Psychostimulant drug co-ingestion in non-fatal opioid overdose

Siri Shastry , Joshua Shulman , Kim Aldy , Jeffrey Brent , Paul Wax , Alex F. Manini , On behalf of the Toxicology Investigators Consortium Fentalog Study Group
{"title":"Psychostimulant drug co-ingestion in non-fatal opioid overdose","authors":"Siri Shastry ,&nbsp;Joshua Shulman ,&nbsp;Kim Aldy ,&nbsp;Jeffrey Brent ,&nbsp;Paul Wax ,&nbsp;Alex F. Manini ,&nbsp;On behalf of the Toxicology Investigators Consortium Fentalog Study Group","doi":"10.1016/j.dadr.2024.100223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>In 2019, there were over 16,000 deaths from psychostimulant overdose with 53.5% also involving an opioid. Given the substantial mortality stemming from opioid and psychostimulant co-exposure, evaluation of clinical management in this population is critical but remains understudied. This study aims to characterize and compare clinical management and outcomes in emergency department (ED) overdose patients with analytically confirmed exposure to both opioids and psychostimulants with those exposed to opioids alone.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This was a secondary analysis of a prospective consecutive cohort of ED patients age 18+ with opioid overdose at 9 hospital sites from September 21, 2020 to August 17, 2021. Toxicologic analysis was performed using liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Patients were divided into opioid-only (OO) and opioid plus psychostimulants (OS) groups. The primary outcome was total naloxone bolus dose administered. Secondary outcomes included endotracheal intubation, cardiac arrest, troponin elevation, and abnormal presenting vital signs. We employed t-tests, chi-squared analyses and multivariable regression models to compare outcomes between OO and OS groups.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 378 enrollees with confirmed opioid overdose, 207 (54.8%) had psychostimulants present. OO patients were significantly older (mean 45.2 versus 40.6 years, p &lt; 0.01). OS patients had significantly higher total naloxone requirements (mean total dose 2.79<!--> <!-->mg versus 2.12<!--> <!-->mg, p = 0.009). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Approximately half of ED patients with confirmed opioid exposures were also positive for psychostimulants. Patients in the OS group required significantly higher naloxone doses, suggesting potential greater overdose severity.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72841,"journal":{"name":"Drug and alcohol dependence reports","volume":"10 ","pages":"Article 100223"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772724624000076/pdfft?md5=230eef3f4634794a426ac5f3a4c7d669&pid=1-s2.0-S2772724624000076-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug and alcohol dependence reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772724624000076","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

In 2019, there were over 16,000 deaths from psychostimulant overdose with 53.5% also involving an opioid. Given the substantial mortality stemming from opioid and psychostimulant co-exposure, evaluation of clinical management in this population is critical but remains understudied. This study aims to characterize and compare clinical management and outcomes in emergency department (ED) overdose patients with analytically confirmed exposure to both opioids and psychostimulants with those exposed to opioids alone.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis of a prospective consecutive cohort of ED patients age 18+ with opioid overdose at 9 hospital sites from September 21, 2020 to August 17, 2021. Toxicologic analysis was performed using liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Patients were divided into opioid-only (OO) and opioid plus psychostimulants (OS) groups. The primary outcome was total naloxone bolus dose administered. Secondary outcomes included endotracheal intubation, cardiac arrest, troponin elevation, and abnormal presenting vital signs. We employed t-tests, chi-squared analyses and multivariable regression models to compare outcomes between OO and OS groups.

Results

Of 378 enrollees with confirmed opioid overdose, 207 (54.8%) had psychostimulants present. OO patients were significantly older (mean 45.2 versus 40.6 years, p < 0.01). OS patients had significantly higher total naloxone requirements (mean total dose 2.79 mg versus 2.12 mg, p = 0.009). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes.

Conclusion

Approximately half of ED patients with confirmed opioid exposures were also positive for psychostimulants. Patients in the OS group required significantly higher naloxone doses, suggesting potential greater overdose severity.

非致命性阿片类药物过量中的精神兴奋剂共同摄入
导言:2019 年,有超过 16,000 人死于精神刺激剂过量,其中 53.5% 同时涉及阿片类药物。鉴于阿片类药物和精神刺激剂共同暴露导致的死亡率很高,对这一人群的临床管理评估至关重要,但研究仍然不足。本研究旨在对经分析证实同时暴露于阿片类药物和精神刺激剂的急诊科(ED)用药过量患者与仅暴露于阿片类药物的患者的临床管理和结果进行分析和比较。毒理学分析采用液相色谱四极杆飞行时间质谱法进行。患者分为纯阿片类药物组(OO)和阿片类药物加精神刺激剂组(OS)。主要结果是纳洛酮栓剂总用量。次要结果包括气管插管、心脏骤停、肌钙蛋白升高和生命体征异常。我们采用了 t 检验、卡方分析和多变量回归模型来比较 OO 组和 OS 组的结果。OO患者的年龄明显偏大(平均 45.2 岁对 40.6 岁,P < 0.01)。OS 患者的纳洛酮总需求量明显更高(平均总剂量为 2.79 毫克对 2.12 毫克,p = 0.009)。在次要结果方面没有明显差异。结论在已确认阿片类药物暴露的急诊患者中,约有一半人的精神兴奋剂检测结果也呈阳性。OS 组患者所需的纳洛酮剂量明显更高,这表明用药过量的严重程度可能更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Drug and alcohol dependence reports
Drug and alcohol dependence reports Psychiatry and Mental Health
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
100 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信