Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:The use of activated charcoal in poisoning remains both a pillar of modern toxicology and a source of debate. Following the publication of the joint position statements on the use of single-dose and multiple-dose activated charcoal by the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology and the European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists, the routine use of activated charcoal declined. Over subsequent years, many new pharmaceuticals became available in modified or alternative-release formulations and additional data on gastric emptying time in poisoning was published, challenging previous assumptions about absorption kinetics. The American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, the European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists and the Asia Pacific Association of Medical Toxicology founded the Clinical Toxicology Recommendations Collaborative to create a framework for evidence-based recommendations for the management of poisoned patients. The activated charcoal workgroup of the Clinical Toxicology Recommendations Collaborative was tasked with reviewing systematically the evidence pertaining to the use of activated charcoal in poisoning in order to update the previous recommendations. OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:The main objective was: Does oral activated charcoal given to adults or children prevent toxicity or improve clinical outcome and survival of poisoned patients compared to those who do not receive charcoal?  Secondary objectives were to evaluate pharmacokinetic outcomes, the role of cathartics, and adverse events to charcoal administration. This systematic review summarizes the available evidence on the efficacy of activated charcoal. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library/DARE. All databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2019. There were no language limitations.  One author screened all citations identified in the search based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Excluded citations were confirmed by an additional author and remaining articles were obtained in full text and evaluated by at least two authors for inclusion. All authors cross-referenced full-text articles to identify articles missed in the searches. Data from included articles were extracted by the authors on a standardized spreadsheet and two authors used the GRADE methodology to independently assess the quality and risk of bias of each included study. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: = 484) of individuals. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:This systematic review found heterogenous data. The higher GRADE data was focused on a few select poisonings, while studies that addressed patients with unknown and or mixed ingestions were hampered by low rates of clinically meaningful toxicity or death.  Despite these limitations, they reported a benefit of activated charcoal beyond one hour in many clinical scenarios.

BACKGROUND:β-adrenergic antagonists (BAAs) are used to treat cardiovascular disease such as ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, dysrhythmias, and hypertension. Poisoning from BAAs can lead to severe morbidity and mortality. We aimed to determine the utility of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in BAAs poisoning. METHODS:We conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, and summarized findings following published EXTRIP methods. RESULTS:A total of 76 studies (4 in vitro and 2 animal experiments, 1 pharmacokinetic simulation study, 37 pharmacokinetic studies on patients with end-stage kidney disease, and 32 case reports or case series) met inclusion criteria. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic data were available on 334 patients (including 73 for atenolol, 54 for propranolol, and 17 for sotalol). For intermittent hemodialysis, atenolol, nadolol, practolol, and sotalol were assessed as dialyzable; acebutolol, bisoprolol, and metipranolol were assessed as moderately dialyzable; metoprolol and talinolol were considered slightly dialyzable; and betaxolol, carvedilol, labetalol, mepindolol, propranolol, and timolol were considered not dialyzable. Data were available for clinical analysis on 37 BAA poisoned patients (including 9 patients for atenolol, 9 for propranolol, and 9 for sotalol), and no reliable comparison between the ECTR cohort and historical controls treated with standard care alone could be performed. The EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using ECTR for patients severely poisoned with propranolol (strong recommendation, very low quality evidence). The workgroup offered no recommendation for ECTR in patients severely poisoned with atenolol or sotalol because of apparent balance of risks and benefits, except for impaired kidney function in which ECTR is suggested (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence). Indications for ECTR in patients with impaired kidney function include refractory bradycardia and hypotension for atenolol or sotalol poisoning, and recurrent torsade de pointes for sotalol. Although other BAAs were considered dialyzable, clinical data were too limited to develop recommendations. CONCLUSIONS:BAAs have different properties affecting their removal by ECTR. The EXTRIP workgroup assessed propranolol as non-dialyzable. Atenolol and sotalol were assessed as dialyzable in patients with kidney impairment, and the workgroup suggests ECTR in patients severely poisoned with these drugs when aforementioned indications are present.

