Opioid overdose is a serious and growing public health problem.

The number of Americans lost to opioid overdose has been increasing for nearly two decades, in an epidemic that impacts people from all ages, races, and geographic areas (Rossen, Khan, & Warner, 2014; Chen, Hedegaard, & Warner, 2014). Fatal poisonings, most of which are caused by drug overdose, have increased by nearly 600 percent in the past three decades, and are now the leading cause of injury death in the United States (Warner et al., 2011). Although this increase has been driven mainly by opioid painkillers (Okie, 2010; Modarai et al., 2013), which took the lives of over 16,000 Americans in 2013, recent data show a marked increase in heroin-related deaths as well (Pollini et al., 2011; Jones, 2013; Rudd et al., 2014; Warner, 2015; Hedegaard, Chen, & Warner, 2015). Heroin-related fatalities rose to over 8,000 in 2013, a nearly four-fold increase since 2000, while prescription opioid-related deaths appear to have plateaued (Rudd et al., 2014; Hedegaard, Chen, & Warner, 2015). Evidence strongly suggests that the increase in heroin deaths is at least partly the result of prescription opioid users transitioning to heroin use (Rudd et al., 2014; Dasgupta et al., 2014; Peavy et al., 2012).

Naloxone has been used for decades to reverse opioid overdose. It is a prescription medication, but is not a controlled substance and has no abuse potential.

Opioid overdose causes decreased levels of consciousness and respiratory depression. It becomes life threatening when breathing is depressed to the point that insufficient oxygen is available to permit the brain and other organs to function effectively, a state called hypoxia (Bouillon, Bruhn, Roepcke, & Hoeft, 2003; Pattinson, 2008; White & Irvine, 1999). Early intervention is critical, as hypoxia can cause cell death within minutes, and the risk of irreversible damage increases with the amount of time the person remains hypoxic (Michiels, 2004). Because most people do not overdose alone, equipping people who use opioids and the friends and family members of those at risk of opioid overdose with the tools to quickly reverse it can reduce the risk of overdose death as well as damage to the brain and other organs (Galea et al., 2006).

Opioid overdose, whether caused by heroin or prescription painkillers, can typically be reversed by administering a medication called naloxone (Chamberlain & Klein, 1994). Naloxone, commonly known by the brand name Narcan, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1971. It is a prescription medicine but not a controlled substance, and it has no potential for abuse (Chamberlain & Klein, 1994). It displaces opioids from the brain receptors to which they attach, reversing their effects and restoring normal respiration (Chamberlain & Klein, 1994; Lewanowitsch & Irvine, 2002). It is stocked by nearly every hospital and has been used by paramedics for decades (Barton et al., 2002). While medical professionals typically inject it into a victim’s vein, most community groups provide the equipment to inject it into a muscle or to spray it into the nose of a person who is suffering an overdose (Doe-Simkins, Walley, Epstein, & Moyer, 2009). An easy-to-use auto-injector device (brand name Evzio) was approved in 2014 (Food and Drug Administration, 2014).

There is a growing interest in training and equipping more people to administer naloxone to reverse opioid overdose.

Because people who use drugs (PWUD) are already “on the scene” of an overdose, experts have suggested reducing time to naloxone administration by equipping them with naloxone for more than twenty years (Strang, Darke, Hall, Farrell, & Ali, 1996). By the mid-1990’s, naloxone was being distributed to heroin users in Italy (Simini, 1998), Germany, and the United Kingdom (Coffin et al., 2003). The first programs to dispense naloxone to PWUD in the United States were launched in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, with the first documented programs operating in Chicago in 1996 and San Francisco in 2001 (Bigg & Maxwell, 2002; Seal et al., 2005; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012).

