Faculty Bibliography

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).

AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Two guidelines for haemodialysis in lithium poisoning, one from the Extracorporeal TReatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup and a single centre retrospective one (Paris) differ. We compared outcomes in lithium poisoning based on these criteria with a primary outcome of worsening neurological symptoms in patients for whom EXTRIP and Paris criteria were discordant. METHODS:Poison centre data were queried for lithium poisoned patients for whom haemodialysis was either recommended or performed. Patients were categorized according to EXTRIP and Paris criteria and excluded if the peak lithium concentration was <1.2 mmol/L or if neurological follow-up was unavailable. Comparative analyses were only performed when both criteria could be assessed. RESULTS:In total, 219 patients were analysed. Paris criteria were met in 70 and EXTRIP criteria in 178. Forty two patients were excluded because Paris criteria could not be evaluated. When Paris and EXTRIP both supported haemodialysis, 50/57 (88%) of patients who received haemodialysis improved, as did all 3 who did not receive haemodialysis. When Paris and EXTRIP did not support haemodialysis, all nondialysed patients did well. Among the 86 patients for whom EXTRIP supported haemodialysis but Paris did not, 4/19 (21%) patients not dialysed deteriorated (P = .02; odds ratio = 8.7, 95% confidence interval = 1.5-51.8), 1 of whom died. All 8 patients for whom Paris criteria supported haemodialysis but EXTRIP did not were dialysed and improved. CONCLUSIONS:When the EXTRIP and Paris criteria are discordant, EXTRIP criteria outperforms the Paris criteria at identifying potentially ill patients who might benefit from haemodialysis.

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.