Use of Intranasal Naloxone by Basic Life Support Providers

What is the Evidence for Using Intranasal Medicine in the Prehospital Setting? A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Intranasal (IN) medications offer a safe non-invasive way to rapidly deliver drugs in situations where intravenous (IV) access and intramuscular (IM) administration is challenging or not feasible. In the prehospital setting, this can be an essential alternative in time critical situations including trauma management, seizures, and agitated patients. However, there is a paucity of evidence summarizing its efficacy in this environment. This systematic review aims to assess the current evidence supporting the use of IN medicine (midazolam, ketamine, fentanyl, morphine, glucagon, and naloxone) in the prehospital setting alone.

METHODS

A systematic literature search (PROSPERO CRD42023440713) of PubMed, Web of Science, OVID Medline, "Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials," Cochrane reviews and Embase was performed from inception to June 2023 to identify studies where IN medications were administered to patients in the prehospital setting. All randomized controlled trials, observational cohort studies, case series, and case reports were included. Papers not written in English, review articles, abstracts, and non-published data (including letters to the editor) were excluded. The methodological quality of the included studies was interpreted using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. No funding was received.

RESULTS

From 4818 studies, 39 were included (seven for midazolam, five for ketamine, twelve for fentanyl, one for diamorphine, two for glucagon, and twelve for naloxone). A total of 24,097 patients were treated with IN medications across all the studies. There were five moderate quality, four low quality, and thirty very low quality studies. The potential efficacy of IN fentanyl and ketamine was demonstrated consistently throughout the studies with less clear evidence for midazolam, morphine, glucagon, and naloxone. This review was severely limited by the study quality, with most studies demonstrating "high concerns" for bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Prehospital IN medication administration has wide-ranging potential, particularly for administering analgesia. There are likely to be certain populations, for example, pediatrics, that will benefit the most, although conclusions are limited by the quality of evidence currently available. We encourage additional research in this area, particularly with robust prospective double-blind RCTs.

Identification of Non-Fatal Opioid Overdose Cases Using 9-1-1 Computer Assisted Dispatch and Prehospital Patient Clinical Record Variables

Background: The current epidemic of opioid overdoses in the United States necessitates a robust public health and clinical response. We described patterns of non-fatal opioid overdoses (NFOODs) in a small western region using data from the 9-1-1 Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD) record and electronic Patient Clinical Records (ePCR) completed by EMS responders. We determined whether CAD and ePCR variables could identify NFOOD cases in 9-1-1 data for intervention and surveillance efforts. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 1 year of 9-1-1 emergency medical CAD and ePCR (including naloxone administration) data from the sole EMS provider in the response area. Cases were identified based on clinician review of the ePCR, and categorized as definitive NFOOD, probable NFOOD, or non-OOD. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) of the most prevalent CAD and ePCR variables were calculated. We used a machine learning technique-Random-Forests (RF) modeling-to optimize our ability to accurately predict NFOOD cases within census blocks. Results: Of 37,960 9-1-1 calls, clinical review identified 158 NFOOD cases (0.4%), of which 123 (77.8%) were definitive and 35 (22.2%) were probable cases. Overall, 106 (67.1%) received naloxone from the EMS responder at the scene. As a predictor of NFOOD, naloxone administration by paramedics had 67.1% sensitivity, 99.6% specificity, 44% PPV, and 99.9% NPV. Using CAD variables alone achieved a sensitivity of 36.7% and specificity of 99.7%. Combining ePCR variables with CAD variables increased the diagnostic accuracy with the best RF model yielding 75.9% sensitivity, 99.9% specificity, 71.4% PPV, and 99.9% NPV. Conclusion: CAD problem type variables and naloxone administration, used alone or in combination, had sub-optimal predictive accuracy. However, a Random Forests modeling approach improved accuracy of identification, which could foster improved surveillance and intervention efforts. We identified the set of NFOODs that EMS encountered in a year and may be useful for future surveillance efforts.

Comparison of intranasal and intramuscular naloxone in opioid overdoses managed by ambulance staff: a double-dummy, randomised, controlled trial

AIMS

To measure and evaluate clinical response to nasal naloxone in opioid overdoses in the pre-hospital environment.

DESIGN

Randomised, controlled, double-dummy, blinded, non-inferiority trial, and conducted at two centres.

