Evaluate the relationship between naloxone dose (initial and cumulative) and opioid toxicity reversal and adverse events in undifferentiated and presumed fentanyl/ultra-potent opioid overdoses.

We searched Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, DARE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, reference lists, toxicology websites, and conference proceedings (1972 to 2018). We included interventional, observational, and case studies/series reporting on naloxone dose and opioid toxicity reversal or adverse events in people >12 years old.

A total of 174 studies (110 case reports/series, 57 observational, 7 interventional) with 26,660 subjects (median age 35 years; 74% male). Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Where reported, we abstracted naloxone dose and proportion of patients with toxicity reversal. Among patients with presumed exposure to fentanyl/ultra-potent opioids, 56.9% (617/1,085) responded to an initial naloxone dose ≤0.4 mg compared with 80.2% (170/212) of heroin users, and 30.4% (7/23) responded to an initial naloxone dose >0.4 mg compared with 59.1% (1,434/2,428) of heroin users. Among patients who responded, median cumulative naloxone doses were higher for presumed fentanyl/ultra-potent opioids than heroin overdoses in North America, both before 2015 (fentanyl/ultra-potent opioids: 1.8 mg [interquartile interval {IQI}, 1.0, 4.0]; heroin: 0.8 mg [IQI, 0.4, 0.8]) and after 2015 (fentanyl/ultra-potent opioids: 3.4 mg [IQI, 3.0, 4.1]); heroin: 2 mg [IQI, 1.4, 2.0]). Where adverse events were reported, 11% (490/4,414) of subjects experienced withdrawal. Variable reporting, heterogeneity and poor-quality studies limit conclusions.

Practitioners have used higher initial doses, and in some cases higher cumulative naloxone doses to reverse toxicity due to presumed fentanyl/ultra-potent opioid exposure compared with other opioids. High-quality comparative naloxone dosing studies assessing effectiveness and safety are needed.

We conducted a clinical trial to determine if prophylactic anticonvulsants in brain tumour patients (without prior seizures) reduced seizure frequency. We stopped accrual at 100 patients on the basis of the interim analysis.

One hundred newly diagnosed brain tumour patients received anticonvulsants (AC Group) or not (No AC Group) in this prospective randomized unblinded study. Sixty patients had metastatic, and 40 had primary brain tumours. Forty-six (46%) patients were randomized to the AC Group and 54 (54%) to the No AC Group. Median follow-up was 5.44 months (range 0.13 -30.1 months).

Seizures occurred in 26 (26%) patients, eleven in the AC Group and 15 in the No AC Group. Seizure-free survivals were not different; at three months 87% of the AC Group and 90% of the No AC Group were seizure-free (log rank test, p=0.98). Seventy patients died (unrelated to seizures) and survival rates were equivalent in both groups (median survival = 6.8 months versus 5.6 months, respectively; log rank test, p=0.50). We then terminated accrual at 100 patients because seizure and survival rates were much lower than expected; we would need ≥ 900 patients to have a suitably powered study.

These data should be used by individuals contemplating a clinical trial to determine if prophylactic anticonvulsants are effective in subsets of brain tumour patients (e.g. only anaplastic astrocytomas). When taken together with the results of a similar randomized trial, prophylactic anticonvulsants are unlikely to be effective or useful in brain tumour patients who have not had a seizure.