Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2024 Oct;28(74):1–69. doi: 10.3310/YNRC8249

Take-home naloxone in multicentre emergency settings: the TIME feasibility cluster RCT.

Helen Snooks, Jonathan Benger, Fiona Bell, Sarah Black, Simon Dixon, Helena Emery, Bridie Angela Evans, Gordon Fuller, Rebecca Hoskins, Jane Hughes, Jenna Jones, Matthew Jones, Sasha Johnston, Jaqui Long, Chris Moore, Rakshita Parab, Richard Pilbery, Fiona C Sampson, Alan Watkins
PMCID: PMC11586806  PMID: 39487686

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Opioids kill more people than any other drug. Naloxone is an opioid antagonist which can be distributed in take-home 'kits' for peer administration (take-home naloxone).

AIM

To determine the feasibility of carrying out a definitive randomised controlled trial of take-home naloxone in emergency settings.

DESIGN

We used Welsh routine data (2015-21) to test the feasibility of developing a discriminant function to identify people at high risk of fatal opioid overdose. We carried out a cluster randomised controlled trial and qualitative study to examine experiences of service users and providers. We assessed feasibility of intervention and trial methods against predetermined progression criteria related to: site sign-up, staff trained, identification of eligible patients, proportion given kits, identification of people who died of opioid poisoning, data linkage and retrieval of outcomes.

SETTING

This study was carried out in the emergency environment; sites comprised an emergency department and associated ambulance service catchment area.

PARTICIPANTS

At intervention sites, we invited emergency department clinicians and paramedics to participate. We recruited adult patients who arrived at the emergency department or were attended to by ambulance paramedics for a problem related to opioid use with capacity to consent to receiving the take-home naloxone and related training.

INTERVENTIONS

Usual care comprised basic life support plus naloxone by paramedics or emergency department staff. The take-home naloxone intervention was offered in addition to usual care, with guidance for recipients on basic life support, the importance of calling the emergency services, duration of effect, safety and legality of naloxone administration.

DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION

With low numbers of opioid-related deaths (1105/3,227,396) and a high proportion having no contact with health services in the year before death, the predictive link between death and opioid-related healthcare events was weak. Logistic regression models indicated we would need to monitor one-third of the population to capture 75% of the decedents from opioid overdose in 1-year follow-up.

RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Four sites participated in the trial and 299 of 687 (44%) eligible clinical staff were trained. Sixty take-home naloxone kits were supplied to patients during 1-year recruitment. Eligible patients were not offered take-home naloxone kits 164 times: 'forgot' (n = 136); 'too busy' (n = 15); suspected intentional overdose (n = 3).

QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS

Service users had high levels of knowledge about take-home naloxone. They were supportive of the intervention but noted concerns about opioid withdrawal and resistance to attending hospital for an overdose. Service providers were positive about the intervention but reported barriers including difficulty with consenting and training high-risk opioid users.

HEALTH ECONOMICS

We were able to calculate costs to train staff at three sites (£40 per AS and £17 in Site 1 ED). No adverse events were reported. Progression criteria were not met - fewer than 50% of eligible staff were trained, fewer than 50% of eligible patients received the intervention and outcomes were not retrieved within reasonable timescales.

FUTURE WORK

The take-home naloxone intervention needs to be developed and evaluated in emergency care settings, with appropriate methods.

LIMITATIONS

The Take-home naloxone Intervention Multicentre Emergency setting study was interrupted by coronavirus disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not meet progression criteria for intervention or trial methods feasibility, so outcomes were not followed up and a fully powered trial is not planned.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN13232859.

FUNDING

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/91/04) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 74. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Plain language summary

