Browsing by keyword "Fentanyl"
Now showing items 1-3 of 3
-
A Novel Oral Fluid Assay (LC-QTOF-MS) for the Detection of Fentanyl and Clandestine Opioids in Oral Fluid After Reported Heroin OverdoseINTRODUCTION: The adulteration of heroin with non-pharmaceutical fentanyl and other high-potency opioids is one of the factors contributing to striking increases in overdose deaths. To fully understand the magnitude of this problem, accurate detection methods for fentanyl and other novel opioid adulterant exposures are urgently required. The objective of this work was to compare the detection of fentanyl in oral fluid and urine specimens using liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (LC-QTOF-MS) in a population of heroin users presenting to the Emergency Department after overdose. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of adult Emergency Department patients who presented after a reported heroin overdose requiring naloxone administration. Participants provided paired oral fluid and urine specimens, which were prepared, extracted, and analyzed using a dual LC-QTOF-MS workflow for the identification of traditional and emerging drugs of abuse. Analytical instrumentation included SCIEX TripleTOF(R) 5600+ and Waters Xevo(R) G2-S QTOF systems. RESULTS: Thirty participants (N = 30) were enrolled during the study period. Twenty-nine participants had fentanyl detected in their urine, while 27 had fentanyl identified in their oral fluid (overall agreement 93.3%, positive percent agreement 93.1%). Cohen's Kappa (k) was calculated and demonstrated moderately, significant agreement (k = 0.47; p value 0.002) in fentanyl detection between oral fluid and urine using this LC-QTOF-MS methodology. Additional novel opioids and metabolites, including norfentanyl, acetylfentanyl, and U-47700, were detected during this study. CONCLUSION: In this study of individuals presenting to the ED after reported heroin overdose, a strikingly high proportion had a detectable fentanyl exposure. Using LC-QTOF-MS, the agreement between paired oral fluid and urine testing for fentanyl detection indicates a role for oral fluid testing in surveillance for nonpharmaceutical fentanyl. Additionally, the use of LC-QTOF-MS allowed for the detection of other clandestine opioids (acetylfentanyl and U-47700) in oral fluid.
-
Morphine versus fentanyl patient-controlled analgesia for postoperative pain control in major hepatic resection surgeries including living liver donors: A retrospective studyBackground: Liver resection surgery results in significant postoperative pain. However, it is still not clear which opioids used by patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) provides the best pain control and results in the least side effect in a patient with impaired liver function. Our hypothesis was that fentanyl is a better choice than morphine as it is a potent analgesic that its elimination half-life does not depend on the hepatic uptake and metabolism. The Study Purpose: Is to compare morphine and fentanyl PCA in liver resection patients as regards the degree of pain control, the consumption of opioids, and the side effects. Methods: A retrospective case-control study of hepatic resection patients who received postoperative morphine (Morph) or fentanyl (Fent) PCA. The study compared the pain scores, the morphine equivalent dose (MED), the number of demands requested as recorded by the PCA infusion pump, and the side effects every 12 h for 48 h. Results: This study yielded 40 patients; with the majority were living donor hepatic resection patients. There was no significant difference in the pain scores. However, the MED and the demands were significantly less in the Morph group. The P < 0.000, 0.0001, 0.0005, and 0.003, demands P < 0.002, 0.006, 0.014, and 0.013 at 12, 24, 48, and 36 h, respectively. The overall side effects were not different between the 2 groups at all time intervals measured; however, Morph patients were significantly more sedated in the first 12 h. There was one case of respiratory depression in the Morph group compared to two cases in the in the Fent group that needed treatment with naloxone. Conclusions: Although both groups had adequate pain control. The Morphine group reached faster pain control with less MED and PCA requests in liver resection patients, although it was more sedating in the first 12 h. However, fentanyl patients were less sedated; both drugs need close monitoring in the immediate postoperative period due to reported respiratory depressive effect and the need to use naloxone. The dosage of the PCA settings needs to be studied further to reach to the best dose with a reduced side effect. Further studies are recommended to reduce PCA dosages by introducing a multimodal approach of pain management relying on other methods with no additional sedative effects as regional anterior abdominal blocks.
-
Sentanyl: a comparison of blood fentanyl concentrations and naloxone dosing after non-fatal overdoseINTRODUCTION: Non-pharmaceutical fentanyl and its analogs have driven striking increases in opioid-associated overdose deaths. These highly potent opioids can be found at low concentrations in biological specimens. Little is known regarding the concentrations of these substances among survivors of non-fatal overdoses. In a locale where fentanyl is responsible for the majority of non-fatal opioid overdoses, we compared the concentration of fentanyl in blood to naloxone dosing in the presence and absence of a concurrent sedative-hypnotic exposure. METHODS: In this pilot study, we enrolled adult patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) who: (1) arrived after an overdose requiring naloxone for the reversal of respiratory depression; and (2) who required venipuncture or intravenous access as part of their clinical care. Blood specimens (n = 20) underwent comprehensive toxicology testing, including the quantitation of fentanyl, fentanyl analogs, and naloxone, as well as the detection of common sedative-hypnotics and a wide range of other illicit and pharmaceutical substances. We then compared fentanyl concentrations to naloxone dosing in participants with and without a concomitant sedative-hypnotic exposure. RESULTS: Nineteen of twenty participants (95%) were exposed to fentanyl prior to their overdose; the remaining participant tested positive for heroin metabolites. No participants reported pharmaceutical fentanyl use. Fentanyl analogs - acetylfentanyl or carfentanil - were present in three specimens. In 11 cases, fentanyl and its metabolites were the only opioids identified. Among the fentanyl-exposed, blood concentrations ranged from < 0.1-19 ng/mL with a mean of 6.2 ng/mL and a median of 3.6 ng/mL. There was no relationship between fentanyl concentration and naloxone dose administered for reversal. We detected sedative-hypnotics (including benzodiazepines, muscle relaxants, and antidepressants) in nine participants. Among the sedative-hypnotic exposed, fentanyl concentrations were lower, but naloxone dosing was similar to those without a concomitant exposure. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that: 1) fentanyl was present in the blood of nearly all participants; 2) fentanyl concentrations were lower among study participants with concomitant sedative-hypnotic exposure; and 3) the dose of naloxone administered for overdose reversal was not associated with the measured fentanyl concentration in blood specimens. Our results underscore the role that tolerance and concomitant drug exposure play in the precipitation and resuscitation of management of opioid overdose.
