but increased following the second giveaway and discuss these apparently contradictory findings in the context of the changing composition of the opioid supply. I also find some evidence of a decline in opioid overdose-related ED visits following the giveaways. This study is the first to examine the effects of untargeted naloxone distribution and has implications for other novel, naloxone distribution efforts currently underway.

Beliefs and misperceptions about naloxone and overdose among U.S. laypersons: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) to laypersons are key approaches to reduce the incidence of opioid-involved overdoses. While some research has examined attitudes toward OEND, especially among pharmacists and first responders, our understanding of what laypersons believe about overdose and naloxone is surprisingly limited. Further, some scholars have expressed concerns about the prevalence of non-evidence-based beliefs about overdose and naloxone. We designed this study to analyze the prevalence, nature, and context of beliefs about naloxone and overdose among U.S. laypersons.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study (n = 702) using Prolific.co (representative of the U.S. population by age, gender, and race). Primary outcomes were the believability of six statements about overdose/naloxone on a seven-point Likert-type scale. Five statements were unsupported, and one was supported, by current scientific evidence. We used latent profile analysis to classify participants into belief groups, then used regression to study correlates of profile classification.

RESULTS

Believability of the statements (7: extremely believable) ranged from m = 5.57 (SD = 1.38) for a scientifically supported idea (trained bystanders can reverse overdose with naloxone), to m = 3.33 (SD = 1.83) for a statement claiming opioid users can get high on naloxone. Participants were classified into three latent belief profiles: Profile 1 (most aligned with current evidence; n = 246), Profile 2 (moderately aligned; n = 351), and Profile 3 (least aligned, n = 105). Compared to Profile 1, several covariates were associated with categorization into Profiles 2 and 3, including lower trust in science (RRR = 0.36, 95%CI = 0.24-0.54; RRR = 0.21, 95%CI = 0.12-0.36, respectively), conservative political orientation (RRR = 1.41, 95%CI = 1.23-1.63; 3:RRR = 1.62, 95%CI = 1.35-1.95, respectively), and never being trained about naloxone (Profile 3: RRR = 3.37, 95%CI = 1.16-9.77).

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary evidence suggests some U.S. laypersons simultaneously believe that bystander overdose prevention with naloxone can prevent overdose and one or more scientifically unsupported claims about naloxone/overdose. Categorization into clusters displaying such belief patterns was associated with low trust in science, conservative political orientation, and not having been trained about naloxone.

PREREGISTRATION

This cross-sectional study was preregistered prior to any data collection using the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/c6ufv.

Does naloxone provision lead to increased substance use? A systematic review to assess if there is evidence of a 'moral hazard' associated with naloxone supply

BACKGROUND

Take home naloxone (THN) programs have been rapidly upscaled in response to increasing opioid-related mortality. One often cited concern is that naloxone provision could be associated with increased opioid use, due to the availability of naloxone to reverse opioid overdose. We conducted a systematic review to determine whether THN provision is associated with changes in substance use by participants enrolled in THN programs.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature to assess changes in heroin or other substance use by people who use opioids following THN provision.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 2578 participants were included. Of the seven studies, there were two quasi-experimental studies and five cohort studies. Based on the Joanna Briggs Institute quality assessment, four studies were of moderate quality and three studies were of high quality. Of the five studies that reported on the primary outcome of heroin use, no study found evidence of increased heroin use across the study population. Five studies reported on other substance use (benzodiazepines, alcohol, cocaine, amphetamine, cannabis, prescription opioids), none of which found evidence of an increase in other substance use associated with THN provision. Four studies reported on changes in overdose frequency following THN provision: three studies reporting no change, and one study of people prescribed opioids finding a reduction in opioid-related emergency department attendances for participants who received naloxone.

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence that THN provision was associated with increased opioid use or overdose. Concerns that THN supply may lead to increased substance use were not supported by data from reviewed studies.

Addiction stigma and the production of impediments to take-home naloxone uptake

Opioid overdose deaths are a major health issue in Australia and around the world. Programmes to provide opioid consumers with 'take-home' naloxone to reverse overdose exist internationally, but uptake by mainstream health services and consumers remains inconsistent. Researchers have identified a range of important educational, training and logistical impediments to take-home naloxone uptake and distribution, yet they have focused less on the social dynamics that can enhance or limit access, such as stigma. In this article, we also explore impediments to uptake, drawing on qualitative interview data gathered for an Australian research project on take-home naloxone. Mobilising a performative approach to stigma, we argue that overdose and prevention are shaped by the social dynamics of stigma and, as such, responsibility for dealing with overdose, as with take-home naloxone, should also be considered social (i.e. shared among peers, the public, communities and governments). Our interview data illuminate the various ways in which addiction stigma limits the possibilities and capacities of take-home naloxone and overdose prevention. First, we focus on how stigma may impede professional information provision about take-home naloxone by limiting the extent to which it is presented as a matter of interest for all opioid consumers, not just those who consume opioids illicitly. Second, we explore how stigma may limit the scale-up and expansion of programmes and access points. From here, we focus on how stigma co-constitutes the politics of overdose and prevention, rendering take-home naloxone ill-suited to many social settings of overdose. In closing, we point out that stigma is not just a post hoc impediment to access to and use of take-home naloxone but is central to opioid overdose production itself, and to effective prevention. While take-home naloxone is an excellent life-saving initiative, uncritically valorising it may divert attention from broader goals, such as the de-stigmatisation of drug consumption through decriminalisation, and other ambitious attempts to reduce overdose.

Cost-Effectiveness of Intranasal Naloxone Distribution to High-Risk Prescription Opioid Users

OBJECTIVES

To determine the cost-effectiveness of pharmacy-based intranasal naloxone distribution to high-risk prescription opioid (RxO) users.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model with an attached tree for pharmacy-based naloxone distribution to high-risk RxO users using 2 approaches: one-time and biannual follow-up distribution. The Markov structure had 6 health states: high-risk RxO use, low-risk RxO use, no RxO use, illicit opioid use, no illicit opioid use, and death. The tree modeled the probability of an overdose happening, the overdose being witnessed, naloxone being available, and the overdose resulting in death. High-risk RxO users were defined as individuals with prescription opioid doses greater than or equal to 90 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day. We used a monthly cycle length, lifetime horizon, and US healthcare perspective. Costs (2018) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted 3% annually. Microsimulation was performed with 100 000 individual trials. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

One-time distribution of naloxone prevented 14 additional overdose deaths per 100 000 persons, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $56 699 per QALY. Biannual follow-up distribution led to 107 additional lives being saved with an ICER of $84 799 per QALY compared with one-time distribution. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that a biannual follow-up approach would be cost-effective 50% of the time at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100 000 per QALY. Naloxone effectiveness and proportion of overdoses witnessed were the 2 most influential parameters for biannual distribution.

CONCLUSION

Both one-time and biannual follow-up naloxone distribution in community pharmacies would modestly reduce opioid overdose deaths and be cost-effective at a WTP of $100 000 per QALY.