Brief overdose education can significantly increase accurate recognition of opioid overdose among heroin users

BackgroundIn an effort to increase effective intervention following opioid overdose, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) has implemented programs where bystanders are given brief education in recognizing the signs of opioid overdose and how to provide intervention, including the use of naloxone. The current study sought to assess the ability of NYSDOH training to increase accurate identification of opioid and non-opioid overdose, and naloxone use among heroin users.MethodsEighty-four participants completed a test on overdose knowledge comprised of 16 putative overdose scenarios. Forty-four individuals completed the questionnaire immediately prior to and following standard overdose prevention training. A control group (n = 40), who opted out of training, completed the questionnaire just once.ResultsOverdose training significantly increased participants’ ability to accurately identify opioid overdose (p < 0.05), and scenarios where naloxone administration was indicated (p < 0.05). Training did not alter recognition of non-opioid overdose or non-overdose situations where naloxone should not be administered.ConclusionsThe data indicate that overdose prevention training improves participants’ knowledge of opioid overdose and naloxone use, but naloxone may be administered in some situations where it is not warranted. Training curriculum could be improved by teaching individuals to recognize symptoms of non-opioid drug over-intoxication.     

What has been achieved in HIV prevention,treatment and care for people who inject drugs, 2010–2012? A review of the six highest burden countries

ObjectiveIn 2010 the international HIV/AIDS community called on countries to take action to prevent HIV transmission among people who inject drugs (PWID). To set a baseline we proposed an “accountability matrix”, focusing upon six countries accounting for half of the global population of PWID: China, Malaysia, Russia, Ukraine, Vietnam and the USA. Two years on, we review progress.DesignWe searched peer-reviewed literature, conducted online searches, and contacted experts for ‘grey’ literature. We limited searches to documents published since December 2009 and used decision rules endorsed in earlier reviews.ResultsPolicy shifts are increasing coverage of key interventions for PWID in China, Malaysia, Vietnam and Ukraine. Increases in PWID receiving antiretroviral treatment (ART) and opioid substitution treatment (OST) in both Vietnam and China, and a shift in Malaysia from a punitive law enforcement approach to evidence-based treatment are promising developments. The USA and Russia have had no advances on PWID access to needle and syringe programmes (NSP), OST or ART. There have also been policy setbacks in these countries, with Russia reaffirming its stance against OST and closing down access to information on methadone, and the USA reinstituting its Congressional ban on Federal funding for NSPs.ConclusionsPrevention of HIV infection and access to HIV treatment for PWID is possible. Whether countries with concentrated epidemics among PWID will meet goals of achieving universal access and eliminating new HIV infections remains unknown. As long as law enforcement responses counter public health responses, health-seeking behaviour and health service delivery will be limited.     

我国不同地区阿片类镇痛药物在癌痛治疗中的使用情况及个人经济负担

摘 要 目的：了解我国不同地区阿片类镇痛药的使用情况与趋势,评估癌痛治疗吗啡临床需要量及满足临床需要的程度,评价个人药费可负担性,为我国合理使用阿片类镇痛药,提高癌痛控制水平和患者生活质量提出政策建议。方法：采用回顾性分析方法,分析2006~2016年我国7个片区的阿片类镇痛药使用强度（MUD）及其各阶段年复合增长率（CAGR）。基于我国7个片区肿瘤登记数据和国际疼痛标准治疗指南,测算2015年不同地区的吗啡需要量。将药品价格以DDD值标化为限定日费用(DDC),采用改进后的WHO/HAI标准调查法评价阿片类镇痛药用于癌痛治疗的个人药费可负担性。结果：全国MUD从2006年的1.45DDD/10万人天增长至2016年的6.93DDD/10万人天,整体增长率呈现为前高后低。不同地区间MUD差异较大,且MUD极差有逐年加大趋势。2016年MUD最大地区为华南（9.67DDD/10万人天）,最小为西北（3.28DDD/10万人天）。2015年,全国吗啡等效当量实际使用量仅占癌痛治疗吗啡需要量的21.5%,华东（26%）和华南（36%）等地区高于西南（11%）和西北（12%）。各类阿片类镇痛药的DDC范围为10.80～848.88元,除吗啡注射剂外,其余药品的疗程自付费用均大于1 d的日均可支配收入。结论：我国阿片类镇痛药用于癌痛治疗整体使用不足,且不同经济水平的地区使用差异较大,癌痛患者长期使用镇痛药物治疗的个人药费负担较重。应全面加快推行癌痛规范化治疗示范病房和疼痛门诊,完善相应保障体系,合理引导广大城乡居民可负担的癌痛治疗药品价格,降低个人费用负担,提高癌症患者生存质量,使更多癌痛患者得到经济有效的治疗。     

