A variety of new sources describing community pharmacy-based take-home naloxone (THN) programs have emerged recently in the literature. There is a need to define the types of take-home naloxone programs being offered to support future research designs in implementing and evaluating standardized programs that fill pharmacist and patient knowledge gaps and lift current barriers for optimal community pharmacy naloxone provision. The objective of this paper is to summarize the literature on community pharmacy-based THN programs, including specific program interventions used to increase naloxone dispensing, naloxone availability and dispensing patterns, facilitators and barriers for the THN programs, and knowledge gaps. Online databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA) and a search of the grey literature were used to identify eligible sources. Sources were screened by two reviewers for eligibility in COVIDENCE software. Both reviewers compared screening results and resolved conflicts through discussion. A data extraction form for all identified full texts was completed by both reviewers and results were compiled through reviewer discussion. Fifty-two sources met the eligibility criteria. The top three barriers identified were: cost/coverage of naloxone, stigma, and education/training for pharmacists. THN program interventions included screening tools, checklists, pocket cards, patient brochures, and utilizing the pharmacy management system to flag eligible patients. Patient knowledge gaps included naloxone misinformation and lack of awareness, while pharmacists demonstrated administrative, clinical, and counselling knowledge gaps. Naloxone availability was found to be highly variable, where independent and rural pharmacies were less likely to stock or dispense naloxone. Further, pharmacies located in districts with higher rates of opioid overdose deaths and lower household income were also less likely to have naloxone available. This review identified multiple new programs, showcasing that the implementation and evaluation of THN programs are an expanding area of research. Future research should focus on implementing and evaluating a THN program through a randomized controlled trial design that incorporates solutions for the barriers and knowledge gaps identified in this study.

Background: The opioid crisis is a public health concern in Canada with a continued rise in deaths and presents a significant economic impact on the healthcare system. There is a need to develop and implement strategies for decreasing the risk of opioid overdoses and other opioid-related harms resulting from the use of prescription opioids. Pharmacists, as medication experts and educators, and as one of the most accessible frontline healthcare providers, are well positioned to provide effective opioid stewardship through a pain management program focused on improving pain management for patients, supporting appropriate prescribing and dispensing of opioids, and supporting safe and appropriate use of opioids to minimize potential opioid misuse, abuse, and harm. Methods: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and grey literature to determine the characteristics of an effective community pharmacy-based pain management program, including the facilitators and barriers to be considered. Discussion: An effective pain management program should be multicomponent, address other co-morbid conditions in addition to pain, and contain a continuing education component for pharmacists. Solutions to implementation barriers, including pharmacy workflow; addressing attitudes beliefs, and stigma; and pharmacy remuneration, as well as leveraging the expansion of scope from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act exemption to facilitate implementation, should be considered. Conclusions: Future work should include the development, implementation, and evaluation of a multicomponent, evidence-based intervention strategy in Canadian community pharmacies to demonstrate the impact pharmacists can have on the management of chronic pain and as one potential solution to helping curb the opioid crisis. Future studies should measure associated costs for such a program and any resulting cost-savings to the healthcare system.

Aims: To determine the cost-effectiveness of pharmacy-based intranasal (IN) and intramuscular (IM) naloxone distribution in Canada. Methods: We developed a state-transition model for pharmacy-based naloxone distribution, every 3 years, to illicit, prescription, opioid-agonist therapy and nonopioid use populations compared to no naloxone distribution. We used a monthly cycle length, lifetime horizon and a Canadian provincial Ministry of Health perspective. Transition probabilities, cost and utility data were retrieved from the literature. Costs (2020) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were discounted 1.5% annually. Microsimulation, 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: Distribution of naloxone to all Canadians compared to no distribution prevented 151 additional overdose deaths per 10,000 persons, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $50,984 per QALY for IM naloxone and an ICER of $126,060 per QALY for IN naloxone. Distribution of any naloxone to only illicit opioid users was the most cost-effective. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that survival rates for illicit opioid users were most influenced by the availability of either emergency medical services or naloxone. Conclusion: Distribution of IM and IN naloxone to all Canadians every 3 years is likely cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $140,000 Canadian dollars/QALY (~3 × gross domestic product from the World Health Organization). Distribution to people who use illicit opioids was most cost-effective and prevented the most deaths. This is important, as more overdose deaths could be prevented through nationwide public funding of IN naloxone kits through pharmacies, since individuals report a preference for IN naloxone and these formulations are easier to use, save lives and are cost-effective. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2024;157:xx-xx.

The indication for a particular medication, or its reason for use (RFU), is important information for prescribers, pharmacists and patients but is not often communicated in writing from prescribers to pharmacists. Adding RFU to a prescription and a medication label would ensure that pharmacists are confident that they are providing high-quality, accurate patient care. This study aims to describe the perspectives of pharmacists on how receiving RFU from prescribers would affect their practice and how pharmacists putting this information on prescriptions would affect patients. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 pharmacists in Southwestern Ontario. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the interview transcripts, leading to 4 major themes. Pharmacists expressed that RFU should be formatted to ensure that it is of clinical utility via the use of written text and noted that either medical or lay (also known as plain) language would be appropriate for use. Pharmacists indicated that patient privacy should be considered when writing RFU on labels and that patient preference with respect to the addition of RFU should dictate its inclusion on a medication label. Pharmacist access to RFU was universally acknowledged to improve patient safety by providing pharmacists with more information to determine whether the given medication was indicated. This study provides further information about the impact that having access to RFU would have on pharmacy practice and can be used to advocate for the inclusion of RFU information with prescriptions to improve patient outcomes. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2020;153:xx-xx.