Is a Prehospital Treat and Release Protocol for Opioid Overdose Safe?

Revive and Refuse: Capacity, Autonomy, and Refusal of Care After Opioid Overdose

Physicians generally recommend that patients resuscitated with naloxone after opioid overdose stay in the emergency department for a period of observation in order to prevent harm from delayed sequelae of opioid toxicity. Patients frequently refuse this period of observation despiteenefit to risk. Healthcare providers are thus confronted with the challenge of how best to protect the patient's interests while also respecting autonomy, including assessing whether the patient is making an autonomous choice to refuse care. Previous studies have shown that physicians have widely divergent approaches to navigating these conflicts. This paper reviews what is known about the effects of opioid use disorder on decision-making, and argues that some subset of these refusals are non-autonomous choices, even when patients appear to have decision making capacity. This conclusion has several implications for how physicians assess and respond to patients refusing medical recommendations after naloxone resuscitation.

Perspectives from law enforcement officers who respond to overdose calls for service and administer naloxone

BACKGROUND

Many law enforcement agencies across the United States equip their officers with the life-saving drug naloxone to reverse the effects of an opioid overdose. Although officers can be effectively trained to administer naloxone, and hundreds of law enforcement agencies carry naloxone to reverse overdoses, little is known about what happens on scene during an overdose call for service from an officer's perspective, including what officers perceive their duties and responsibilities to be as the incident evolves.

METHODS

The qualitative study examined officers' experiences with overdose response, their perceived roles, and what happens on scene before, during, and after an overdose incident. In-person interviews were conducted with 17 officers in four diverse law enforcement agencies in the United States between January and May 2020.

RESULTS

Following an overdose, the officers described that overdose victims are required to go to a hospital or they are taken to jail. Officers also described their duties on scene during and after naloxone administration, including searching the belongings of the person who overdosed and seizing any drug paraphernalia.

CONCLUSION

These findings point to a pressing need for rethinking standard operating procedures for law enforcement in these situations so that the intentions of Good Samaritan Laws are upheld and people get the assistance they need without being deterred from asking for future help.

Impact of the Opioid Epidemic

In recent years the prescription opioid overdose epidemic has decreased, but has been more than offset by increases in overdose caused by fentanyl and fentanyl analogues. Opioid overdose patients should receive naloxone if they have significant respiratory depression and/or loss of protective airway reflexes. Patients who receive naloxone should be observed for recurrent opioid effects. Patients with opioid overdose may be admitted to the intensive care unit for naloxone infusions, treatment of noncardiogenic pulmonary edema, autonomic instability, or sequelae of hypoxia-ischemia or cardiac arrest. Primary and secondary prevention are important to reduce the number of people with life-threatening opioid overdose.

Refusal to accept emergency medical transport following opioid overdose, and conditions that may promote connections to care

BACKGROUND

Opioid overdose is a leading cause of death in the United States. Emergency medical services (EMS) encounters following overdose may serve as a critical linkage to care for people who use drugs (PWUD). However, many overdose survivors refuse EMS transport to hospitals, where they would presumably receive appropriate follow-up services and referrals. This study aims to (1) identify reasons for refusal of EMS transport after opioid overdose reversal; (2) identify conditions under which overdose survivors might be more likely to accept these services; and (3) describe solutions proposed by both PWUD and EMS providers to improve post-overdose care.

METHODS

The study comprised 20 semi-structured, qualitative in-depth interviews with PWUD, followed by two semi-structured focus groups with eight EMS providers.

RESULTS

PWUD cited intolerable withdrawal symptoms; anticipation of inadequate care upon arrival at the hospital; and stigmatizing treatment by EMS and hospital providers as main reasons for refusal to accept EMS transport. EMS providers corroborated these descriptions and offered solutions such as titration of naloxone to avoid harsh withdrawal symptoms; peer outreach or community paramedicine; and addressing provider burnout. PWUD stated they might accept EMS transport after overdose reversal if they were offered ease for withdrawal symptoms, at either a hospital or non-hospital facility, and treated with respect and empathy.

CONCLUSION

Standard of care by EMS and hospital providers following overdose reversal should include treatment for withdrawal symptoms, including buprenorphine induction; patient-centered communication; and effective linkage to prevention, treatment, and harm reduction services.