SETTING

Participants were included by ambulance staff in Oslo and Trondheim, Norway, and treated at the place where the overdose occurred.

PARTICIPANTS

Men and women age above 18 years with miosis, rate of respiration ≤8/min, and Glasgow Coma Score <12/15 were included. Informed consent was obtained through a deferred-consent procedure.

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

A commercially available 1.4 mg/0.1 mL intranasal naloxone was compared with 0.8 mg/2 mL naloxone administered intramuscularly.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary end-point was restoration of spontaneous respiration of ≥10 breaths/min within 10 minutes. Secondary outcomes included time to restoration of spontaneous respiration, recurrence of overdose within 12 hours and adverse events.

FINDINGS

In total, 201 participants were analysed in the per-protocol population. Heroin was suspected in 196 cases. With 82% of the participants being men, 105 (97.2%) in the intramuscular group and 74 (79.6%) in the intranasal group returned to adequate spontaneous respiration within 10 minutes after one dose. The estimated risk difference was 17.5% (95% CI, 8.9%-26.1%) in favour of the intramuscular group. The risk of receiving additional naloxone was 19.4% (95% CI, 9.0%-29.7%) higher in the intranasal group. Adverse reactions were evenly distributed, except for drug withdrawal reactions, where the estimated risk difference was 6.8% (95% CI, 0.2%-13%) in favour of the intranasal group in a post hoc analysis.

CONCLUSION

Intranasal naloxone (1.4 mg/0.1 mL) was less efficient than 0.8 mg intramuscular naloxone for return to spontaneous breathing within 10 minutes in overdose patients in the pre-hospital environment when compared head-to-head. Intranasal naloxone at 1.4 mg/0.1 mL restored breathing in 80% of participants after one dose and had few mild adverse reactions.

Pharmacokinetic considerations for community-based dosing of nasal naloxone in opioid overdose in adults

INTRODUCTION

The administration of the opioid antagonist naloxone in the community is a measure to prevent death from opioid overdose. Approved nasal naloxone sprays deliver initial doses of 0.9 to 8 mg. The level of the initial community dose is controversial, as the scientific base is weak.In this review knowledge of the pharmacokinetics of nasal, both approved and improvised nasal sprays, and intramuscular naloxone will be utilized to evaluate dose-effect relationships in previous studies of opioid overdose outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

The aim was to present scientifically based considerations on the initial nasal naloxone doses currently available, which reasonably balances the effect and adverse outcomes, given that at least two doses are at hand. Also included in these considerations is the challenge by illicitly manufactured fentanyl and analogs.This paper is based on both peer-reviewed and grey literature identified by several searches, of such as naloxone pharmacokinetics/formulations/outcomes/emergency medical services, in PubMed and Embase.

EXPERT OPINION

There is little scientific evidence that supports the use of initial systemic dosing that exceeds 0.8 mg in the community. Higher doses increase the risk of withdrawal symptoms feared in people who use opioids. Many obstacles may reduce the potential of community-administered naloxone.

Evaluation of Basic Life Support First Responder Naloxone Administration Protocol Adherence

Objectives: Opioid overdoses have become a significant problem across the United States resulting in respiratory depression and risk of death. Basic Life Support (BLS) first responders have had the option to treat respiratory depression using a bag-valve-mask device, however naloxone, an opioid antagonist, has been shown to quickly restore normal respiration. Since the introduction of naloxone and recent mandates across many states for BLS personnel to carry and administer naloxone, investigation into the adherence of naloxone use standing protocols is warranted.

Methods: This preliminary study examined 100 initial cases of BLS first responder administration of naloxone for appropriate indications and protocol adherence.

Results: This study found that n=22/100 naloxone administrations were inappropriate, often given to patients who were not suffering from respiratory depression (n=11/22). Positive pressure ventilation (PPV) was not administered prior to naloxone in n=56/100 cases, of which n=42/100 had an inadequate respiratory effort documented. For patients with a known history of substance use disorder, there was a significant increase in administration of naloxone prior to PPV (60%; n=33/55) compared to patients without a known history (30%; n=9/30).

Conclusion: Overall these preliminary data suggest that during BLS naloxone administration, the majority of cases did not follow at least one component of the standard protocol for patients with respiratory depression. This study suggests that further education and more research are needed to better understand the decision-making processes of prehospital providers to ensure adherence to standard protocols.