Do more opioid policies reduce opioid dispensing in traditional medicaid?: A national analysis

BackgroundSeveral Medicaid programs have implemented approaches to ensure the appropriateness of opioid utilization and decrease opioid dispensing.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether Medicaid opioid harm reduction strategies (OHRS) resulted in a decrease in opioid claims, costs, or units reimbursed per beneficiary.MethodsThe number of OHRS was determined for each state's fee-for-service (FFS) Medicaid program according to previously published data. Publically available FFS Medicaid data were tabulated by state for opioid claims, costs, and units reimbursed in state fiscal years 2016 and 2017. Multivariable generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were utilized to analyze the data.ResultsGEE results indicated that OHRS intensity or change in OHRS did not impact opioid claims or units reimbursed in Medicaid FFS programs. A significant finding on reduction in beneficiary-adjusted opioid costs was observed for states with two OHRS compared to states with no OHRS. There were no significant differences in opioid claims, units reimbursed, and costs based on states with 3 or fewer OHRS versus those with four or more. When examining the differential effect of each individual type of OHRS, there were no significant differences in opioid claims, units reimbursed, nor medication costs.ConclusionsThe number of OHRS may not be associated with opioid dispensing or utilization in FFS Medicaid programs. Other factors may have led to the decrease in opioid claims for Medicaid.     

Safety and efficacy of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir in patients with chronic hepatitis C genotypes 1–6 receiving opioid substitution therapy

BackgroundInternational guidelines recommend treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in people who inject drugs (PWID), including those on opioid substitution therapy (OST). The pangenotypic combination of glecaprevir and pibrentasvir has shown high sustained virologic response at post-treatment Week 12 (SVR12) in clinical trials. Herein, we evaluate the safety and efficacy of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir in patients receiving OST.MethodsPooled data from patients with HCV genotypes 1–6 who were treated with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir for 8, 12, or 16 weeks in eight Phase 2 and 3 trials were categorized by use of OST. Treatment completion, treatment adherence, SVR12, adverse events (AEs), and laboratory abnormalities were evaluated for patients receiving and not receiving OST.ResultsAmong 2256 patients, 157 (7%) were receiving OST. Compared with patients not receiving OST, OST patients were younger (mean age, 46.8 vs 52.8 years), male (69% vs 54%), white (93% vs 80%), HCV treatment-naïve (86% vs 72%), had HCV genotype 3 (60% vs 26%), and had a history of depression or bipolar disorder (43% vs 19%). Most patients completed (OST: 98% [n/N = 154/157]; non-OST: 99% [n/N = 2070/2099]) and were adherent (received ≥90% of study drug doses) to glecaprevir/pibrentasvir treatment (OST: 98% [n/N = 121/123]; non-OST: 99% [n/N = 1884/1905] among patients with available data). In the intention-to-treat population, SVR12 rates in OST and non-OST patients were 96.2% (n/N = 151/157; 95% CI 93.2–99.2) and 97.9% (n/N = 2055/2099; 95% CI 97.3–98.5), respectively. For OST patients, reasons for nonresponse included virologic relapse (<1%; n = 1), premature study drug discontinuation (<1%; n = 1), and loss to follow-up (3%; n = 4). AEs occurring in ≥10% of OST patients were headache, fatigue, and nausea. Drug-related serious AEs, AEs leading to study drug discontinuation, and Grade 3 or higher laboratory abnormalities were infrequent in both groups (<1%). No HCV reinfections occurred through post-treatment Week 12.ConclusionGlecaprevir/pibrentasvir is highly efficacious and well tolerated in HCV-infected patients receiving OST.     