Opioid-Associated Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: Distinctive Clinical Features and Implications for Health Care and Public Responses: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Opioid overdose is the leading cause of death for Americans 25 to 64 years of age, and opioid use disorder affects >2 million Americans. The epidemiology of opioid-associated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the United States is changing rapidly, with exponential increases in death resulting from synthetic opioids and linear increases in heroin deaths more than offsetting modest reductions in deaths from prescription opioids. The pathophysiology of polysubstance toxidromes involving opioids, asphyxial death, and prolonged hypoxemia leading to global ischemia (cardiac arrest) differs from that of sudden cardiac arrest. People who use opioids may also develop bacteremia, central nervous system vasculitis and leukoencephalopathy, torsades de pointes, pulmonary vasculopathy, and pulmonary edema. Emergency management of opioid poisoning requires recognition by the lay public or emergency dispatchers, prompt emergency response, and effective ventilation coupled to compressions in the setting of opioid-associated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Effective ventilation is challenging to teach, whereas naloxone, an opioid antagonist, can be administered by emergency medical personnel, trained laypeople, and the general public with dispatcher instruction to prevent cardiac arrest. Opioid education and naloxone distributions programs have been developed to teach people who are likely to encounter a person with opioid poisoning how to administer naloxone, deliver high-quality compressions, and perform rescue breathing. Current American Heart Association recommendations call for laypeople and others who cannot reliably establish the presence of a pulse to initiate cardiopulmonary resuscitation in any individual who is unconscious and not breathing normally; if opioid overdose is suspected, naloxone should also be administered. Secondary prevention, including counseling, opioid overdose education with take-home naloxone, and medication for opioid use disorder, is important to prevent recurrent opioid overdose.

Prehospital naloxone administration - what influences choice of dose and route of administration?

Background

Amidst the ongoing opioid crisis there are debates regarding the optimal route of administration and dosages of naloxone. This applies both for lay people administration and emergency medical services, and in the development of new naloxone products.

We examined the characteristics of naloxone administration, including predictors of dosages and multiple doses during patient treatment by emergency medical service staff in order to enlighten this debate.

Methods

This was a prospective observational study of patients administered naloxone by the Oslo City Center emergency medical service, Norway (2014–2018). Cases were linked to The National Cause of Death Registry. We investigated the route of administration and dosage of naloxone, clinical and demographic variables relating to initial naloxone dose and use of multiple naloxone doses and one-week mortality.

Results

Overall, 2215 cases were included, and the majority (91.9%) were administered intramuscular naloxone. Initial doses were 0.4 or 0.8 mg, and 15% of patients received multiple dosages. Unconscious patients or those in respiratory arrest were more likely to be treated with 0.8 mg naloxone and to receive multiple doses. The one-week mortality from drug-related deaths was 4.1 per 1000 episodes, with no deaths due to rebound opioid toxicity.

Conclusions

Intramuscular naloxone doses of 0.4 and 0.8 mg were effective and safe in the treatment of opioid overdose in the prehospital setting. Emergency medical staff appear to titrate naloxone based on clinical presentation.

Variations in the California Emergency Medical Services Response to Opioid Use Disorder

Introduction

Opioids contributed to over 300,000 deaths in the United States in the past 10 years. Most research on drug use occurs in clinics or hospitals; few studies have evaluated the impact of opioid use on emergency medical services (EMS) or the EMS response to opioid use disorder (OUD). This study describes the perceived burden of disease, data collection, and interventions in California local EMS agencies (LEMSA).

Methods

We surveyed medical directors of all 33 California LEMSAs with 25 multiple-choice and free-answer questions. Results were collected in RedCap and downloaded into Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond WA). This study was exempt from review by the Alameda Health System - Highland Hospital Institutional Review Board.

Results

Of the 33 California LEMSAs, 100% responded, all indicating that OUD significantly affects their patients. Most (91%) had specific protocols directing care of those patients and repeat naloxone dosing. After naloxone administration, none permitted release to law enforcement custody, 6% permitted patient refusal of care, and 45% directed base hospital contact for refusal of care. Few protocols directed screening or treatment of OUD or withdrawal symptoms. Regular data collection occurred in 76% of LEMSAs, with only 48% linking EMS data with hospital or coroner outcomes. In only 30% did the medical director oversee regular quality improvement meetings. Of respondents, 64% were aware of public health agency-based outreach programs and 42% were aware of emergency department BRIDGE programs (Medication Assisted Treatment and immediate referral). Only 9% oversaw naloxone kit distribution (all under the medical director), and 6% had EMS-based outreach programs. In almost all (94%), law enforcement officers carried naloxone and administered it anywhere from a few times a year to greater than 200 in one LEMSA.

Conclusion

This study represents an important description of EMS medical directors’ approaches to the impact of OUD as well as trends in protocols and interventions to treat and prevent overdoses. Through this study, we can better understand the variable response to patients with OUD across California.

