The economic burden of opioid-related poisoning in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the yearly economic burden of opioid-related poisoning in the United States. BACKGROUND: Rates of opioid poisoning and related mortality have increased substantially over the past decade. Although previous studies have measured the costs of misuse and abuse, costs related specifically to opioid poisoning have not been quantified. This study quantifies the economic burden of opioid poisoning in the United States to help evaluate the economic case for efforts to reverse or prevent opioid poisoning and its associated morbidity and mortality. METHODS: Mean costs and prevalence estimates were estimated using publically available datasets. A societal perspective was assumed and accordingly estimated direct medical and productivity costs. Direct medical costs included treatment for opioid poisoning in the emergency department (ED) and inpatient settings, along with emergency transport and drug costs. Productivity costs were estimated using the human capital method and included lost wages due to mortality and absenteeism costs from ED visits and hospitalizations. All costs were inflated to 2011 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: In 2009, total costs were estimated at approximately $20.4 billion with indirect costs constituting 89% of the total. Direct medical costs were approximately $2.2 billion. ED costs and inpatient costs were estimated to be $800 million and $1.3 billion, respectively. Absenteeism costs were $335 million and lost future earnings due to mortality were $18.2 billion. CONCLUSION: Opioid-related poisoning causes a substantial burden to the United States each year. Costs related to mortality account for the majority of costs. Interventions designed to prevent or reverse opioid-related poisoning can have significant impacts on cost, especially where death is prevented.

Voluntarily reported unintentional injections from epinephrine auto-injectors.

BACKGROUND: Epinephrine auto-injectors provide life-saving prehospital treatment for individuals experiencing anaphylaxis in community settings. OBJECTIVE: To determine the number, demographics, and associated circumstances and outcomes of unintentional injections from epinephrine auto-injectors. METHODS: We searched the databases of the American Association of Poison Control Centers and the Food and Drug Administration's Safety Information and Adverse Event Report System for these incidents as reported by members of the public and by health care professionals. RESULTS: From 1994 to 2007, a total of 15,190 unintentional injections from epinephrine auto-injectors were reported to US Poison Control Centers, 60% of them from 2003 to 2007. Those unintentionally injected had a median age of 14 years (interquartile range, 8-35), 55% were female, and 85% were injected in a home or other residence. Management was documented in only 4101 cases (27%), of whom 53% were observed without intervention, 29% were treated, 13% were neither held for observation nor treated, and 4% refused treatment. In contrast, from 1969 to 2007, only 105 unintentional injections from epinephrine auto-injectors were reported to MedWatch. Forty percent of these occurred during attempts to treat allergic reactions. Injuries resulting in permanent sequelae were rarely reported to either US Poison Control Centers or to MedWatch. CONCLUSION: The number of reported unintentional injections from epinephrine auto-injectors increased annually from 1994 to 2007. To prevent these unintentional injections, improved epinephrine auto-injector design is needed, along with increased vigilance in training the trainers and in training and coaching the users, as well as efforts to increase public awareness of the role of epinephrine auto-injectors in the first-aid treatment of anaphylaxis in the community.

Hazards of unintentional injection of epinephrine from autoinjectors: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain the rate of occurrence of unintentional injections from epinephrine autoinjectors used in the first aid treatment of anaphylaxis and to provide information about the resulting needle stick injuries. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was performed. The MEDLINE, Scirus, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were searched by title and abstract to identify reports of unintentional injections from epinephrine autoinjectors published in peer-reviewed journals. STUDY SELECTION: Publications were selected for inclusion based on predefined strict criteria. RESULTS: In 26 reports published during the past 20 years, we identified 69 people with an unintentional injection of epinephrine from an autoinjector. More than 68% of them were reported in the past 6.3 years, 58% were female, 42% were injured in the home, and 91% sustained injury to a finger or thumb. More than 65% of the 69 individuals were evaluated in an emergency department; 13% of the 69 were not treated or were treated only with observation. Warming of the injured part was used in 25%, nitroglycerin paste application in 9%, local injections of phentolamine and/or lidocaine in 22%, and other treatments in 20%; treatment, or lack thereof, was not described in 12%. No permanent sequelae were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The true rate of occurrence of unintentional injection of epinephrine from autoinjectors is unknown but is increasing. People at risk for anaphylaxis need regular coaching in how to use epinephrine autoinjectors correctly and safely. Improved autoinjector design will address the safety concerns identified in this review.