This study found that it was not feasible to deliver or evaluate this form of take-home naloxone, using this study design, in emergency care.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Jones M, Bell F, Benger J, Black S, Buykx P, Dixon S, et al. Protocol for Take-home naloxone In Multicentre Emergency (TIME) settings: feasibility study. Pilot Feasib Stud 2020;6(1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/s40814-020-00626-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Lewer D, Brothers TD, Van Hest N, Hickman M, Holland A, Padmanathan P, Zaninotto P. Causes of death among people who used illicit opioids in England, 2001–18: a matched cohort study. Lancet Publ Health 2022;7(2):e126–35. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00254-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  3. Snowdon J. Drug overdose death rates in different countries: who should be alarmed? Austral Psychiat 2022;30(1):26–30. doi: 10.1177/10398562221075192. [DOI] [PubMed]
  4. van Amsterdam J, van den Brink W, Pierce M. Explaining the differences in opioid overdose deaths between Scotland and England/Wales: implications for European opioid policies. Eur Addict Res 2021;27(6):399–412. doi: 10.1159/000516165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  5. Pierce M, van Amsterdam J, Kalkman GA, Schellekens A, van den Brink W. Is Europe facing an opioid crisis like the United States? An analysis of opioid use and related adverse effects in 19 European countries between 2010 and 2018. Eur Psychiat 2021;64(1):e47. doi: 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2021.2219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  6. Black C. Review of Drugs: Phase One Report. London: Gov. UK; 2020.
  7. Shearing H. Drug deaths in England and Wales highest since 1993. BBC 2021.
  8. Ely J. Britain’s cocaine epidemic laid bare: Drug deaths hit record high with coke fatalities up 7-FOLD in decade as experts blame COVID lockdowns for fuelling addiction crisis and middle class’s love for ‘gear’ (which is delivered quicker than pizza!). Daily Mail 2022.
  9. McKenzie S. CNN. 2021. URL: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/07/europe/trainspotting-scotland-drug-related-deaths-cmd-intl/index.html (accessed 28 September 2023).
  10. Lewer D, Padmanathan P, Qummerul Arfeen Q, Denaxas S, Forbes H, Gonzalez-Izquierdo A, et al. Healthcare use by people who use illicit opioids (HUPIO): development of a cohort based on electronic primary care records in England. Wellcome Open Res 2020;5:282. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16431.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  11. O’Mara B. The effectiveness of changes to drug policy, regulation and legislation for reducing harms associated with opioids and supporting their medicinal use in Australia, Canada and the UK: a systematic review. Evid Base: J Evid Rev Key Policy Areas 2020;2020:79–110.
  12. Alho H, Dematteis M, Lembo D, Maremmani I, Roncero C, Somaini L. Opioid-related deaths in Europe: strategies for a comprehensive approach to address a major public health concern. Int J Drug Policy 2020;76:102616. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.102616. [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. Zibbell J, Howard J, Clarke SD, Ferrell A, Karon S. Non-Fatal Opioid Overdose and Associated Health Outcomes: Final Summary Report. US Department of Health and Human Services; 2019.
  14. Jiang R, Lee I, Lee TA, Pickard AS. The societal cost of heroin use disorder in the United States. PLOS ONE 2017;12(5):e0177323. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  15. Warner‐Smith M, Darke S, Day C. Morbidity associated with non‐fatal heroin overdose. Addiction 2002;97(8):963–7. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00132.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Stoové MA, Dietze PM, Jolley D. Overdose deaths following previous non‐fatal heroin overdose: record linkage of ambulance attendance and death registry data. Drug Alcohol Rev 2009;28(4):347–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2009.00057.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  17. Ryan JM, Spronken I. Drug related deaths in the community: a preventive role for accident and emergency departments? J Accid Emer Med 2000;17(4):272–3. doi: 10.1136/emj.17.4.272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  18. Baca CT, Grant KJ. Take‐home naloxone to reduce heroin death. Addiction 2005;100(12):1823–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01259.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  19. Public Health England. Take-Home Naloxone for Opioid Overdose in People Who Use Drugs. London: Public Health England; 2017.