Opioid overdose reversals using naloxone in New York City by people who use opioids: Implications for public health and overdose harm reduction approaches from a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Adverse reactions to naloxone, such as withdrawal symptoms and aggression, are widely recognised in the literature by pharmaceutical manufacturers and clinical practitioners as standard reactions of individuals who are physically dependent upon opioid drugs following the reversal of potentially fatal opioid overdose. This paper seeks to provide a differentiated view on reactions to naloxone that may have important implications for public health and harm reduction approaches.

METHODS

Analyses from a qualitative investigation embedded within a 5-year Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) examined the risks and benefits of Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) training models (brief or extended training) in various populations of people who use opioids in New York City. The qualitative experiences (obtained through semi-structured interviews) of 46 people who use opioids and who were each involved in the delivery of naloxone, during 56 separate overdose events that occurred throughout 2016-2018, were studied. Situational analysis and inductive content analysis of interview data focused upon overdose reversals in an attempt to provide understandings of the various adverse effects associated with naloxone from their perspective. These analyses were supplemented by data sessions within the research team during which the findings obtained from situational analysis and inductive content analysis were reviewed and complemented by deductive (clinical) appraisals of the various physical and psychological effects associated with the overdose reversals.

RESULTS

People who use opioids recognise three distinct and interconnected outcomes that may follow a successful opioid overdose reversal after intramuscular or intranasal administration of naloxone. These outcomes are here termed, (i) 'rage' (describing a wide range of angry, hostile and/or aggressive outbursts), (ii) 'withdrawal symptoms,' and (iii) 'not rage, not withdrawal' (i.e., a wide range of short-lived, 'harmless' conditions (such as temporary amnesia, mild emotional outbursts, or physical discomfort) that do not include rage or withdrawal symptoms).

CONCLUSION

Physical and psychological reactions to naloxone should not be understood exclusively as a consequence of acute, opioid-related, withdrawal symptoms. The three distinct and interconnected reversal outcomes identified in this study are considered from a harm reduction policy perspective and are further framed by concepts associated with 'mediated toxicity' (i.e., harm triggered by medicine). The overall conclusion is that harm reduction training programmes that are aligned to the policy and practice of take home naloxone may be strengthened by including awareness and training in how to best respond to 'rage' associated with overdose reversal following naloxone administration by people who use opioids and other laypersons.

Opportunities for Emergency Medical Services Intervention to Prevent Opioid Overdose Mortality

OBJECTIVES

The opioid crisis is a growing cause of mortality in the United States and may be mitigated by innovative approaches to identifying individuals at-risk of fatal opioid overdose. We examined Emergency Medical Services (EMS) utilization among a cohort of individuals who died from opioid overdose in order to identify potential opportunities for intervention. Methods: Individuals who died of unintentional opioid overdose in a large North Carolina county between 01/01/2014 and 12/31/2016 were studied in a retrospective cohort. Death records obtained from North Carolina Vital Records were linked to EMS patient care records obtained from the county EMS System in order to describe the EMS encounters of each decedent in the year preceding their death. Patient demographics and EMS encounters were assessed to identify encounter characteristics that may be targeted for intervention. Chi-square tests and odds ratios were used to evaluate and characterize the statistical significance of differences in EMS utilization. Results: Of the 218 individuals who died from unintentional opioid overdose in the study interval, 30% (n = 66) utilized EMS in the year before their death and 17% (n = 38) had at least one EMS encounter with documented drug or alcohol use (i.e. "drug-related encounter"). The mean age at death was 38 (range 19-74) years, 30% were female, 89% were White, and 8% were Black/African American. Factors associated with higher incidence of EMS utilization included age (P<.001), gender (P=.006), and race (P<.001). Decedents aged 56-65 had the highest EMS utilization (47%) and patients aged <25 and 25-35 had more drug-related EMS encounters (29% and 20%, respectively). The most common reasons for EMS utilization were "other medical" (27%), "non-traumatic pain" (20%), "traumatic injury" (16%), and "poisoning/drug ingestion" (14%). Drug or alcohol use was documented by EMS in 33% of all encounters and an opioid prescription was reported in 22% of encounters. Conclusions: Nearly one-third of individuals who died from accidental opioid overdose utilized EMS in the year before their death and nearly one-fifth had a drug-related encounter. EMS encounters may present an opportunity to identify individuals at-risk of opioid overdose and, ultimately, reduce overdose mortality.

Incidence of mortality due to rebound toxicity after ‘treat and release’ practices in prehospital opioid overdose care: a systematic review

Introduction

Death due to opioid overdose was declared a public health crisis in Canada in 2015. Traditionally, patients who have overdosed on opioids that are managed by emergency medical services (EMS) are treated with the opioid antagonist naloxone, provided ventilatory support and subsequently transported to hospital. However, certain EMS agencies have permitted patients who have been reversed from opioid overdose to refuse transport, if the patient exhibits capacity to do so. Evidence on the safety of this practice is limited. Therefore, our intent was to examine the available literature to determine mortality and serious adverse events within 48 hours of EMS treat and release due to suspected rebound opioid toxicity after naloxone administration.

