PubMed Update December 2016 / January 2017

49 in two months. Enjoy!

1) Multiple Fentanyl Overdoses - New Haven, Connecticut, June 23, 2016.

Tomassoni AJ, Hawk KF, Jubanyik K, Nogee DP, Durant T, Lynch KL, Patel R, Dinh D, Ulrich A, D'Onofrio G.

MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017 Feb 3;66(4):107-111. doi: 10.15585/mm6604a4.

Comments: Nice description of an outbreak of and public health response to insufflated fentanyl causing severe overdose.

2) Patient Simulation for Assessment of Layperson Management of Opioid Overdose With Intranasal Naloxone in a Recently Released Prisoner Cohort.

Kobayashi L, Green TC, Bowman SE, Ray MC, McKenzie MS, Rich JD.

Simul Healthc. 2017 Feb;12(1):22-27. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000182.

Comments: Interesting and rigorous way to evaluate overdose knowledge after naloxone provision.

3) Pharmacokinetics of a new, nasal formulation of naloxone.

Tylleskar I, Skulberg AK, Nilsen T, Skarra S, Jansook P, Dale O.

Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2017 Jan 31. doi: 10.1007/s00228-016-2191-1. [Epub ahead of print]

Comments: Data from another nasal naloxone in development.

4) In response to: Do heroin overdose patients require observation after receiving naloxone?

Eggleston W, Clemency BM.

Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2017 Jan 31:1-3. doi: 10.1080/15563650.2017.1284336. [Epub ahead of print] No abstract available.

Comments: Authors note that data on the safety of discharging patients after an hour of observation may not apply in the current era of synthetic opioids.

5) Pharmacists' role in opioid overdose: Kentucky pharmacists' willingness to participate in naloxone dispensing.

Freeman PR, Goodin A, Troske S, Strahl A, Fallin A, Green TC.

J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2017 Jan 28. pii: S1544-3191(16)31004-4. doi: 10.1016/j.japh.2016.12.064. [Epub ahead of print]

Comments: Mixed opinions.

6) 'Naloxone works': The politics of knowledge in 'evidence-based' drug policy.

Lancaster K, Treloar C, Ritter A.

Health (London). 2017 Jan 1:1363459316688520. doi: 10.1177/1363459316688520. [Epub ahead of print]

Comments: Interesting article on whose knowledge matters.

PubMed Update September 2016

15 papers this month.

1) Drugs, Guns and Cars: How Far We Have Come to Improve Safety in the United States; Yet We Still Have Far to Go.

Dodington J, Violano P, Baum CR, Bechtel K.

Pediatr Res. 2016 Sep 27. doi: 10.1038/pr.2016.193. [Epub ahead of print] Review.

Comment: Review of safety efforts in public health.

2) Primary Care Patient Experience with Naloxone Prescription.

Behar E, Rowe C, Santos GM, Murphy S, Coffin PO.

Ann Fam Med. 2016 Sep;14(5):431-6. doi: 10.1370/afm.1972.

Comment: This is a partner paper to the study results reported a couple of months ago. Mixed methods interviews with 60 randomly selected patients on longterm opioid therapy for chronic pain who had been prescribed naloxone. The co-prescribing effort reached a population that was not really accessing naloxone through other community distribution sites in San Francisco. Some reported improved safety with opioids since receiving naloxone and none reported more high-risk use behaviors. About half of those who had overdosed denied “overdose” and described it as a bad reaction.

3) Opioid Overdose Experience, Risk Behaviors, and Knowledge in Drug Users from a Rural versus an Urban Setting.

Dunn KE, Barrett FS, Yepez-Laubach C, Meyer AC, Hruska BJ, Petrush K, Berman S, Sigmon SC, Fingerhood M, Bigelow GE.

J Subst Abuse Treat. 2016 Dec;71:1-7.

Comment: Can’t access the paper, but the abstract suggests higher rates of overdose among rural drug users versus urban, while there were fewer overdose risk behaviors among rural users (potentially raising concerns about our risk behaviors, which were retrospectively developed).