  20. Yealy DM, Paris PM, Kaplan RM, Heller MB, Marini SE. The safety of prehospital naloxone administration by paramedics. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19(8):902–5. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(05)81566-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. McDonald R, Strang J. Are take‐home naloxone programmes effective? Systematic review utilizing application of the Bradford Hill criteria. Addiction 2016;111(7):1177–87. doi: 10.1111/add.13326. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  22. Walley AY, Xuan Z, Hackman HH, Quinn E, Doe-Simkins M, Sorensen-Alawad A, et al. Opioid overdose rates and implementation of overdose education and nasal naloxone distribution in Massachusetts: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ 2013;346:f174. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  23. Kerensky T, Walley AY. Opioid overdose prevention and naloxone rescue kits: what we know and what we don’t know. Addict Sci Clin Pract 2017;12(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s13722-016-0068-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  24. World Health Organization. WHO-UNODC ‘Stop Overdose Safely (SOS)’ Initiative. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020.
  25. Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Consideration of Naloxone. 2012.
  26. European Monitoring Centre for Drug and Drug Addiction. Take-Home Naloxone. European Monitoring Centre for Drug and Drug Addiction website: European Monitoring Centre for Drug and Drug Addiction; 2020.
  27. McDonald R, Campbell ND, Strang J. Twenty years of take-home naloxone for the prevention of overdose deaths from heroin and other opioids: conception and maturation. Drug Alcohol Depend 2017;178:176–87. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.05.001. [DOI] [PubMed]
  28. Public Health Wales. Substance Misuse: Harm Reduction Database Wales (HRD). Contract no.: 29/06/2022, Online. Wales: Public Health Wales; 2018.
  29. Skulberg AK, Tylleskär I, Valberg M, Braarud A-C, Dale J, Heyerdahl F, et al. Comparison of intranasal and intramuscular naloxone in opioid overdoses managed by ambulance staff: a double-dummy, randomised, controlled trial. Addiction 2022;117(6):1658–67. doi: 10.1111/add.15806. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  30. Rege SV, Ngo DA, Ait-Daoud N, Sharma S, Verplancken E, Holstege CP. Trends and characteristics of naloxone therapy reported to US poison centers. Addiction 2018;113(12):2309–15. doi: 10.1111/add.14378. [DOI] [PubMed]
  31. Rzasa Lynn R, Galinkin J. Naloxone dosage for opioid reversal: current evidence and clinical implications. Therap Adv Drug Safe 2018;9(1):63–88. doi: 10.1177/2042098617744161. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  32. Moustaqim-Barrette A, Dhillon D, Ng J, Sundvick K, Ali F, Elton-Marshall T, et al. Take-home naloxone programs for suspected opioid overdose in community settings: a scoping umbrella review. BMC Publ Health 2021;21(1):597. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-10497-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  33. Public Health Wales. Harm Reduction Database Wales: Take-Home Naloxone. Contract No.: 29/06/2022, Online. Wales: Public Health Wales; 2016.
  34. Public Health Scotland. National Naloxone Programme Scotland: Annual Monitoring Report 2019/20 and 2020/21. Glasgow: Public Health Scotland; 2022.
  35. Stam NC, Gerostamoulos D, Smith K, Pilgrim JL, Drummer OH. Challenges with take-home naloxone in reducing heroin mortality: a review of fatal heroin overdose cases in Victoria, Australia. Clin Toxicol 2019;57(5):325–30. doi: 10.1080/15563650.2018.1529319. [DOI] [PubMed]
  36. Moore C, Lloyd G, Oretti R, Russell I, Snooks H. Paramedic-supplied ‘Take Home’ Naloxone: protocol for cluster randomised feasibility study. BMJ Open 2014;4(3):e004712. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004712. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  37. Dwyer K, Walley AY, Langlois BK, Mitchell PM, Nelson KP, Cromwell J, Bernstein E. Opioid education and nasal naloxone rescue kits in the emergency department. Western J Emerg Med 2015;16(3):381–4. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2015.2.24909. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  38. Gunn AH, Smothers ZP, Schramm-Sapyta N, Freiermuth CE, MacEachern M, Muzyk AJ. The emergency department as an opportunity for naloxone distribution. Western J Emerg Med 2018;19(6):1036–42. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2018.8.38829. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  39. European Monitoring Centre for Drug and Drug Addiction. United Kingdom Country Drug Report. 2019.
  40. Welsh Government. Working Together To Reduce Harm: Substance Misuse Annual Report and Forward Look 2018. Welsh: Welsh Government; 2018.