By the mid-2000s, community programs in several states including New Mexico, Massachusetts and New York had begun distributing naloxone and overdose rescue training to PWUD and the friends and family members of people at high risk of overdose (Galea et al., 2006; Doe-Simkins, Walley, Epstein, & Moyer, 2009; Maxwell, Bigg, Stanczykiewicz, & Carlberg-Racich, 2006; Clark, Wilder, & Winstainley, 2014; Piper et al., 2008). As of 2014, more than 150,000 laypeople have received training and naloxone kits, and participants reported reversing more than 26,000 overdoses (Wheeler, Jones, Gilbert & Davidson, 2015). Naloxone access initiatives have since expanded beyond PWUD, with many states taking action to encourage the provision of naloxone by physicians, pharmacists, and community organizations to anyone at risk of opioid overdose (Bailey & Wermeling, 2014; Zaller et al., 2013; Davis, Webb, & Burris, 2013). There is also increasing movement to equip non-medical first responders such as firefighters and law enforcement officers with naloxone, although evidence supporting the efficacy of this intervention is not yet available (Davis, Ruiz, Glynn, Picariello, & Walley, 2014).

Laypeople are willing to and capable of recognizing opioid overdose and administering naloxone.

A 1999 survey of heroin injectors reported that 89 percent said that they would have used naloxone at the last overdose they witnessed if they’d had it available (Strang et al., 1999). Since then, tens of thousands of lay people have been trained in recognizing and responding to overdose, including administering naloxone (Wheeler, Jones, Gilbert & Davidson, 2015; Clark, Wilder, & Winstanley, 2014). Recent data show that PWUD who received naloxone from one such program were highly likely to administer it during an overdose (Rowe et al., 2015).

Overdose prevention programs typically train people receiving naloxone kits to reduce overdose risk as well as recognize and appropriately respond to overdose (Clark, Wilder, & Winstanley, 2014). Although the level of evidence is relatively low, most reviews report that people who receive naloxone training increase their level of relevant knowledge (Haegerich, Paulozzi, Manns, & Jones, 2014). A study of mostly homeless people who inject drugs in Los Angeles found that a single training session significantly increased knowledge of appropriate overdose response (Wagner et al., 2010), and a study of people trained in overdose response at six sites in the United States reported that they were significantly more likely to recognize and respond to overdose (Green, Heimer, & Grau, 2008). Recent evidence suggests that a very brief education session is sufficient (Behar, Santos, Wheeler, Rowe, & Coffin, 2015), and a recent study found no significant difference in rescue behaviors or reversal rates between naloxone administered by people who had received formal training versus those who had not (Doe-Simkins et al., 2014).

Medical risks associated with naloxone administration are low, particularly compared to inaction.

No medication is completely safe. However, naloxone has a low risk of serious side effects. The most common stem from the withdrawal symptoms the medication can cause, and include shivering, sweating, and aggressiveness (Buajordet, Naess, Jacobson, & Brors, 2004; Kelly et al., 2005). While these can be uncomfortable, they are generally not life-threatening (Wermeling, 2015). While there are some reports of life-threatening injuries post-naloxone administration, they are rare (Osterwalder, 1996; Enteen et al., 2010; Yokell et al., 2011) and almost always reported in medically complex, post-operative settings where naloxone is administered in amounts higher than those typically used in the community (Boajordet, Naess, Jacobson, & Brors, 2004; Kelly et al., 2005). It is not clear whether these adverse effects, which have included acute lung injury (pulmonary edema), are the result of naloxone administration or events related to the overdose itself (Kelly et al., 2005; Osterwalder, 1996).

Additionally, it appears that individuals who receive naloxone but do not receive additional medical care are not at increased risk of negative outcomes. A 2003 study of 5 years of data in San Diego found no deaths in the 12 hours after patients who were administered naloxone by EMS refused transport to the hospital (n=998) (Vilke, Sloane, Smith, & Chan, 2003). A 2005 study from Finland found no life-threatening events in the 12 hours after overdose patients (n=84) were treated pre-hospital and refused further treatment, which lead the authors to conclude that permitting “presumed heroin overdose patients to sign out after pre-hospital care with naloxone is safe” (Boyd et al., 2006). Likewise, a 2011 retroactive study of 20 months of data from San Antonio found no evidence that any patients who had been administered naloxone and refused transport died in the next 48 hours (n=542) (Wampler et al., 2011).

Laws can act as a barrier to increased naloxone access.

