Cited by 127Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Estimating naloxone need in the USA across fentanyl, heroin, and prescription opioid epidemics: a modelling study

Open access
Irvine, Michael A, Oller, Declan, Boggis, Jesse, Bishop, Brian, Coombs, Daniel, Wheeler, Eliza, Doe-Simkins, Maya, Walley, Alexander Y +3 more·2022·The Lancet Public Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The US overdose crisis is driven by fentanyl, heroin, and prescription opioids. One evidence-based policy response has been to broaden naloxone distribution, but how much naloxone a community would need to reduce the incidence of fatal overdose is unclear. We aimed to estimate state-level US naloxone need in 2017 across three main naloxone access points (community-based programmes, provider prescription, and pharmacy-initiated distribution) and by dominant opioid epidemic type (fentanyl, heroin, and prescription opioid). METHODS: In this modelling study, we developed, parameterised, and applied a mechanistic model of risk of opioid overdose and used it to estimate the expected reduction in opioid overdose mortality after deployment of a given number of two-dose naloxone kits. We performed a literature review and used a modified-Delphi panel to inform parameter definitions. We refined an established model of the population at risk of overdose by incorporating changes in the toxicity of the illicit drug supply and in the naloxone access point, then calibrated the model to 2017 using data obtained from proprietary data sources, state health departments, and national surveys for 12 US states that were representative of each epidemic type. We used counterfactual modelling to project the effect of increased naloxone distribution on the estimated number of opioid overdose deaths averted with naloxone and the number of naloxone kits needed to be available for at least 80% of witnessed opioid overdoses, by US state and access point. FINDINGS: Need for naloxone differed by epidemic type, with fentanyl epidemics having the consistently highest probability of naloxone use during witnessed overdose events (range 58-76% across the three modelled states in this category) and prescription opioid-dominated epidemics having the lowest (range 0-20%). Overall, in 2017, community-based and pharmacy-initiated naloxone access points had higher probability of naloxone use in witnessed overdose and higher numbers of deaths averted per 100 000 people in state-specific results with these two access points than with provider-prescribed access only. To achieve a target of naloxone use in 80% of witnessed overdoses, need varied from no additional kits (estimated as sufficient) to 1270 kits needed per 100 000 population across the 12 modelled states annually. In 2017, only Arizona had sufficient kits to meet this target. INTERPRETATION: Opioid epidemic type and how naloxone is accessed have large effects on the number of naloxone kits that need to be distributed, the probability of naloxone use, and the number of deaths due to overdose averted. The extent of naloxone distribution, especially through community-based programmes and pharmacy-initiated access points, warrants substantial expansion in nearly every US state. FUNDING: National Institute of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2468-2667(21)00304-2

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Irvine, M. A., Oller, D., Boggis, J., Bishop, B., Coombs, D., Wheeler, E., Doe-Simkins, M., Walley, A. Y., Marshall, B. D. L., Bratberg, J., & Green, T. C.
Affiliations
  • Simon Fraser University (CA)
  • Brandeis University (US)
  • University of Rhode Island (US)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Boston Medical Center (US)
  • Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Green, Traci C
Venue
The Lancet Public Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-03
Volume
7
Issue
3
Pages
e210-e218
ISSN
2468-2667 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4211089555
Cited by
127
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 14
FWCI
5.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Journal of Media Literacy Education (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DAQ45745-01S1)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
opioid overdose deaths, heroin epidemic, prescription opioid epidemic, overdose prevention, United States states, counterfactual modeling, harm reduction policy
MeSH terms
Opioid Epidemic, Opiate Overdose, Analgesics, Opioid, Heroin, Fentanyl, Humans, Naloxone, Narcotic Antagonists, United States, Prescriptions, Drug Overdose

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review