Src family kinases involved in CXCL12-induced loss of acute morphine analgesia

Functional interactions between the chemokine receptor CXCR4 and opioid receptors have been reported in the brain, leading to a decreased morphine analgesic activity. However the cellular mechanisms responsible for this loss of opioid analgesia are largely unknown. Here we examined whether Src family-kinases (SFK)-linked mechanisms induced by CXCR4 contributed to the loss of acute morphine analgesia and could represent a new physiological anti-opioid signaling pathway. In this way, we showed by immunohistochemistry and western blot that CXCL12 rapidly activated SFK phosphorylation in vitro in primary cultured lumbar rat dorsal root ganglia (DRG) but also in vivo in the DRG and the spinal cord. We showed that SFK activation occurred in a sub population of sensory neurons, in spinal microglia but also in spinal nerve terminals expressing mu-(MOR) and delta-opioid (DOR) receptor. In addition we described that CXCR4 is detected in MOR- and DOR-immunoreactive neurons in the DRG and spinal cord. In vivo, we demonstrated that an intrathecal administration of CXCL12 (1 μg) significantly attenuated the subcutaneous morphine (4 mg/kg) analgesia. Conversely, pretreatment with a potent CXCR4 antagonist (5 μg) significantly enhanced morphine analgesia. Similar effects were obtained after an intrathecal injection of a specific SFK inhibitor, PP2 (10 μg). Furthermore, PP2 abrogated CXCL12-induced decrease in morphine analgesia by suppressing SFK activation in the spinal cord. In conclusion, our data highlight that CXCL12-induced loss of acute morphine analgesia is linked to Src family kinases activation.     

The missing ‘P’ in pain management: how the current opioid epidemic highlights the need for psychiatric services in chronic pain care

Objective

The prevalence of opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain has increased dramatically in recent years, with a parallel increase in opioid abuse, misuse and deaths from accidental overdose. We review epidemiological and clinical data that point to the important roles psychiatric disorders have in the use and abuse of opioids in patients with chronic pain.

Method

We conducted literature searches on the PubMed with the key phrases “chronic pain” and “opioid therapy” and selected those articles on the epidemiology of comorbidity between chronic pain and psychiatric disorders, the trends in long-term opioid therapy and the clinical trials that involved using opioid therapy for chronic pain or for mental health disorders. We then thoroughly reviewed the bibliography of all relevant articles to identify additional papers to be included in the present review.

Results

Chronic pain is highly comorbid with common psychiatric disorders. Patients with mental health and substance abuse disorders are more likely to receive long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain and more likely to have adverse outcomes from this therapy. Although opioids may exert brief antidepressant and anxiolytic effects in some patients with depression or anxiety, there is scant evidence for long-term benefit from opioid treatment of psychiatric disorders.

Conclusions

Opioids may be used in current clinical practice as the de facto and only psychiatric treatment for patients with chronic pain, despite little evidence for sustained benefit. The opioid epidemic thus reflects a serious unmet need for better recognition and treatment of common mental health problems in patients with chronic pain. Psychiatry is the missing P in chronic pain care.     

Treatment of acute naloxone-precipitated opioid withdrawal with buprenorphine

Naloxone is a frequently utilized and effective treatment to reverse the life-threatening effects of illicit opioid intoxication. Excessive naloxone dosing in these circumstances, however, may lead to naloxone-precipitated opioid withdrawal in individuals with opioid dependence. Buprenorphine, a partial mu-opioid agonist, is increasingly utilized in the Emergency Department (ED) for the treatment of opioid withdrawal syndrome but little is known regarding its utility in cases of naloxone-precipitated opioid withdrawal. We report a case of naloxone-precipitated opioid withdrawal that was effectively treated with sublingual buprenorphine. An older male was brought into the ED with signs and symptoms of opioid toxicity that was successfully treated with pre-hospital naloxone by Emergency Medical Services. He had a clinical opioid withdrawal scale (COWS) or 10 with abdominal cramping and unintentional defecation. After a discussion of treatment options and possible adverse effects with the patient, the decision was made to administer 4 mg/1 mg of sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone film. The patient reported a rapid improvement in symptoms and at 30 min posttreatment, his COWS was 4. His COWS decreased to 3 at 1 h and this was sustained for 4 h of observation. The patient was subsequently discharged to a treatment facility for opioid use disorder. This case highlights the potential of buprenorphine as a treatment modality for acute naloxone-precipitated opioid withdrawal. Due to the risks of worsening or sustained buprenorphine-precipitated opioid withdrawal, further research is warranted to identify patients who may benefit from this therapy.