ABSTRACT
Until recently, addressing the environmental externalities associated with the use of the private car and single occupancy vehicles has been the focus of the airport ground access policies worldwide. However, with the emerging unprecedented challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, which have already changed the way we live, work, and travel, encouraging a change in commuter behavior has become even more important. This has necessitated that existing strategies be reconsidered in favor of adapting to a highly uncertain ‘‘COVID-19 world.'' Historically, there has been a dearth of literature relating to airport employees' ground access even though as a group employees represent an important segment of airport users with complex access requirements. This paper therefore focuses on airport employee related airport ground access strategies considering an emerging understanding of the future impacts of COVID-19 on global air travel. Pre-COVID strategies are investigated by conducting a documentary analysis of the most recent ground access strategies of 27 UK airports. The findings reveal that airport ground access strategies were mainly focused on setting targets and producing policy measures in favor of reducing car use and increasing the use of more sustainable transport modes including public transport, car sharing, and active travel (walking, cycling). However, measures encouraging public transport and car sharing will be more difficult to implement because of social distancing and fear of proximity to others. Instead, initiatives encouraging remote working, active travel, and improved staff awareness will be at the forefront of the future ground access strategy development. © National Academy of Sciences: Transportation Research Board 2021.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Fueled in part by the current COVID-19 pandemic and the prevalence of synthetic opioids, drug overdose deaths continue to increase with opioid overdoses accounting for over 70% of deaths1. First approved by the FDA in 1971, naloxone is indicated for the emergency treatment of opioid overdose. Current naloxone products are only available by prescription and experience barriers around accessibility and affordability2. In an effort to democratize naloxone availability, the U.S. FDA has called for an over-the-counter (OTC) naloxone3. The intranasal route is a clinically effective method for naloxone delivery, providing rapid absorption and onset of action4. This study seeks to evaluate the potential of a novel nasal swab to deliver naloxone with absorption and, onset of action at least equal to that of currently available IM and nasal spray products while addressing issues of accessibility and affordability by seeking OTC approval. Method(s): A multi-phase, inpatient crossover study to compare the bioavailability and plasma concentration levels of an intranasal naloxone swab at early time points post-delivery (within the first 15 minutes) with IM naloxone injection (0.4 mg) and naloxone nasal spray (4 mg) in healthy subjects and to determine the safety and tolerability of intranasal naloxone swab doses (4, 8, and 12 mg), particularly with respect to nasal irritation (erythema, edema, and erosion) and olfactory nerve abnormalities in 10 healthy subjects. Qualified subjects received three separate treatments of a single 12 mg dose, two 12 mg doses, or two 8 mg doses where a naloxone nasal swab is administered into one nostril of the nasal cavity then using finger and thumb to squeeze outside of both nostrils, following a 10 hour overnight fast. These results were compared to an earlier phase where subjects received a single 0.4 mg IM naloxone injection (1 mL of 0.4 mg/mL injection, administered into the gluteus maximus muscle using a 23-gauge needle) and a single 4 mg intranasal naloxone spray, administered in one nostril (0.1 mL of 4 mg/0.1 mL spray, based on the prescribing information and approved Instructions for Use). Result(s): Ten healthy volunteers were enrolled for this phase with the single dose 12 mg nasal swab demonstrating higher early plasma concentrations compared to intranasal spray (over 250% higher partial AUC at 2.5 min). The Tmax was comparable (Tmax 0.26 hr) to a single 0.4 mg/mL IM injection (Tmax 0.25) and faster onset than a single 4 mg intranasal spray (Tmax 0.45 hr) as well as superior absorption to both IM injection and intranasal spray as demonstrated by pAUC at 2.5 min (31.18 pg*hr/mL versus 4.19 pg*hr/mL and 11.81 pg*hr/mL). Adverse events were mild for all treatments and no SAEs were observed during this phase of the study. Conclusion(s): A novel nasal swab applicator is an effective and well tolerated means of delivering naloxone that is comparable to or exceeds key PK measures of existing approved products. Providing safe and effective medication delivery in an over-the-counter nasal swab, offers the potential to address barriers of accessibility and affordability currently associated with prescription naloxone products.