A Novel Faster-Acting, Dry Powder-Based, Naloxone Intranasal Formulation for Opioid Overdose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the pharmacokinetics and safety of FMXIN001, a new intranasal powder-based naloxone formulation, in comparison to Narcan® nasal liquid spray. METHODS: FMXIN001, was developed by blending drug microspheres with larger lactose monohydrate particles, that serve as diluent and carrier, as well as a disaggregating agent. Scanning electron microscopy and X-ray were used to characterize the formulation and in vitro deposition was investigated using a nasal cast. We compared the pharmacokinetics and safety of FMXIN001 versus Narcan® in two clinical trials: a pilot study with 14 healthy adults and a pivotal trial in 42 healthy adults (NCT04713709). The studies were open-label, single-dose, randomized, two-period, two-treatment, two-sequence crossover studies to assess the pharmacokinetics and safety of FMXIN001 versus Narcan® nasal spray. RESULTS: FMXIN001 comprises naloxone microspheres (5-30 μM) and lactose particles (40-240 μM). Upon in vitro testing, naloxone deposits mainly to the middle turbinates region and the upper part of the nasal cavity of a nasal cast. In human subjects, FMXIN001 produced significantly higher exposure at the initial time points of 4, 10, and 30 min, post-administration, compared to Narcan®. Both treatments were safe and well tolerated. FMXIN001, powder-based spray, results in similar overall exposure to Narcan®, but with more rapid absorption in the first 30 min. CONCLUSIONS: FMXIN001 is expected to have a shorter onset of action for a more effective therapeutic intervention to manage opioid overdose. Rapid administration of naloxone in cases of opioid overdose is imperative, given the alarming increase in mortality rates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".