4) Longitudinal changes in psychological distress in a cohort of people who inject drugs in Melbourne, Australia.

Scott N, Carrotte ER, Higgs P, Cogger S, Stoové MA, Aitken CK, Dietze PM.

Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016 Sep 11;168:140-146. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.08.638. [Epub ahead of print]

Comment: People who inject drugs have more psychological distress than the general population. Not surprised that intentional overdose (i.e. suicide attempt) is associated with psychological distress.

5) Notes from the Field: Furanyl-Fentanyl Overdose Events Caused by Smoking Contaminated Crack Cocaine - British Columbia, Canada, July 15-18, 2016.

Klar SA, Brodkin E, Gibson E, Padhi S, Predy C, Green C, Lee V.

MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016 Sep 23;65(37):1015-1016. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6537a6.

Comment: Fentanyl in crack. Ugh.

PubMed Update July 2016

11 papers this month, including an announcement that naloxone is now over-the-counter in Australia.

1) Factors associated with knowledge of a Good Samaritan Law among young adults who use prescription opioids non-medically.

Evans TI, Hadland SE, Clark MA, Green TC, Marshall BD.

Harm Reduct J. 2016 Jul 26;13(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s12954-016-0113-2.

Comments: Less than half knew about it.

2) Reasons for Benzodiazepine Use Among Persons Seeking Opioid Detoxification.

Stein MD, Kanabar M, Anderson BJ, Lembke A, Bailey GL.

J Subst Abuse Treat. 2016 Sep;68:57-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2016.06.008. Epub 2016 Jun 16.

Comments: Important work, as there’s an effort to also reduce benzodiazepine prescribing among people who are on opioids. Understanding the drivers of BDZ use should be helpful in structuring interventions. Anxiety and managing opioid withdrawal were two main reasons.

3) Trends in Methadone Distribution for Pain Treatment, Methadone Diversion, and Overdose Deaths - United States, 2002-2014.

Jones CM, Baldwin GT, Manocchio T, White JO, Mack KA.

MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016 Jul 8;65(26):667-71. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6526a2.

Comments: Interesting analysis of methadone prescribing, overdose, and diversion. It seems that efforts to reduce methadone, beginning in 2006, corresponded with reduced diversion and overdose; unfortunate that opioid overdose death overall continued to escalate.

4) Determinants of willingness to enroll in opioid agonist treatment among opioid dependent people who inject drugs in Ukraine.

Makarenko I, Mazhnaya A, Polonsky M, Marcus R, Bojko MJ, Filippovych S, Springer S, Dvoriak S, Altice FL.

Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016 Aug 1;165:213-20. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.06.011. Epub 2016 Jun 17.

Comments: Barriers to enrolling in agonist treatment in Ukraine.

PubMed Update May/June 2014

25 papers in two months. Anyone want to help with this?

1) Naloxone therapy in opioid overdose patients: intranasal or intravenous? A randomized clinical trial.

Sabzghabaee AM, Eizadi-Mood N, Yaraghi A, Zandifar S.

Arch Med Sci. 2014 May 12;10(2):309-14. doi: 10.5114/aoms.2014.42584. Epub 2014 May 13.

PMID: 24904666 [PubMed] Free PMC Article

Comments: More data to support the utility of intranasal naloxone for overdose reversal. There are, however, some odd findings that suggest caution in interpreting the paper. The authors used 0.4mg of naloxone for IV or IN administration, whereas most efforts utilize 2mg for IN administration given the lower bioavailability. Moreover, they had a higher level of consciousness in the IN group, which seems odd.

2) Brugada Phenocopy in Concomitant Ethanol and Heroin Overdose.

Rambod M, Elhanafi S, Mukherjee D.

Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2014 Jun 5. doi: 10.1111/anec.12171. [Epub ahead of print]

PMID: 24903622 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Comments: There are cases in which opioids can result in unstable heart rhythms. Usually this is related to high dose methadone, prolongation of the QT interval and torsades de pointes. In this case, heroin plus alcohol may have resulted in electrical conduction similar to “Brugada syndrome” which, in the interest of having an image in this blog post, I’ve posted an image of here. This type of electrical conduction is usually genetic and can result in sudden death through lethal arrhythmias.

3) A systematic review of community opioid overdose prevention and naloxone distribution programs.

Clark AK, Wilder CM, Winstanley EL.

J Addict Med. 2014 May-Jun;8(3):153-63. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000034.

PMID: 24874759 [PubMed - in process]

Comments: An impressive review of existing data for naloxone programs. Big kudos to the authors.

4) Intravenous methadone application as a serious risk factor for an overdose death: methadone-related fatalities in Hamburg from 2007 to 2012.

Iwersen-Bergmann S, Jungen H, Andresen-Streichert H, Müller A, Elakkary S, Püschel K, Heinemann A.

Int J Legal Med. 2014 May 25. [Epub ahead of print]

PMID: 24859230 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Comments: Interesting analysis of methadone-related deaths among methadone maintenance patients suggesting that, while overdose deaths are not common, many may have been related to IV use of methadone.

5) Abnormal intracellular calcium homeostasis associated with vulnerability in the nerve cells from heroin-dependent rat.

Liu X, Wang G, Pu H, Jing H.

Brain Res. 2014 Jul 14;1572:40-9. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2014.05.016. Epub 2014 May 20.

PMID: 24854119 [PubMed - in process]

Comments: Intriguing analysis of rat brains suggesting a key role of calcium in neurotoxicity related to heroin use. Do medications like verapamil, generally used to manage hypertension, have a role in preventing neurologic damage from opioids and perhaps even reducing overdose risk?

6) Source of prescription drugs used nonmedically in rural and urban populations.

Wang KH, Fiellin DA, Becker WC.

Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2014 Jul;40(4):292-303. doi: 10.3109/00952990.2014.907301. Epub 2014 May 22.

PMID: 24853143 [PubMed - in process]

Comments: Around a fifth of people using prescription opioids “non-medically” get them directly from a physician.

PubMed Update: Another Year in Overdose

Another year in overdose, September 2012-August 2013, generally in reverse chronological order, and following the same loosely-formed categories as last year. 

Once again, this is opioid focused and misses anything not listed in the PubMed database – which means it misses many interesting papers to which you are warmly welcomed to post links!

This year there were 99 papers, up from 81 in the preceding 12 months. 

Naloxone laws to reduce overdose - update

Back by popular demand is the map of U.S. states with legislation improving lay naloxone access. This post was delayed by a very active legislative season which I think has slowed down for the moment. As usual, this may have errors so please comment and I'll correct. 

This time I've only included states on the map (in black) with existing legislation improving lay naloxone access (e.g. not Oklahoma and Ohio as those bills target first responder access to naloxone, and not pending legislation that improves access in states - like California - that already have it). There are now lay naloxone access laws in CA, CO, CT, IL, KY, MA, MD, NJ, NC, NM, NY, OR, RI, VA, VT, WA, and the District of Columbia.

Unsuccessful bills this season included Maine and West Virginia.


Here's a summary from the Network for Public Health Law of naloxone (and Good Samaritan) laws that is kept regularly updated.

Naloxone laws to prevent overdose

There have been a slew of recent bills introduced or passed to improve naloxone access around the United States. Most of these are similar to previous U.S. models, although some are quite innovative. 

First, here's a summary from the Network for Public Health Law of naloxone (and Good Samaritan) laws as of October 2012, when 8 U.S. states had naloxone access laws (CA, CT, MA, NM, NY, IL, WA, RI).

Now, below are some links to recently approved or newly considered bill/law text. Please let us know if there are others and offer comments on any of these. It's getting hard to keep track, so I've added a simple map - black areas have naloxone laws and orange areas have pending laws (black states with an orange mark have existing laws with pending modifications).