  41. Turner D, Morgan G, Smith J. Harm Reduction Database Wales; Take Home Naloxone. Wales: Public Health Wales; 2018.
  42. NHS Scotland. National Naloxone Programme Scotland Monitoring Report 2017/2018. Information Services Division Scotland: NHS National Services Scotland; 2018.
  43. NHS Scotland. Prevalence of Problem Drug Use in Scotland 2015/16 Estimates. NHS National Services Scotland: Information Services Division Scotland; 2019.
  44. McDonald R, Eide D, Abel-Ollo K, Barnsdale L, Carter B, Clausen T, et al. A rapid assessment of take-home naloxone provision during COVID-19 in Europe. Int J Drug Policy 2022;107:103787. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2022.103787. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  45. Tas B, Humphreys K, McDonald RS, Strang JS. Should we worry that take-home naloxone availability may increase opioid use? Addiction 2019; 114(10):1723–5. doi: 10.1111/add.14637. [DOI] [PubMed]
  46. Abdelal R, Banerjee AR, Carlberg-Racich S, Darwaza N, Ito D, Epstein J. The need for multiple naloxone administrations for opioid overdose reversals: a review of the literature. Subst Abus 2022;43(1):774–84. doi: 10.1080/08897077.2021.2010252. [DOI] [PubMed]
  47. Tse WC, Djordjevic F, Borja V, Picco L, Lam T, Olsen A, et al. Does naloxone provision lead to increased substance use? A systematic review to assess if there is evidence of a ‘moral hazard’ associated with naloxone supply. Int J Drug Policy 2022;100:103513. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103513. [DOI] [PubMed]
  48. McAuley A, Bouttell J, Barnsdale L, Mackay D, Lewsey J, Hunter C, Robinson M. Evaluating the impact of a national naloxone programme on ambulance attendance at overdose incidents: a controlled time–series analysis. Addiction 2017;112(2):301–8. doi: 10.1111/add.13602. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  49. Moore C, Lloyd G, Oretti R, Russell IT, Snooks H. Paramedic Supplied ‘Take Home’ Naloxone: A Randomised Feasibility Study. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and the British Association for Accident; 2016.
  50. Kestler A, Buxton J, Meckling G, Giesler A, Lee M, Fuller K, et al. Factors associated with participation in an emergency department–based take-home naloxone program for at-risk opioid users. Ann Emerg Med 2017;69(3):340–6. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.07.027. [DOI] [PubMed]
  51. Public Health England. Adult Substance Misuse Treatment Statistics 2019–2020: Report. London: Public Health England; 2020.
  52. Bradbury M, Lewer D. Role of community drug and alcohol services in physical healthcare for people who use illicit opioids: a qualitative study of clinical staff in the UK. BMJ Open 2021;11(7):e046577. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046577. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  53. Lyons RA, Jones KH, John G, Brooks CJ, Verplancke J-P, Ford DV, et al. The SAIL databank: linking multiple health and social care datasets. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2009;9:1–8. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-9-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  54. Digital Health and Care Wales. PEDW Data Online. URL: https://dhcw.nhs.wales/information-services/health-intelligence/pedw-data-online/ (accessed 28 September 2023).
  55. Fuller GW, Jones M, Bradshaw CA, Jones J, John A, Snooks H, Watkins A. The socio-demographics and health service use of opioid overdose decedents in Wales: a cross-sectional data linkage study. Eur Addict Res 2022;28(3):226–30. doi: 10.1159/000521614. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  56. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014;348:g1687. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1687. [DOI] [PubMed]
  57. Dowling J, Isbister GK, Kirkpatrick CM, Naidoo D, Graudins A. Population pharmacokinetics of intravenous, intramuscular, and intranasal naloxone in human volunteers. Ther Drug Monit 2008;30(4):490–6. doi: 10.1097/FTD.0b013e3181816214. [DOI] [PubMed]
  58. Kerr D, Kelly AM, Dietze P, Jolley D, Barger B. Randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and safety of intranasal and intramuscular naloxone for the treatment of suspected heroin overdose. Addiction 2009;104(12):2067–74. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02724.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  59. Kelly AM, Kerr D, Koutsogiannis Z, Dietze P, Patrick I, Walker T. Randomised trial of intranasal versus intramuscular naloxone in prehospital treatment for suspected opioid overdose. Med J Aust 2005;182(1):24–7. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2005.tb06550.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  60. Furyk JS, Lawton LD, Ting JY, McD Taylor D; Group ACfEMCT. Informed consent in emergency care research: an oxymoron? Emerg Med Austral 2017;29(1):110–2. doi: 10.1111/1742-6723.12642. [DOI] [PubMed]