A number of laws and regulations hamper access to naloxone. Because it is a prescription medication, it can be dispensed only on the order of a medical professional authorized to issue prescriptions (Davis, Webb, & Burris, 2013). Further, state medical practice laws typically discourage or prohibit the prescription or distribution of medications to a person other than the person to whom they are to be administered (a process referred to as third-party prescription) or to a person the physician has not examined (Davis, Webb, & Burris, 2013). These restrictions have often prevented naloxone from being available when and where it is needed outside of the medical setting.

Additionally, some prescribers may refrain from prescribing naloxone because of concerns that it might increase their risk of civil liability, although there is no evidence that these concerns are justified (Beletsky et al., 2007; Burris et al., 2009). Similarly, people present at the scene of an overdose may be afraid to call 911 because of fear of being charged with a crime, particularly where they are using illegal drugs or using prescribed medication other than as prescribed (Enteen et al., 2010; Tobin, Davey, & Latkin, 2005; Sherman et al., 2008).

Many states have modified law and regulation to increase access to naloxone by laypeople and non-medical first responders such as police and firefighters.

While making naloxone available over the counter would likely solve many of these access problems, only the FDA has the authority to make that change. However, states have taken a number of steps to increase access to naloxone, beginning with New Mexico in 2001. As of May 2015, 30 other states and the District of Columbia have also modified law to make it easier for lay people to access naloxone. These changes vary, but most permit individuals otherwise authorized to prescribe naloxone to prescribe it not only to their own patients, but also to family members, caregivers, and others (Davis, Webb, & Burris, 2013). Many states also permit naloxone to be prescribed via a standing order, in which one prescriber issues a prescription for naloxone to be provided to any person who meets certain criteria, as opposed to a named individual. Nearly all of these laws provide limited immunity to medical professionals who prescribe naloxone and lay people who administer it in an overdose (Davis, 2015). An increasing number also authorize law enforcement officers and other non-medical first responders such as firefighters to carry naloxone and administer it in an overdose (Davis, et al., 2014; Davis, Ruiz, Glynn, Picariello, & Walley, 2014).

New Mexico was also the first state, in 2007, to amend its laws to encourage overdose witnesses to summon aid in the event of an overdose by providing limited criminal immunity to overdose witnesses who summon emergency help for an overdose victim. As of May 2015, 22 other states and the District of Columbia have also passed such laws (Davis, 2015). These laws, which are often referred to as “Good Samaritan” laws, provide limited criminal immunity (typically from minor drug-related crimes) for both the overdose victim and the person who calls for help, although some of the more recent laws expand the protection to offenses such as probation and parole violations.

Increased access to naloxone does not appear to increase drug use or risky behavior.

Although data are limited, access to naloxone does not appear to encourage risky behavior, likely because naloxone overdose reversal removes the user’s “high” and, depending on the opioid that was taken and the amount of naloxone administered, can put the victim into withdrawal, an extremely unpleasant experience. A study in England reported that 94 percent of heroin users said that having access to naloxone would not increase the dose of drugs that they used (Stran et al., 1999). A small study from San Francisco found that heroin users who received naloxone and overdose education reported a statistically significant decrease in heroin injection six months after the intervention (Seal et al., 2005), and a study in Los Angeles noted that a majority of individuals trained in overdose prevention reported that their drug use decreased three months after the training (Wagner et al., 2010).

Researchers evaluating the Massachusetts Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution program found that “training active substance users in overdose management and distributing naloxone rescue kits does not lead opioid users to increase their overall opioid use” (Doe-Simkins et al., 2014). According to a recent systematic review, two studies reported that participants in opioid overdose prevention programs reported a decrease in calling 911, while two reported an increase and one found no change (Clark, Wilder, & Winstanley, 2014).

Naloxone access programs may reduce overdose-related morbidity and mortality.

Evidence of the effectiveness of naloxone access programs in reducing fatal overdose and overdose-related morbidity is limited, but existing data point to a positive effect (Clark, Wilder, & Winstanley, 2014). The best evidence comes from a study in Massachusetts, which showed that communities with higher access to naloxone and overdose training had significantly lower opioid overdose death rates than those did not (Walley et al., 2013). A systematic review of published literature found that 11 of 18 studies reported a survival rate of 100 percent after naloxone was administered in the community setting; the others reported a range of 83-96 percent (Clark, Wilder, & Winstanley, 2014).

