多中心急救环境中的居家纳洛酮:TIME 可行性分组 RCT。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
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
{"title":"多中心急救环境中的居家纳洛酮:TIME 可行性分组 RCT。","authors":"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","doi":"10.3310/YNRC8249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine the feasibility of carrying out a definitive randomised controlled trial of take-home naloxone in emergency settings.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>This study was carried out in the emergency environment; sites comprised an emergency department and associated ambulance service catchment area.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Discriminant function: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Randomised controlled trial: </strong>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' (<i>n</i> = 136); 'too busy' (<i>n</i> = 15); suspected intentional overdose (<i>n</i> = 3).</p><p><strong>Qualitative interviews: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Health economics: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>The take-home naloxone intervention needs to be developed and evaluated in emergency care settings, with appropriate methods.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The Take-home naloxone Intervention Multicentre Emergency setting study was interrupted by coronavirus disease.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This trial is registered as ISRCTN13232859.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>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 <i>Health Technology Assessment</i>; Vol. 28, No. 74. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":12898,"journal":{"name":"Health technology assessment","volume":"28 74","pages":"1-69"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Take-home naloxone in multicentre emergency settings: the TIME feasibility cluster RCT.\",\"authors\":\"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\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/YNRC8249\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine the feasibility of carrying out a definitive randomised controlled trial of take-home naloxone in emergency settings.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>This study was carried out in the emergency environment; sites comprised an emergency department and associated ambulance service catchment area.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Discriminant function: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Randomised controlled trial: </strong>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' (<i>n</i> = 136); 'too busy' (<i>n</i> = 15); suspected intentional overdose (<i>n</i> = 3).</p><p><strong>Qualitative interviews: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Health economics: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>The take-home naloxone intervention needs to be developed and evaluated in emergency care settings, with appropriate methods.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The Take-home naloxone Intervention Multicentre Emergency setting study was interrupted by coronavirus disease.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This trial is registered as ISRCTN13232859.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>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 <i>Health Technology Assessment</i>; Vol. 28, No. 74. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12898,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health technology assessment\",\"volume\":\"28 74\",\"pages\":\"1-69\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health technology assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/YNRC8249\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/YNRC8249","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:死于阿片类药物的人数比其他任何药物都多。纳洛酮是一种阿片类药物拮抗剂,可通过带回家的 "工具包 "分发,供同伴使用(带回家的纳洛酮)。目的:确定在紧急情况下开展带回家的纳洛酮明确随机对照试验的可行性:我们利用威尔士的常规数据(2015-21 年)测试了开发判别函数以识别阿片类药物过量致死高危人群的可行性。我们进行了分组随机对照试验和定性研究,以考察服务使用者和提供者的经验。我们根据预先确定的进展标准评估了干预和试验方法的可行性,这些标准涉及:现场报名、员工培训、合格患者的识别、获得工具包的比例、阿片类药物中毒死亡者的识别、数据链接和结果检索:本研究在急诊环境中进行;研究地点包括急诊科和相关的救护车服务覆盖区:在干预地点,我们邀请急诊科临床医生和护理人员参与。我们招募了因阿片类药物使用相关问题到急诊科就诊或接受救护车护理人员护理的成年患者,这些患者有能力同意接受带回家的纳洛酮和相关培训:常规护理包括由护理人员或急诊科工作人员提供基本生命支持和纳洛酮。除常规护理外,还提供带回家的纳洛酮干预,指导接受者了解基本生命支持、呼叫急救服务的重要性、效果持续时间、纳洛酮使用的安全性和合法性:与阿片类药物相关的死亡人数较少(1105/3,227,396),而死亡前一年未接触过医疗服务的人数比例较高,因此死亡与阿片类药物相关医疗事件之间的预测联系较弱。逻辑回归模型显示,我们需要对三分之一的人口进行监测,才能在为期一年的随访中捕捉到75%死于阿片类药物过量的人:四个地点参与了试验,687 名符合条件的临床工作人员中有 299 人(44%)接受了培训。在为期 1 年的招募过程中,向患者提供了 60 个可带回家的纳洛酮包。未向符合条件的患者提供带回家的纳洛酮包的情况有 164 次:"忘记"(136 人);"太忙"(15 人);怀疑故意用药过量(3 人):定性访谈:服务使用者对带回家的纳洛酮的了解程度较高。定性访谈:服务使用者对带回家的纳洛酮有很高的认知度,他们对干预措施表示支持,但对阿片类药物戒断表示担忧,并对因用药过量而到医院就诊表示抵触。服务提供者对干预措施持积极态度,但也报告了一些障碍,包括难以征得高危阿片类药物使用者的同意和对其进行培训:我们能够计算出三个地点的员工培训成本(每个 AS 40 英镑,地点 1 ED 17 英镑)。无不良事件报告。未达到进展标准--接受培训的符合条件的员工不足 50%,接受干预的符合条件的患者不足 50%,未在合理的时间范围内检索结果:今后的工作:需要采用适当的方法,在急诊环境中开发和评估 "带回家的纳洛酮 "干预措施:限制因素:"居家纳洛酮干预多中心急诊环境研究 "因冠状病毒疾病而中断:结论:这项研究不符合干预或试验方法可行性的进展标准,因此没有对结果进行跟踪,也没有计划进行完全有效的试验:该试验的注册号为 ISRCTN13232859:该奖项由美国国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)健康技术评估项目资助(NIHR奖项编号:16/91/04),全文发表于《健康技术评估》第28卷第74期。更多奖项信息请参阅 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Take-home naloxone in multicentre emergency settings: the TIME feasibility cluster RCT.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health technology assessment
Health technology assessment 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) publishes research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.
×
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