New laws:

Virginia

Washington DC

Bills:

California (builds on existing law that is to sunset)
Colorado

Kentucky

Maryland

Massachusetts (not sure in what ways this expands on existing law Act 192)

New Jersey

New Mexico (appropriations to support naloxone distribution)

North Carolina

Oregon (SB 384, passage appears likely, bill with amendments here)

Vermont (bill appears to require only consideration of a law change to encourage naloxone prescription)

West Virginia (requires naloxone be offered to all patients receiving chronic opioid therapy)

Overdose Prevention Legislation Introduced in U.S. House of Representatives

On August 2, Maryland Democratic Congresswoman Donna Edwards introduced the "Stop Overdose Stat (SOS) Act" to the U.S. House with bipartisan cosponsorship. The bill is an expanded version of legislation that Edwards introduced but failed to pass in 2009. With any luck the increased attention to overdose at the federal level and greater bipartisan involvement in the drafting of the current bill (particularly with leadership from California Republican Mary Bono Mack) will get it the consideration it deserves.


The full text of the bill is available on GovTrack here. In its current form the bill would establish four important things at the federal level:

• A grant program, to be administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), supporting overdose prevention work including naloxone distribution. Government public health agencies and community-based organizations would be eligible. 

• An overdose surveillance system whereby CDC would aggregate and analyze overdose data from local, state and federal government agencies and private sources. Such data could potentially fill gaps in information and provide a consistent way of spotting national trends that can help direct resources and programming. Crucially, the bill would also direct CDC to provide surveillance technical assistance to local and state agencies, which could spur more detailed and accurate reporting.

• Development of a national plan to reduce overdose mortality, to be submitted to Congress by the Secretary for Health and Human Services no later than 180 days after the law is enacted. 

• New or expanded research grants on overdose through the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), which would include a review of current research funding and grants to evaluate existing or trial interventions.

The Drug Policy Alliance has a few more details in their press release. All in all, the bill is an exciting development and just the fact of its existence helps keep momentum going in the right direction with the Feds. OPA encourages American readers to thank their congressional representative if they co-sponsored the bill (there's a list here), and others to call their rep and encourage them to support it.

Who cares about overdose prosecutions?

by Matt Curtis

We’ve had a lot of good news around overdose lately. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released a report on community-based overdose prevention programs, and the Food and Drug Administration just held a hearing on making naloxone more available. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs – the annual social mixer for lifer international drug war bureaucrats – endorsed giving more attention and resources to overdose prevention. It seems like every week there’s more great work being done on the front lines.

One other thing you’ll notice if you keep track of overdose-related news in the United States is the number of criminal prosecutions following overdose deaths.

These prosecutions have their origins in the Narcotics Penalties and Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as the “Len Bias Law” after the star University of Maryland forward who died of cocaine poisoning two days after being drafted by the Boston Celtics. This was the first major federal legislation of the ‘war on drugs’ era, which amended the Controlled Substances Act to introduce mandatory minimum sentences and a number of other enhanced criminal drug penalties.  One novel feature of the law was that it significantly increased prison time for anyone convicted of supplying drugs “if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance.” Though federal prosecutions are still common, many states subsequently adopted similar legislation.

So, fine you say, isn’t this just drug dealers and corrupt pill mill doctors getting what they deserve for poisoning people?  A scan of news articles from the past couple years does show the occasional major dealer going down with a second-degree murder charge tacked on for an overdose. More common is a case like that of April Lynn Baker and Ryan Hartley in Maryland.

In 2008, Ms. Baker acquired methadone and morphine from a nursing home staff, which she traded to Mr. Hartley for marijuana. Hartley then sold a single 40 mg methadone wafer and 20 ml of liquid morphine to Brandon Sgaggero, who was found dead from an apparent overdose five days later. In describing Baker and Hartley as drug dealers, prosecutors note that both used drugs themselves, which is what led Sgaggero to seek out Hartley, and that Hartley sold to Sgaggero on only one occasion. In the event, Baker was sentenced to three years in prison and Hartley six.