Safety, Efficacy, and Cost of 0.4-mg Versus 2-mg Intranasal Naloxone for Treatment of Prehospital Opioid Overdose

BACKGROUND

Intranasal naloxone is commonly used to treat prehospital opioid overdose. However, the optimal dose is unclear, and currently, no study exists comparing the clinical effect of intranasal naloxone at different doses.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this investigation was to compare the safety, efficacy, and cost of 0.4- versus 2-mg intranasal naloxone for treatment of prehospital opioid overdose.

METHODS

A retrospective, cross-sectional study was performed of 218 consecutive adult patients receiving intranasal naloxone in 2 neighboring counties in Southeast Michigan: one that used a 0.4-mg protocol and one that used a 2-mg protocol. Primary outcomes were response to initial dose, requirement of additional dosing, and incidence of adverse effects. Unpooled, 2-tailed, 2-sample t-tests and χ² tests for homogeneity were performed with statistical significance defined as P <0.05.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 populations in age, mass, gender, proportion of exposures suspected as heroin, response to initial dose, required redosing, or total number of doses by any route. The overall rate of adverse effects was 2.1% under the lower-dose protocol and 29% under the higher-dose protocol (P < 0.001). The lower-dose protocol was 79% less costly.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Treatment of prehospital opioid overdose using intranasal naloxone at an initial dose of 0.4 mg was equally effective during the prehospital period as treatment at an initial dose of 2 mg, was associated with a lower rate of adverse effects, and represented a 79% reduction in cost.

Prehospital Naloxone and Emergency Department Adverse Events: A Dose-Dependent Relationship

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate prehospital and emergency department (ED) interventions and outcomes of patients who received prehospital naloxone for a suspected opioid overdose.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to evaluate if the individual dose, individual route, total dose, number of prehospital naloxone administrations, or occurrence of a prehospital adverse event (AE) were associated with the occurrence of AEs in the ED. Secondary objectives included a subset analysis of patients who received additional naloxone while in the ED, or were admitted to an intensive care or step-down unit (ICU).

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational chart review of adult patients who received prehospital naloxone and were transported by ambulance to a suburban academic tertiary care center between 2014 and 2017. Descriptive, univariate, and multivariate statistics were used, with p < 0.05 indicating significance.

RESULTS

There were 513 patients included in the analysis, with a median age of 29 years, and median total prehospital naloxone dose of 2 mg. An increasing number of prehospital naloxone doses, an occurrence of a prehospital AE, and a route of administration other than intranasally for the first dose of prehospital naloxone were significantly associated with an increased likelihood of an ED AE. Patients who received < 2 mg of prehospital naloxone had the least likelihood of being admitted to an ICU, whereas patients who received at least 6 mg had a dramatically increased likelihood of ICU admission.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that an increasing number of prehospital naloxone doses was significantly associated with an increased likelihood of an ED adverse event.

A review of performance assessment tools for rescuer response in opioid overdose simulations and training programs

Since the 1990s, more than 600 overdose response training and education programs have been implemented to train participants to respond to an opioid overdose in the United States. Given this substantial investment in overdose response training, valid assessment of a potential rescuers' proficiency in responding to an opioid overdose is important. The aim of this article is to review the current state of the literature on outcome measures utilized in opioid overdose response training. Thirty-one articles published between 2014 and 2020 met inclusion criteria. The reviewed articles targeted laypersons, healthcare providers, and first responders. The assessment tools included five validated questionnaires, fifteen non-validated questionnaires, and nine non-validated simulation-based checklists (e.g., completion of critical tasks and time to completion). Validated multiple choice knowledge assessment tools were commonly used to assess the outcomes of training programs. It is unknown how scores on these assessment tools may correlate with actual rescuer performance responding to an overdose. Seven studies reported ceiling effects most likely attributed to participants' background medical knowledge or experience. The inclusion of simulation-based outcome measures of performance, including the commission of critical errors and the time to naloxone administration, provides better insight into rescuer skill proficiency.

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.