Initial evidence from a comprehensive overdose prevention program (Project Lazarus) in one county in North Carolina found a striking decrease in overdose deaths in that county after the program was initiated (Albert et al., 2011). Researchers have suggested that reduction in heroin deaths in Chicago may be partly attributable to a naloxone distribution program in that city, although that finding is merely observational (Maxwell, Bigg, Stanczykiewicz, Carlberg-Racich, 2006).

Naloxone access programs may reduce health care costs.

Naloxone is available in a number of different formulations, with widely varying costs. Evzio, the recently approved auto-injector, retails for $450-$600 (Beletsky, 2015). According to the manufacturer, the majority of state Medicaid programs provide coverage for Evzio, co-pay assistance is available to bring the out-of-pocket cost to less than $30 for most commercially insured patients, and programs are available to provide Evzio at no cost to individuals without drug coverage and qualifying harm reduction and law enforcement agencies (communication with kaleo, June 19, 2015). Community overdose programs reported costs in the range of $15 per kit of injectable naloxone, and $30 per kit of intranasal naloxone in 2013 (Coffin & Sullivan, 2013). The price of the medication has recently increased by as much as a factor of 2 to 3, reducing the ability of some community organizations to distribute the medication and prompting protests from government officials in several states (Goodman, 2014).

Emergency department visits are expensive, as is follow-up care for patients with lasting damage caused by hypoxia. In a 2013 study, the provision of naloxone kits to heroin users was found to be robustly cost-effective even under extremely conservative assumptions (Coffin & Sullivan, 2013). A separate study noted that the cost of treating people who had overdosed in Rhode Island hospitals could have paid for more than 61,000 naloxone kits at the then-current cost of $15 (Yokell et al., 2011).

References

• Albert S, Brason II FW, Sanford CK, Dasgupta N, Graham J, Lovette B. Project lazarus: community-based overdose prevention in rural north Carolina. Pain Medicine 2011;12 Suppl 2:S77-85.

• Bailey AM, Wermeling DP. Naloxone for opioid overdose prevention: pharmacists' role in community-based practice settings. Ann Pharmacother 2014;48(5):601-6.

• Barton ED, Ramos J, Colwell C, Benson J, Baily J, Dunn W. Intranasal administration of naloxone by paramedics. Prehosp Emerg Care 2002;6(1):54-8.

• Behar E, Santos GM, Wheeler E, Rowe C, Coffin PO. Brief overdose education is sufficient for naloxone distribution to opioid users. Drug Alcohol Depend 2015;148:209-12.

• Beletsky L. The benefits and potential drawbacks in the approval of EVZIO for lay reversal of opioid overdose. Am J Prev Med 2015;48(3):357-9.

• Beletsky L, Ruthazer R, Macalino GE, Rich JD, Tan L, Burris S. Physicians' knowledge of and willingness to prescribe naloxone to reverse accidental opiate overdose: challenges and opportunities. J Urban Health 2007;84(1):126-36.

• Bigg D, Maxwell S. Enabling people to stay alive: an effective opiate overdose prevention program. In: Fourth National Harm Reduction Conference. Seattle, WA; 2002.

• Boyd JJ, Kuisma MJ, Alaspaa AO, Vuori E, Repo JV, Randell TT. Recurrent opioid toxicity after pre-hospital care of presumed heroin overdose patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2006;50(10):1266-70.

• Buajordet I, Naess AC, Jacobsen D, Brors O. Adverse events after naloxone treatment of episodes of suspected acute opioid overdose. Eur J Emerg Med 2004;11(1):19-23.

• Burris S, L. B, Castagna C, Coyle C, Crowe C, McLaughlin J. Stopping an Invisible Epidemic: Legal Issues in the Provision of Naloxone to Prevent Opioid Overdose. Drexel Law Review 2009;1(2).

• Bouillon T, Bruhn J, Roepcke H, Hoeft A. Opioid-induced respiratory depression is associated with increased tidal volume variability. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2003;20(2):127-33.

• Coffin PO, Sullivan SD. Cost- effectiveness of distributing naloxone to heroin users for lay overdose reversal. Ann Intern Med 2013;158(1):1-9.