Other examples abound, in Tennessee, Wisconsin, Washington and elsewhere. We’ve even seen prosecution of people for not adequately responding to a witnessed overdose, as in this case in Virginia.

The way in which criminal liability for overdose deaths is currently handled is very difficult to square with our rhetoric about harm reduction and drug policy. Yet I have rarely have heard colleagues in harm reduction or the broader public health and medical fields even mention the issue. This may be because the issue presents itself infrequently in the context of harm reduction services, and it’s even less often brought to the attention of people working in policy or academia. For those cognizant of overdose prosecutions, I suspect there’s a degree of ambivalence related to the getting-what-they-deserve issue. Among the many people working in harm reduction now who come from a professional rather than activist background, many may feel that the issue lies outside the scope of public health or social work.

So I think it’s time to take a deeper look at this issue, and it’s time for harm reduction and drug policy reform advocates to take it on. What is the best way to do so is a little more complicated, and something I will address in future posts around some of these questions:

• What is the scope of the problem? Where and how are overdose-related prosecutions happening?
• Should sellers be responsible for outcomes, and if so then under what circumstances? Should the expectation of potential harm from illegal drug use be a legitimate defense?
• How or why should we approach this differently than sellers of other (potentially) adulterated products, like produce contaminated with E. coli or counterfeit medication?
• People who use drugs tend not to keep a log of who they buy from, and medical examiners can’t determine the provenance of a morphine or cocaine metabolite. So is it appropriate to prosecute someone for an act that cannot be forensically linked to the outcome?
• People in drug policy reform often say something akin to ‘No one should be incarcerated for a petty, nonviolent drug crime.’ Where is the line drawn? Who is a drug dealer? Are there any circumstances under which supplying drugs that lead to “death or serious bodily injury" should result in criminal liability, and if so, in the current system is there any way to fairly determine guilt?

I admit some of these questions are a bit loaded. I don’t have the answers figured out though, and welcome comments, counterarguments, data, and anything else you would like to contribute.

New York Law Protects People from Criminal Prosecution When Reporting an Overdose

Great news today from the State of New York, where Governor Andrew Cuomo has signed legislation to protect people who call emergency services to report an overdose from arrest or prosecution for drug possession. As State Senator John DeFrancisco said when passing the legislation last month:

"The primary reason people do not call 911 or go to the hospital for an overdose is fear of prosecution. This bill doesn't condone drug use, but rather, acknowledges the importance of helping a victim and spurring a response from witnesses that may help protect the well-being of another person."

More background on the law can be found here, and the complete text of the legislation is available on the NYS Senate website.

Join Us in Exploring How Laws and Policies Can be Used to Address the Opioid Overdose Epidemic

By Leo Beletsky

Leo Beletsky is a lawyer and a longtime advocate for overdose prevention programs, and is currently with the Division of Global Public Health at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine. This is the first in a series of articles on overdose law and policy that Leo will be spearheading here at OPA.

As others have pointed out on this blog, there is a growing recognition of the toll that overdose is taking on families and communities in the United States and around the globe. As the issue has started to become too large to ignore, governments' knee-jerk response has always harkened back to the same old “supply reduction” policy strategies, such as closing down clandestine labs, going after rogue doctors and ‘pill-mills,’ creating barriers to drug diversion from the pharmaceutical supply chains, and interrupting drug trafficking routes from abroad.

This approach is the cornerstone of the White House ONDCP Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention Plan published earlier this year.  Although “demand reduction” approaches such as public education about overdose risks figure among the report’s recommendations, the document does little to acknowledge that many of these well-worn promises of ever-stricter enforcement and requirements for educational outreach have continued to fail.  Even in the best-case scenario, many of the solutions offered by the White House would take years to implement and even longer to evaluate to determine their effectiveness.