Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Although chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and quinine are used for a range of medical conditions, recent research suggested a potential role in treating COVID-19. The resultant increase in prescribing was accompanied by an increase in adverse events, including severe toxicity and death. The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup sought to determine the effect of and indications for extracorporeal treatments in cases of poisoning with these drugs. METHODS:We conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, and summarized findings following published EXTRIP methods. RESULTS:studies, two animal studies, 28 patient reports or patient series, and 11 pharmacokinetic studies) met inclusion criteria regarding the effect of extracorporeal treatments. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic analysis was available for 61 patients (13 chloroquine, three hydroxychloroquine, and 45 quinine). Clinical data were available for analysis from 38 patients, including 12 with chloroquine toxicity, one with hydroxychloroquine toxicity, and 25 with quinine toxicity. All three drugs were classified as non-dialyzable (not amenable to clinically significant removal by extracorporeal treatments). The available data do not support using extracorporeal treatments in addition to standard care for patients severely poisoned with either chloroquine or quinine (strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence). Although hydroxychloroquine was assessed as being non-dialyzable, the clinical evidence was not sufficient to support a formal recommendation regarding the use of extracorporeal treatments for this drug. CONCLUSIONS:On the basis of our systematic review and analysis, the EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using extracorporeal methods to enhance elimination of these drugs in patients with severe chloroquine or quinine poisoning.

The use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) for poisonings with four non-traditionally dialyzed toxins (NTDTs) is increasing in the United States. This study evaluated whether ECTRs are prescribed for toxin removal or the treatment of other medical illnesses or complications. We performed a Phase 2 retrospective analysis evaluating the main indication for ECTRs in patients with: poisoning with a NTDT (defined for this study as: acetaminophen, opioids, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) or digoxin) and ECTR. The first phase assessed all cases from a single site (New York City Poison Control Center) between the years 2000 and 2016 and the second phase surveyed all United States Poison Control Centers (PCCs). In Phase 1, demographics, toxin ingested, and main indication for ECTR were extracted. In Phase 2, a query to the National Poison Data System using the a pragmatic subset of inclusion criteria from Phase 1 that was restricted to single substance ingestions over a narrower time frame (2014-2016) provided the cases for study. A structured online questionnaire was sent to all United States PCCs to request their database review regarding the indication for ECTR for their cases. In Phase 1, 92 cases met inclusion criteria. In Phase 2, 519 cases were screened and 425 met inclusion criteria. In Phase 1 91/92 (98.9%) and Phase 2 411/425 (96.7%) extracorporeal treatments were used to treat underlying medical conditions or poisoning-related complications rather than accelerate toxin removal. The increasing number of ECTRs reported in patients who ingested one of the four NTDTs thus appears to be for medical indications rather than attempts at toxin removal, a distinction that is important to report.

Historically, the clinical application of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs), such as hemodialysis or hemoperfusion, was first intended for poisoned patients. With time, ECTRs were used almost indiscriminately to facilitate the elimination of many poisons, albeit with uncertain clinical benefit. To determine the precise role of ECTRs in poisoning situations, multiple variables need to be considered including a careful risk assessment, the poison's characteristics including toxicokinetics, alternative treatments, the patient's clinical status, and intricacies of available ECTRs, all of which are reviewed in this article. Recently, evidence-based and expert opinion-based recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup were also published to help minimize the knowledge gap in this area.

BACKGROUND:The osmolal gap has been used for decades to screen for exposure to toxic alcohols. However, several issues may affect its reliability. We aimed to develop equations to calculate osmolarity with improved performance when used to screen for intoxication to toxic alcohols. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:7,525 patients undergoing simultaneous measurements of osmolality, sodium, potassium, urea, glucose, and ethanol or undergoing similar measurements performed within 30 minutes of a measurement of toxic alcohol levels at a single tertiary-care center from April 2001 to June 2016. Patients with detectable toxic alcohols were excluded. INDEX TEST/METHODS:Equations to calculate osmolarity using multiple linear regression. OUTCOMES/RESULTS:The performance of new equations compared with published equations developed to calculate osmolarity, and to diagnose toxic alcohol intoxications more accurately. RESULTS:with 95% of osmolal gap values between -10.9 and 13.8. In patients with undetectable ethanol concentrations, the range of 95% of osmolal gap values was narrower than previous published formulas, and in patients with detectable ethanol concentrations, the range was narrower or similar. We performed a subanalysis of 138 cases for which both the toxic alcohol concentration could be measured and the osmolal gap could be calculated. Our simplified equation had superior diagnostic accuracy for toxic alcohol exposure. LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Single center, no external validation, limited number of cases with detectable toxic alcohols. CONCLUSIONS:In a large cohort, coefficients from regression analyses estimating the contribution of glucose, urea, and ethanol were higher than 1.0. Our simplified formula to precisely calculate osmolarity yielded improved diagnostic accuracy for suspected toxic alcohol exposures than previously published formulas.