Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40389500›Full record

Trial reportNature communications2025

A comparison of intramuscular (Zimhi) and intranasal naloxone (Narcan) in reversal of fentanyl-induced apnea: a randomized, crossover, open-label trial.

Maarten A van Lemmen, Monique van Velzen, Elise Y Sarton, Albert Dahan, Marieke Niesters, Rutger M van der Schrier

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative StudyEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Targeting the Carotid Body Function With Big-KPharmacology research & perspectives · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Maarten A van LemmenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8767-1824
Monique van VelzenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0289-6432
Elise Y SartonDepartment of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Albert DahanMediD Consultancy Group, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. adahan@MediDConsultancy.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3161-3945
Marieke NiestersDepartment of Anesthesiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Rutger M van der SchrierDepartment of Anesthesiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. r.m.van_der_schrier@lumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1422-3830

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Severe opioid-induced respiratory depression (OIRD) can be treated with intranasal (IN) or intramuscular (IM) naloxone. It is relevant to compare their efficacy and determine the optimal strategy to restore breathing following OIRD. In this open label, crossover, one-on-one randomized trial, conducted in a research unit of an academic medical center, we compared the required number of IM (5 mg/0.5 mL) versus IN (4 mg/0.1 mL) naloxone doses following 10 µg/kg intravenous fentanyl-induced apnea in opioid-naïve participants and participants who chronically use an opioid. After 2 min of apnea, IM or IN naloxone was given at 2 min intervals until return of adequate ventilation. The primary outcome was the number of naloxone doses needed to achieve full reversal of breathing. If necessary, rescue intravenous naloxone was administered. Eighteen opioid-naïve participants were randomized, 16 analyzed. The required median IM naloxone doses were 1.5 (IQR 1-2) versus 2 (1-3) for IN naloxone (p = 0.0002); one participant required rescue naloxone. No serious adverse events occurred. Similarly, in participants who chronically used an opioid, IM was more effective than IN naloxone. In these participants, adverse effects included muscle rigidity in the IN treated participants and mild to moderate withdrawal irrespective of treatment. Here we show the superiority of IM over IN naloxone in the number of doses required for full reversal of breathing following opioid-induced apnea. While the trial shows superiority for IM naloxone with products used in the community, we relate our findings to the higher naloxone plasma concentrations after IM naloxone compared to IN naloxone. The study was registered at https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN21068708 .

Indexed as

ApneaFentanylNaloxoneNarcotic AntagonistsAdministration, IntranasalAdultAnalgesics, OpioidCross-Over StudiesFemaleHumansInjections, IntramuscularMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeAnalgesics, OpioidFentanylNaloxoneNarcotic Antagonists

Identifiers

PMID40389500
PMCPMC12089355

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.