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Community-based opioid overdose prevention programs providing naloxone - United States, 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012;61(6):101-5.

• Chamberlain JM, Klein BL. A comprehensive review of naloxone for the emergency physician. Am J Emerg Med 1994;12 (6):650-60.

• Chen L, Hedegaard H, Warner M. Drug- poisoning Deaths Involving Opioid Analgesics: United States, 1999-2011. NCHS Data Brief 2014(166):1-8.

• Clark AK, Wilder CM, Winstanley EL. A systematic review of community opioid overdose prevention and naloxone distribution programs. J Addict Med 2014;8(3):153-63.

• Coffin PO, Fuller C, Vadnai L, Blaney S, Galea S, Vlahov D. Preliminary evidence of health care provider support for naloxone prescription as overdose fatality prevention strategy in New York City. J Urban Health 2003;80(2):288-90.

• Dasgupta N, Creppage K, Austin A, Ringwalt C, Sanford C, Proescholdbell SK. Observed transition from opioid analgesic deaths toward heroin. Drug Alcohol Depend 2014;145:238-41.

• Davis CS. Legal Interventions to Reduce Overdose Mortality: Naloxone access and overdose good samaritan laws: Network for Public Health Law; 2015.

• Davis CS, Ruiz S, Glynn P, Picariello G, Walley AY. Expanded access to naloxone among firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical technicians in Massachusetts. Am J Public Health 2014;104(8):e7- 9.

• Davis CS, Southwell JK, Niehaus VR, Walley AY, Dailey MW. Emergency Medical Services Naloxone Access: A National Systematic Legal Review. Acad Emerg Med 2014;21(10):1173-1177.

• Davis C, Webb D, Burris S. Changing law from barrier to facilitator of opioid overdose prevention. J Law Med Ethics 2013;41 Suppl 1:33-6.

• Doe-Simkins M, Quinn E, Xuan Z, Sorensen-Alawad A, Hackman H, Ozonoff A, et al. Overdose rescues by trained and untrained participants and change in opioid use among substance-using participants in overdose education and naloxone distribution programs: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Public Health 2014;14:297.

• Doe-Simkins M, Walley AY, Epstein A, Moyer P. Saved by the nose: bystander-administered intranasal naloxone hydrochloride for opioid overdose. Am J Public Health 2009;99(5):788-91.

• Enteen L, Bauer J, McLean R, Wheeler E, Huriaux E, Kral AH, et al. Overdose prevention and naloxone prescription for opioid users in San Francisco. J Urban Health 2010;87(6):931-41.

• Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves new hand-held auto-injector to reverse opioid overdose. In: First naloxone treatment specifically designed to be given by family members or caregivers. Washington, D.C.; 2014.

• Galea S, Worthington N, Piper TM, Nandi VV, Curtis M, Rosenthal DM. Provision of naloxone to injection drug users as an overdose prevention strategy: early evidence from a pilot study in New York City. Addict Behav 2006;31(5):907-12.

• Goodman J. Naloxone, a drug to stop heroin deaths, is more costly, the police say. New York Times 2014 December 1, 2014.

• Green TC, Heimer R, Grau LE. Distinguishing signs of opioid overdose and indication for naloxone: an evaluation of six overdose training and naloxone distribution programs in the United States. Addiction 2008;103(6):979-89.

• Haegerich TM, Paulozzi LJ, Manns BJ, Jones CM. What we know, and don't know, about the impact of state policy and systems- level interventions on prescription drug overdose. Drug Alcohol Depend 2014;145C:34- 47.

• Hedegaard H, Chen LH, Warner M. Drug- poisoning Deaths Involving Heroin: United States, 2000-2013. NCHS Data Brief 2015 (190):1-8.

• Jones CM. Heroin use and heroin use risk behaviors among nonmedical users of prescription opioid pain relievers - United States, 2002-2004 and 2008-2010. Drug Alcohol Depend 2013;132(1-2):95-100.

• Kelly AM, Kerr D, Dietze P, Patrick I, Walker T, Koutsogiannis Z. Randomised trial of intranasal versus intramuscular naloxone in prehospital treatment for suspected opioid overdose. Med J Aust 2005;182 (1):24-7.