One year mortality of patients treated with naloxone for opioid overdose by emergency medical services

Study objective: Prehospital use of naloxone for presumed opioid overdose has increased markedly in recent years because of the current opioid overdose epidemic. In this study, we determine the 1-year mortality of suspected opioid overdose patients who were treated with naloxone by EMS and initially survived. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study of patients using three linked statewide datasets in Massachusetts: emergency medical services (EMS), a master demographics file, and death records. We included all suspected opioid overdose patients who were treated with naloxone by EMS. The primary outcome measures were death within 3 days of treatment and between 4 days and 1 year of treatment. Results: Between July 1, 2013 and December 31, 2015, there were 9734 individuals who met inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. Of these, 807 (8.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 7.7-8.8%)) died in the first 3 days, 668 (6.9% (95% CI 6.4-7.4%)) died between 4 days and 1 year, and 8259 (84.8% (95% CI 84.1-85.6%)) were still alive at 1 year. Excluding those who died within 3 days, 668 of the remaining 8927 individuals (7.5% (95% CI 6.9-8.0%)) died within 1 year. Conclusion: The 1-year mortality of those who are treated with naloxone for opioid overdose by EMS is high. Communities should focus both on primary prevention and interventions for this patient population, including strengthening regional treatment centers and expanding access to medication for opioid use disorder.

Take-Home Naloxone for the Emergency Interim Management of Opioid Overdose: The Public Health Application of an Emergency Medicine

Naloxone is a well-established essential medicine for the treatment of life-threatening heroin/opioid overdose in emergency medicine. Over two decades, the concept of 'take-home naloxone' has evolved, comprising pre-provision of an emergency supply to laypersons likely to witness an opioid overdose (e.g. peers and family members of people who use opioids as well as non-medical personnel), with the recommendation to administer the naloxone to the overdose victim as interim care while awaiting an ambulance. There is an urgent need for more widespread naloxone access considering the growing problem of opioid overdose deaths, accounting for more than 100,000 deaths worldwide annually. Rises in mortality are particularly sharp in North America, where the ongoing prescription opioid problem is now overlaid with a rapid growth in overdose deaths from heroin and illicit fentanyl. Using opioids alone is dangerous, and the mortality risk is clustered at certain times and contexts, including on prison release and discharge from hospital and residential care. The provision of take-home naloxone has required the introduction of new legislation and new naloxone products. These include pre-filled syringes and auto-injectors and, crucially, new concentrated nasal sprays (four formulations recently approved in different countries) with speed of onset comparable to intramuscular naloxone and relative bioavailability of approximately 40-50%. Choosing the right naloxone dose in the fentanyl era is a matter of ongoing debate, but the safety margin of the approved nasal sprays is superior to improvised nasal kits. New legislation in different countries permits over-the-counter sales or other prescription-free methods of provision. However, access remains uneven with take-home naloxone still not provided in many countries and communities, and with ongoing barriers contributing to implementation inertia. Take-home naloxone is an important component of the response to the global overdose problem, but greater commitment to implementation will be essential, alongside improved affordable products, if a greater impact is to be achieved.

A Comparison of Efficacy of Treatment and Time to Administration of Naloxone by BLS and ALS Providers

Introduction:

The administration of naloxone therapy is restricted by scope of practice to Advanced Life Support (ALS) in many Emergency Medical Services (EMS) systems throughout the United States. In Delaware’s two-tiered EMS system, Basic Life Support (BLS) often arrives on-scene prior to ALS, but BLS providers were not previously authorized to administer naloxone. Through a BLS naloxone pilot study, the researchers sought to evaluate BLS naloxone administration and timing compared to ALS.

Hypothesis:

After undergoing specialized training, BLS providers would be able to appropriately administer naloxone to opioid overdose patients in a more timely manner than ALS providers.

Methods:

This was a retrospective, observational study using data collected from February 2014 through May 2015 throughout a state BLS naloxone pilot program. A total of 14 out of 72 state BLS agencies participated in the study. Pilot BLS agencies attended a training session on the indications and administration of naloxone, and then were authorized to carry and administer naloxone. Researchers then compared vital signs and the time of BLS arrival to administration of naloxone by BLS and ALS. Data were analyzed using paired and independent sample t-tests, as well as chi-square, as appropriate.