Isoniazid toxicity from self-poisoning or dosing errors remains common in regions of the world where tuberculosis is prevalent. Although the treatment of isoniazid poisoning is centered on supportive care and pyridoxine administration, extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs), such as hemodialysis, have been advocated to enhance elimination of isoniazid. No systematic reviews or evidence-based recommendations currently exist on the benefit of ECTRs for isoniazid poisoning. The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup systematically collected and rated the available evidence on the effect of and indications for ECTRs in cases of isoniazid poisoning. We conducted a systematic review of the literature, screened studies, extracted data on study characteristics, outcomes, and measurement characteristics, summarized findings, and formulated recommendations following published EXTRIP methods. Forty-three studies (two animal studies, 34 patient reports or patient series, and seven pharmacokinetic studies) met inclusion criteria. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic analysis was available for 60 patients, most treated with hemodialysis (n = 38). The workgroup assessed isoniazid as "Moderately Dialyzable" by hemodialysis for patients with normal kidney function (quality of evidence = C) and "Dialyzable" by hemodialysis for patients with impaired kidney function (quality of evidence = A). Clinical data for ECTR in isoniazid poisoning were available for 40 patients. Mortality of the cohort was 12.5%. Historical controls who received modern standard care including appropriately dosed pyridoxine generally had excellent outcomes. No benefit could be extrapolated from ECTR, although there was evidence of added costs and harms related to the double lumen catheter insertion, the extracorporeal procedure itself, and the extracorporeal removal of pyridoxine. The EXTRIP workgroup suggests against performing ECTR in addition to standard care (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence) in patients with isoniazid poisoning. If standard dose pyridoxine cannot be administered, we suggest performing ECTR only in patients with seizures refractory to GABA_A receptor agonists (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence).

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The term "lactic acidosis" reinforces the misconception that lactate contributes to acidemia. Although it is common to discover an anion gap acidosis with a concomitant elevated lactate concentration, the two are not mutually dependent. CASE REPORT/METHODS:Here we describe two patients exhibiting high lactate concentrations in the setting of metabolic alkalemia. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Lactate is not necessarily the direct cause of acid-base disturbances, and there is no fixed relationship between lactate and the anion gap or between lactate and pH. The term "metabolic acidosis with hyperlactatemia" is more specific than "lactic acidosis" and thus more appropriate.

BACKGROUND:Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are commonly used to treat conditions such as arterial hypertension and supraventricular dysrhythmias. Poisoning from these drugs can lead to severe morbidity and mortality. We aimed to determine the utility of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in the management of CCB poisoning. METHODS:We conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, summarized findings, and formulated recommendations following published EXTRIP methods. RESULTS:and 1 animal experiments, 55 case reports or case series, 19 pharmacokinetic studies, 1 cohort study and 1 systematic review) met inclusion criteria regarding the effect of ECTR. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic data were available on 210 patients (including 32 for amlodipine, 20 for diltiazem, and 52 for verapamil). Regardless of the ECTR used, amlodipine, bepridil, diltiazem, felodipine, isradipine, mibefradil, nifedipine, nisoldipine, and verapamil were considered not dialyzable, with variable levels of evidence, while no dialyzability grading was possible for nicardipine and nitrendipine. Data were available for clinical analysis on 78 CCB poisoned patients (including 32 patients for amlodipine, 16 for diltiazem, and 23 for verapamil). Standard care (including high dose insulin euglycemic therapy) was not systematically administered. Clinical data did not suggest an improvement in outcomes with ECTR. Consequently, the EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using ECTR in addition to standard care for patients severely poisoned with either amlodipine, diltiazem or verapamil (strong recommendations, very low quality of the evidence (1D)). There were insufficient clinical data to draft recommendation for other CCBs, although the workgroup acknowledged the low dialyzability from, and lack of biological plausibility for, ECTR. CONCLUSIONS:Both dialyzability and clinical data do not support a clinical benefit from ECTRs for CCB poisoning. The EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using extracorporeal methods to enhance the elimination of amlodipine, diltiazem, and verapamil in patients with severe poisoning.