• L C, H H, Warner M. QuickStats: Rates of deaths from drug poisoning and drug poisoning involving opioid analgesics—United States, 1999–2013. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2015;64(01):32

• Lewanowitsch T, Irvine RJ. Naloxone methiodide reverses opioid-induced respiratory depression and analgesia without withdrawal. Eur J Pharmacol 2002;445(1-2):61-7.

• Maxwell S, Bigg D, Stanczykiewicz K, Carlberg-Racich S. Prescribing naloxone to actively injecting heroin users: a program to reduce heroin overdose deaths. J Addict Dis 2006;25(3):89-96.

• Michiels C. Physiological and pathological responses to hypoxia. Am J Pathol 2004;164(6):1875-82.

• Modarai F, Mack K, Hicks P, Benoit S, Park S, Jones C, et al. Relationship of opioid prescription sales and overdoses, North Carolina. Drug Alcohol Depend 2013;132(1-2):81-6.

• Okie S. A flood of opioids, a rising tide of deaths. N Engl J Med 2010;363(21):1981-5.

• Osterwalder JJ. Naloxone--for intoxications with intravenous heroin and heroin mixtures--harmless or hazardous? A prospective clinical study. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 1996;34(4):409-16.

• Pattinson KT. Opioids and the control of respiration. Br J Anaesth 2008;100(6):747-58.

• Peavy KM, Banta-Green CJ, Kingston S, Hanrahan M, Merrill JO, Coffin PO. "Hooked on" prescription-type opiates prior to using heroin: results from a survey of syringe exchange clients. J Psychoactive Drugs 2012;44(3):259-65.

• Piper TM, Stancliff S, Rudenstine S, Sherman S, Nandi V, Clear A, et al. Evaluation of a naloxone distribution and administration program in New York City. Subst Use Misuse 2008;43(7):858-70.

• Pollini RA, Banta-Green CJ, Cuevas-Mota J, Metzner M, Teshale E, Garfein RS. Problematic use of prescription-type opioids prior to heroin use among young heroin injectors. Subst Abuse Rehabil 2011;2(1):173- 180.

• Rossen LM, Khan D, Warner M. Trends and geographic patterns in drug-poisoning death rates in the u.s., 1999-2009. Am J Prev Med 2013;45(6):e19-25.

• Rowe C, Santos GM, Vittinghoff E, Wheeler E, Davidson P, Coffin PO. Predictors of participant engagement and naloxone utilization in a community-based naloxone distribution program. Addiction 2015.

• Rudd RA, Paulozzi LJ, Bauer MJ, Burleson RW, Carlson RE, Dao D, et al. Increases in heroin overdose deaths - 28 States, 2010 to 2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2014;63(39):849-54.

• Seal KH, Thawley R, Gee L, Bamberger J, Kral AH, Ciccarone D, et al. Naloxone distribution and cardiopulmonary resuscitation training for injection drug users to prevent heroin overdose death: a pilot intervention study. J Urban Health 2005;82(2):303-11.

• Sherman SG, Gann DS, Scott G, Carlberg S, Bigg D, Heimer R. A qualitative study of overdose responses among Chicago IDUs. Harm Reduct J 2008;5:

• Simini B. Balogna-Naloxone supplied to Italian heroin addicts. Lancet 1998;352(9132):967.

• Strang J, Darke S, Hall W, Farrell M, Ali R. Heroin overdose: the case for take-home naloxone. Bmj 1996;312(7044):1435- 6.Warner M, Chen LH, Makuc DM, Anderson RN, Minino AM. Drug poisoning deaths in the United States, 1980-2008. NCHS Data Brief 2011(81):1-8.

• Strang J, Powis B, Best D, Vingoe L, Griffiths P, Taylor C, et al. Preventing opiate overdose fatalities with take-home naloxone: pre-launch study of possible impact and acceptability. Addiction 1999;94 (2):199-204.

• Tobin KE, Davey MA, Latkin CA. Calling emergency medical services during drug overdose: an examination of individual, social and setting correlates. Addiction 2005;100(3):397-404.