Results:

A total of 131 incidents of naloxone administration were reviewed. Of those, 62 patients received naloxone by BLS (pilot group) and 69 patients received naloxone by ALS (control group). After naloxone administration, BLS patients showed improvements in heart rate (HR; P &lt; .01), respiratory rate (RR; P &lt; .01), and pulse oximetry (spO2; P &lt; .01); ALS patients also showed improvement in RR (P &lt; .01), and in spO2 (P = .005). There was no significant improvement in HR for ALS providers (P = .189).

There was a significant difference in arrival time of BLS to the time of naloxone administration between the two groups, with shorter times in the BLS group compared to the ALS group (1.9 minutes versus 9.8 minutes; P &lt; .01); BLS administration was 7.8 minutes faster when compared to ALS administration (95% CI, 6.2-9.3 minutes).

Conclusions:

Patients improved similarly and received naloxone therapy sooner when treated by BLS agencies carrying naloxone than those who awaited ALS arrival. All EMS systems should consider allowing BLS to carry and administer naloxone for an effective and potentially faster naloxone administration when treating respiratory compromise related to opiate overdose.

Defining the Correlation Between Heroin Overdose and Length of Hospital Admissions

Background:: Heroin has had an overwhelming impact on public welfare and health resources. National surveillance data indicate a 25% increase in drug overdose deaths in Ohio between 2012 and 2017, ranking the state second in terms of drug overdose deaths associated with opioids. Objective:: The primary objective of this evaluation was to determine the length of hospital stay in suspected or confirmed heroin overdose. Methods:: This retrospective analysis evaluated adult patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) at Mercy Health St Vincent Medical Center with confirmed or suspected heroin overdose. Patient data were obtained from the International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, code reports. The study site is a 462-bed academic medical center with a level 1 trauma designation located in downtown Toledo, OH. Results:: One-hundred and one patients were included in this study: 49 presented to the ED and were subsequently admitted, while 52 were evaluated in the ED and discharged. No statistically significant differences in demographic data were identified. The average length of stay for admitted patients was 4.39 days (range = 0-22 days) with an average of 1.91days in the intensive care unit and 2.48 days on a general medicine floor. Higher average amounts of naloxone administered prior to presentation to the ED were found to predict an admission to the intensive care unit (6.48 mg vs 2.43 mg, P = .0208). The most frequent necessary interventions were central line placement (16/49, 32.7%) and mechanical ventilation (15/49, 30.6%). Seven patients (14.3%) experienced a cardiac arrest. Conclusion:: Heroin overdoses continue to require emergent interventions and consume numerous health care resources. Investment in strategies for prevention of overdose and the subsequent utilization of resources is paramount in controlling the heroin epidemic in Ohio and nationally.

Pharmacokinetics of a novel, approved, 1.4-mg intranasal naloxone formulation for reversal of opioid overdose-a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Intranasal (i.n.) naloxone is an established treatment for opioid overdose. Anyone likely to witness an overdose should have access to the antidote. We aimed to determine whether an i.n. formulation delivering 1.4 mg naloxone hydrochloride would achieve systemic exposure comparable to that of 0.8 mg intramuscular (i.m.) naloxone.

DESIGN

Open, randomized four-way cross-over trial.

SETTING

Clinical Trials Units in St Olav's Hospital, Trondheim and Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-two healthy human volunteers, 10 women, median age = 25.8 years.

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

One and two doses of i.n. 1.4 mg naloxone compared with i.m. 0.8 mg and intravenous (i.v.) 0.4 mg naloxone.

MEASUREMENTS

Quantification of plasma naloxone was performed by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic non-compartment analyses were used for the main analyses. A non-parametric pharmacokinetic population model was developed for Monte Carlo simulations of different dosing scenarios.

FINDINGS

Area under the curve from administration to last measured concentration (AUC_0-last ) for i.n. 1.4 mg and i.m. 0.8 mg were 2.62 ± 0.94 and 3.09 ± 0.64 h × ng/ml, respectively (P = 0.33). Maximum concentration (C_max ) was 2.36 ± 0.68 ng/ml for i.n. 1.4 mg and 3.73 ± 3.34 for i.m. 0.8 mg (P = 0.72). Two i.n. doses showed dose linearity and achieved a C_max of 4.18 ± 1.53 ng/ml. T_max was reached after 20.2 ± 9.4 minutes for i.n. 1.4 mg and 13.6 ± 15.4 minutes for i.m. 0.8 mg (P = 0.098). The absolute bioavailability for i.n. 1.4 mg was 0.49 (±0.24), while the relative i.n./i.m. bioavailability was 0.52 (±0.25).

