Observational studyThe Journal of emergency medicine2025
Emergency Department Patients with Para-Fluorofentanyl Overdose.
Observational study in The Journal of emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFentanyl analogs, such as para-fluorofentanyl (PFF), are increasing in the illicit opioid supply.
objectivesThis study characterizes demographics, clinical effects, and sex differences for naloxone administration in emergency department (ED) patients with confirmed PFF overdose compared with fentanyl.
methodsThis prospective observational cohort is from the ToxIC Fentalog Study between 2020 and 2023 at 10 participating U.S. hospitals. Adult patients with suspected opioid overdose presenting to EDs were screened and eligible if waste serum samples were available for comprehensive toxicological analysis. Fentanyl-positive patients were included in this analysis examining associations between PFF and naloxone administration, with stratified analyses for sex differences.
resultsOf 4873 screened, 833 were included; 694 PFF negative (PFFN) and 139 PFF positive (PFFP). Mean age was 41 years, and men were predominant (PFFN 73.1% vs. PFFP 69.8%). More than half of PFFP patients presented at 2 of the 10 participating sites, New York (29.8%) and Pennsylvania (21.3%). The most common indication for naloxone was depressed level of consciousness (PFFN 82.1% vs. PFFP 79.8%). PFFP were less likely to receive naloxone doses > 2 mg compared with PFFN (48.2% vs. 60.8%, p = 0.002). After controlling for covariates, PFFP were less likely to receive out-of-hospital naloxone (adjusted odds ratio 0.87; 95% confidence interval 0.81-0.94). PFFP men were less likely to receive naloxone doses ≥ 2 mg (adjusted odds ratio 0.64; 95% confidence interval 0.42-0.97), but this association was not significant for women.
conclusionPFF was present in almost 20% of ED patients with confirmed fentanyl overdose. Although naloxone administration was lower for PFF compared with fentanyl, differences were more pronounced in men. Clinicians and public health officials should be aware of the evolving illicit opioid supply. Future study is warranted to explore the PFF dose response and mechanism behind these observed sex differences due to fentanyl analogs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.