• Vilke GM, Sloane C, Smith AM, Chan TC. Assessment for deaths in out-of-hospital heroin overdose patients treated with naloxone who refuse transport. Acad Emerg Med 2003;10(8):893-6.

• Wagner KD, Valente TW, Casanova M, Partovi SM, Mendenhall BM, Hundley JH, et al. Evaluation of an overdose prevention and response training programme for injection drug users in the Skid Row area of Los Angeles, CA. Int J Drug Policy 2010;21(3):186-93.

• 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.

• Wampler DA, Molina DK, McManus J, Laws P, Manifold CA. No deaths associated with patient refusal of transport after naloxone-reversed opioid overdose. Prehosp Emerg Care 2011;15(3):320-4.

• Wermeling DP. Review of naloxone safety for opioid overdose: practical considerations for new technology and expanded public access. Ther Adv Drug Saf 2015;6(1):20-31.

• Wheeler E, Jones ST, Gilbert MK, Davidson PJ. Opioid overdose prevention programs providing naloxone to laypersons – United States, 2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2015;64(23):631-5.

• White JM, Irvine RJ. Mechanisms of fatal opioid overdose. Addiction 1999;94(7):961-72.

• Yokell MA, Green TC, Bowman S, McKenzie M, Rich JD. Opioid overdose prevention and naloxone distribution in Rhode Island. Med Health R I 2011;94(8):240-2.

• Zaller ND, Yokell MA, Green TC, Gaggin J, Case P. The feasibility of pharmacy-based naloxone distribution interventions: a qualitative study with injection drug users and pharmacy staff in Rhode Island. Subst Use Misuse 2013;48(8):590-9.

•  

Opioid overdose is a medical emergency. Naloxone has been used for decades to reverse it and restore normal respiration. Over the past 15-20 years, community groups and, later, governmental organizations have worked to increase community access to the medication so that naloxone is available when and where it is needed to reverse potentially fatal opioid overdoses. Increased naloxone access is supported by a large number and variety of organizations, including the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, and the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy. It is a key component of the federal government’s response to the overdose epidemic, and is supported by agencies including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), and the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

It is undisputed that, if administered in time, naloxone reverses opioid overdose in the vast majority of cases. A variety of data suggest that individuals who are trained in opioid overdose identification and response, including naloxone administration, are willing to and capable of administering naloxone in an emergency. Medical risks regarding naloxone administration are low, and in most if not all cases are much lower than failing to administer the medication in the event of opioid overdose. The sooner naloxone is administered and respiratory depression is reversed, the better outcomes are likely to be. It therefore makes sense to increase access to the medication, and to fund robust evaluations to ensure that increased access has the intended effect, that any negative consequences are addressed, and that best practices are identified and publicized.

Unfortunately, naloxone is often not available when and where it is needed. There are a number of actions government at all levels can take to address this problem. At the federal level, agencies including SAMHSA and CDC should fund both naloxone access and training programs and systematic evaluations. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should ensure that the medication is covered by both Medicare and Medicaid, without prior authorization or other barriers. Because one of the greatest barriers to broader access is the fact that naloxone is a prescription medication, both FDA and Congress should strongly consider taking action to make it available over-the-counter or otherwise modify the prescription requirement.

At the state level, states can and should pass laws and modify regulations to ensure that naloxone is available to all who may need it. This may include making it available through community-based organizatoins and at pharmacies without a patient-specific prescription, ensuring that people at high risk of overdose such as those receiving high-dose opioid painkillers or leaving correctional institutions or drug treatment facilities are provided naloxone at no or minimal cost, and providing education to clinicians to raise awareness of the importance of prescribing and dispensing naloxone to individuals at risk of overdose. They should also pass and publicize comprehensive overdose Good Samaritan laws so that people who witness overdoses are not punished for calling for help. Localities should also consider whether equipping firefighters and law enforcement officers in their jurisdictions with the medication might meaningfully decrease time to naloxone administration, possibly improving outcomes.

Naloxone alone will not stop the overdose epidemic. However, existing evidence supports rapid scale-up of programs to increase access to the medication, of which legal and policy changes are a key component.