Methods

A systematic search was performed on 11 May 2017 in PubMed, Cochrane Central, Embase and CINHAL. Studies that reported on the outcome of patients treated with prehospital naloxone and released at the scene were included. Analyses for incidence of mortality and adverse events at the scene were conducted. Risk of bias and assessment of publication bias was also done.

Results

1401 records were screened after duplicate removal. Eighteen full-text studies were reviewed with seven selected for inclusion. None were found to be high risk of bias. In most studies, heroin was the source of the overdose. Mortality within 48 hours was infrequent with only four deaths among 4912 patients ﴾0.081%﴿ in the seven studies. Only one study reported on adverse events and found no incidence of adverse events from their sample of 71 released patients.

Conclusion

Mortality or serious adverse events due to suspected rebound toxicity in patients released on scene post-EMS treatment with naloxone were rare. However, studies involving longer-acting opioids were rare and no study involved fentanyl.

Effects of naloxone distribution to likely bystanders: Results of an agent-based model

BACKGROUND

Opioid overdose deaths in the US rose dramatically in the past 16 years, creating an urgent national health crisis with no signs of immediate relief. In 2017, the President of the US officially declared the opioid epidemic to be a national emergency and called for additional resources to respond to the crisis. Distributing naloxone to community laypersons and people at high risk for opioid overdose can prevent overdose death, but optimal distribution methods have not yet been pinpointed.

METHODS

We conducted a sequential exploratory mixed methods design using qualitative data to inform an agent-based model to improve understanding of effective community-based naloxone distribution to laypersons to reverse opioid overdose. The individuals in the model were endowed with cognitive and behavioral variables and accessed naloxone via community sites such as pharmacies, hospitals, and urgent-care centers. We compared overdose deaths over a simulated 6-month period while varying the number of distribution sites (0, 1, and 10) and number of kits given to individuals per visit (1 versus 10). Specifically, we ran thirty simulations for each of thirteen distribution models and report average overdose deaths for each. The baseline comparator was no naloxone distribution. Our simulations explored the effects of distribution through syringe exchange sites with and without secondary distribution, which refers to distribution of naloxone kits by laypersons within their social networks and enables ten additional laypersons to administer naloxone to reverse opioid overdose.

RESULTS

Our baseline model with no naloxone distribution predicted there would be 167.9 deaths in a six month period. A single distribution site, even with 10 kits picked up per visit, decreased overdose deaths by only 8.3% relative to baseline. However, adding secondary distribution through social networks to a single site resulted in 42.5% fewer overdose deaths relative to baseline. That is slightly higher than the 39.9% decrease associated with a tenfold increase in the number of sites, all distributing ten kits but with no secondary distribution. This suggests that, as long as multiple kits are picked up per visit, adding secondary distribution is at least as effective as increasing sites from one to ten. Combining the addition of secondary distribution with an increase in sites from one to ten resulted in a 61.1% drop in deaths relative to the baseline. Adding distribution through a syringe exchange site resulted in a drop of approximately 65% of deaths relative to baseline. In fact, when enabling distribution through a clean-syringe site, the secondary distribution through networks contributed no additional drops in deaths.

CONCLUSION

Community-based naloxone distribution to reverse opioid overdose may significantly reduce deaths. Optimal distribution methods may include secondary distribution so that the person who picks up naloxone kits can enable others in the community to administer naloxone, as well as targeting naloxone distribution to sites where individuals at high-risk for opioid overdose death are likely to visit, such as syringe-exchange programs. This study design, which paired exploratory qualitative data with agent-based modeling, can be used in other settings seeking to implement and improve naloxone distribution programs.

Naloxone dosage for opioid reversal: current evidence and clinical implications

Opioid-related mortality is a growing problem in the United States, and in 2015 there were over 33,000 opioid-related deaths. To combat this mortality trend, naloxone is increasingly being utilized in a pre-hospital setting by emergency personnel and prescribed to laypersons for out-of-hospital administration. With increased utilization of naloxone there has been a subsequent reduction in mortality following an opioid overdose. Reversal of opioid toxicity may precipitate an opioid-withdrawal syndrome. At the same time, there is a risk of inadequate response or re-narcotization after the administration of a single dose of naloxone in patients who have taken large doses or long-acting opioid formulations, as the duration of effect of naloxone is shorter than that of many opioid agonists. As out-of-hospital use of this medication is growing, so too is concern about effective but safe dosing.