  61. May C, Finch T. Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: an outline of normalization process theory. Sociology 2009;43(3):535–54.
  62. Jones KC, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2021. URL: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/92342 (accessed 25 June 2024).
  63. NHS England. NHS England National Cost Collection 2020/21 Index. 2022.
  64. Murray E, Treweek S, Pope C, MacFarlane A, Ballini L, Dowrick C, et al. Normalisation process theory: a framework for developing, evaluating and implementing complex interventions. BMC Med 2010;8(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  65. Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2015.
  66. Silverman D. Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2013.
  67. Berends L, Johnston J. Using multiple coders to enhance qualitative analysis: The case of interviews with consumers of drug treatment. Addict Res Theor 2005;13(4):373–81.
  68. Huddlestone L, Turner J, Eborall H, Hudson N, Davies M, Martin G. Application of normalisation process theory in understanding implementation processes in primary care settings in the UK: a systematic review. BMC Fam Pract 2020;21(1):1–16. doi: 10.1186/s12875-020-01107-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  69. Eldridge SM, Chan CL, Campbell MJ, Bond CM, Hopewell S, Thabane L, Lancaster GA; PAFS Consensus Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. BMJ 2016;355:i5239. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i5239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  70. Wait S. Engaging nurses in patient recruitment to research trials in the emergency department. Emerg Nurse 2022;31(5):27–31. doi: 10.7748/en.2022.e2137. [DOI] [PubMed]
  71. Langham S, Wright A, Kenworthy J, Grieve R, Dunlop WC. Cost-effectiveness of take-home naloxone for the prevention of overdose fatalities among heroin users in the United Kingdom. Value Health 2018;21(4):407–15. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.07.014. [DOI] [PubMed]
  72. UK Standards for Public Involvement. URL: https://sites.google.com/nihr.ac.uk/pi-standards/standards (accessed 15 January 2024).
  73. Evans BA, Porter A, Snooks H, Burholt V. A co-produced method to involve service users in research: the SUCCESS model. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019;19(1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0671-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  74. Jinks C, Carter P, Rhodes C, Taylor R, Beech R, Dziedzic K, et al. Patient and public involvement in primary care research: an example of ensuring its sustainability. Res Invol Engag 2016;2(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0015-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  75. Evans BA, Carson-Stevens A, Cooper A, Davies F, Edwards M, Harrington B, et al. Implementing public involvement throughout the research process: experience and learning from the GPs in EDs study. Health Expect 2022;25:2471–84. doi: 10.1111/hex.13566. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  76. Staley K. Changing what researchers’ think and do’: is this how involvement impacts on research? Research for All 2017;1:158–67.
  77. Staniszewska S, Brett J, Mockford C, Barber R. The GRIPP checklist: strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011;27(4):391–9. doi: 10.1017/S0266462311000481. [DOI] [PubMed]
  78. Scharf BM, Sabat DJ, Brothers JM, Margolis AM, Levy MJ. Best practices for a novel EMS: based naloxone leave behind program. Prehosp Emerg Care 2021;25(3):418–26. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2020.1771490. [DOI] [PubMed]
  79. Drainoni M-L, Koppelman EA, Feldman JA, Walley AY, Mitchell PM, Ellison J, Bernstein E. Why is it so hard to implement change? A qualitative examination of barriers and facilitators to distribution of naloxone for overdose prevention in a safety net environment. BMC Res Notes 2016;9(1):465. doi: 10.1186/s13104-016-2268-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  80. Lacroix L, Thurgur L, Orkin AM, Perry JJ, Stiell IG. Emergency physicians’ attitudes and perceived barriers to the implementation of take-home naloxone programs in Canadian emergency departments. CJEM 2018;20(1):46–52. doi: 10.1017/cem.2017.390. [DOI] [PubMed]
  81. Funke M, Kaplan MC, Glover H, Schramm-Sapyta N, Muzyk A, Mando-Vandrick J, et al. Increasing naloxone prescribing in the emergency department through education and electronic medical record work-aids. Joint Commiss J Qual Patient Safe 2021;47(6):364–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2021.03.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

RESOURCES