Faculty Bibliography

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.

CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Anion gap metabolic acidosis (AGMA) is common in patients presenting for emergency care. While some disease processes and ingestions are easily excluded, diagnosing toxic alcohol (TA) ingestion can be challenging. This is especially true if drug concentrations are not readily available, which forces clinicians to rely on surrogate markers. Like TA ingestion, alcoholic ketoacidosis (AKA) produces an elevated osmol gap and an AGMA. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors suggestive of AKA when TA ingestion was the primary alternative differential diagnosis. We hypothesized that the odds of an AKA diagnosis would increase as ethanol concentration increased. METHODS:This was a retrospective analysis of data from 2000 through 2019 from a single US Poison Control Center. Records were reviewed to identify cases coded as "methanol" or "ethylene glycol"; or coded as "alcohol" or "ethanol with acidosis." The case definition for AKA required: (1) documented alcohol use disorder; (2) urine or serum ketones or elevated blood beta-hydroxybutyrate concentration; (3) anion gap ≥ 14 mmol/L. The inclusion criterion for TAs was a detectable methanol or ethylene glycol concentration. RESULTS: = .03). CONCLUSIONS:In this retrospective analysis, the odds of diagnosing AKA instead of TA ingestion increased as ethanol concentration increased. The limited ability of common clinical factors to differentiate these diagnoses highlights the need to obtain quantitative TA concentrations in real time. Until prospective validation, interpretation of ketone concentrations and toxic alcohol concentrations (when available) will continue to guide decision making.

OBJECTIVE:Although hemodialysis is recommended for patients with severe metformin-associated lactic acidosis (MALA), the amount of metformin removed by hemodialysis is poorly documented. We analyzed endogenous clearance and hemodialysis clearance in a patient with MALA. METHODS:A 62-year-old man with a history of type II diabetes mellitus presented after several days of vomiting and diarrhea and was found to have acute kidney injury (AKI) and severe acidemia. Initial serum metformin concentration was 315.34 μmol/L (40.73 μg/mL) (typical therapeutic concentrations 1-2 μg/mL). He underwent 6 h of hemodialysis. We collected hourly whole blood, serum, urine, and dialysate metformin concentrations. Blood, urine, and dialysate samples were analyzed, and clearances were determined using standard pharmacokinetic calculations. RESULTS:The total amount of metformin removed by 6 h of hemodialysis was 888 mg, approximately equivalent to one therapeutic dose. Approximately 142 mg of metformin was cleared in the urine during this time. His acid-base status and creatinine improved over the following days. No further hemodialysis was required. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We report a case of MALA likely secondary to AKI and severe volume depletion. The patient improved with supportive care, sodium bicarbonate, and hemodialysis. Analysis of whole blood, serum, urine, and dialysate concentrations showed limited efficacy of hemodialysis in the removal of metformin from blood, contrary to previously published data. Despite evidence of acute kidney injury, a relatively large amount of metformin was eliminated in the urine while the patient was undergoing hemodialysis. These data suggest that clinical improvement is likely due to factors besides removal of metformin.

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.