CONCLUSION

Intranasal 1.4 mg naloxone provides adequate systemic concentrations to treat opioid overdose compared with intramuscular 0.8 mg, without statistical difference on maximum plasma concentration, time to maximum plasma concentration or area under the curve. Simulations support its appropriateness both as peer administered antidote and for titration of treatment by professionals.

National Systematic Legal Review of State Policies on Emergency Medical Services Licensure Levels' Authority to Administer Opioid Antagonists

OBJECTIVE

Previous research conducted in November 2013 found there were a limited number of states and territories in the United States (US) that authorize emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and emergency medical responders (EMRs) to administer opioid antagonists. Given the continued increase in the number of opioid-related overdoses and deaths, many states have changed their policies to authorize EMTs and EMRs to administer opioid antagonists. The goal of this study is to provide an updated description of policy on EMS licensure levels' authority to administer opioid antagonists for all 50 US states, the District of Columbia (DC), and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (PR).

METHODS

State law and scopes of practice were systematically reviewed using a multi-tiered approach to determine each state's legally-defined EMS licensure levels and their authority to administer an opioid antagonist. State law, state EMS websites, and state EMS scope of practice documents were identified and searched using Google Advanced Search with Boolean Search Strings. Initial results of the review were sent to each state office of EMS for review and comment.

RESULTS

As of September 1, 2017, 49 states and DC authorize EMTs to administer an opioid antagonist. Among the 40 US jurisdictions (39 states and DC) that define the EMR or a comparable first responder licensure level in state law, 37 states and DC authorize their EMRs to administer an opioid antagonist. Paramedics are authorized to administer opioid antagonists in all 50 states, DC, and PR. All 49 of the US jurisdictions (48 states and DC) that define the advanced emergency medical technician (AEMT) or a comparable intermediate EMS licensure level in state law authorize their AEMTs to administer an opioid antagonist.

CONCLUSIONS

49 out of 52 US jurisdictions (50 states, DC, and PR) authorize all existing levels of EMS licensure levels to administer an opioid antagonist. Expanding access to this medication can save lives, especially in communities that have limited advanced life support coverage.

Multiple Naloxone Administrations Among Emergency Medical Service Providers is Increasing

BACKGROUND

Opioid overdoses are at epidemic levels in the United States. Emergency Medical Service (EMS) providers may administer naloxone to restore patient breathing and prevent respiratory arrest. There was a need for contemporary data to examine the number of naloxone administrations in an EMS encounter.

METHODS

Using data from the National Emergency Medical Services Information System, we examined data from 2012-5 to determine trends in patients receiving multiple naloxone administrations (MNAs). Logistic regression including demographic, clinical, and operational information was used to examine factors associated with MNA.

RESULTS

Among all events where naloxone was administered only 16.7% of the 911 calls specifically identified the medical emergency as a drug ingestion or poisoning event. The percentage of patients receiving MNA increased from 14.5% in 2012 to 18.2% in 2015, which represents a 26% increase in MNA in 4 years. Patients aged 20-29 had the highest percentage of MNA (21.1%). Patients in the Northeast and the Midwest had the highest relative MNA (Chi Squared = 539.5, p < 0.01 and Chi Squared = 351.2, p < 0.01, respectively). The logistic regression model showed that the adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for MNA were greatest among people who live in the Northeast (aOR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.13-1.22) and for men (aOR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.10-1.16), but lower for suburban and rural areas (aOR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.72-0.80 and aOR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.80-0.89) and lowest for wilderness areas (aOR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.68-0.84). Higher adjusted odds of MNA occurred when an advanced life support (ALS 2) level of service was provided compared to basic life support (BLS) ambulances (aOR = 2.15, 95% CI = 1.45-3.16) and when the dispatch complaint indicated there was a drug poisoning event (aOR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.09-1.16). Reported layperson naloxone administration prior to EMS arrival was rare (1%).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that frequency of MNA is growing over time and is regionally dependent. MNA may be a barometer of the potency of the opioid involved in the overdose. The increase in MNA provides support for a dosage review. Better identification of opioid related events in the dispatch system could lead to a better match of services with patient needs.