Physicochemical characteristics of drugs and response to repeat-dose activated charcoal

First aid interventions by laypeople for acute oral poisoning

BACKGROUND

Oral poisoning is a major cause of mortality and disability worldwide, with estimates of over 100,000 deaths due to unintentional poisoning each year and an overrepresentation of children below five years of age. Any effective intervention that laypeople can apply to limit or delay uptake or to evacuate, dilute or neutralize the poison before professional help arrives may limit toxicity and save lives.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pre-hospital interventions (alone or in combination) for treating acute oral poisoning, available to and feasible for laypeople before the arrival of professional help.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and three clinical trials registries to 11 May 2017, and we also carried out reference checking and citation searching.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing interventions (alone or in combination) that are feasible in a pre-hospital setting for treating acute oral poisoning patients, including but potentially not limited to activated charcoal (AC), emetics, cathartics, diluents, neutralizing agents and body positioning.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data collection and assessment. Primary outcomes of this review were incidence of mortality and adverse events, plus incidence and severity of symptoms of poisoning. Secondary outcomes were duration of symptoms of poisoning, drug absorption, and incidence of hospitalization and ICU admission.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 trials involving 7099 participants. Using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, we assessed no study as being at low risk of bias for all domains. Many studies were poorly reported, so the risk of selection and detection biases were often unclear. Most studies reported important outcomes incompletely, and we judged them to be at high risk of reporting bias.All but one study enrolled oral poisoning patients in an emergency department; the remaining study was conducted in a pre-hospital setting. Fourteen studies included multiple toxic syndromes or did not specify, while the other studies specifically investigated paracetamol (2 studies), carbamazepine (2 studies), tricyclic antidepressant (2 studies), yellow oleander (2 studies), benzodiazepine (1 study), or toxic berry intoxication (1 study). Eighteen trials investigated the effects of activated charcoal (AC), administered as a single dose (SDAC) or in multiple doses (MDAC), alone or in combination with other first aid interventions (a cathartic) and/or hospital treatments. Six studies investigated syrup of ipecac plus other first aid interventions (SDAC + cathartic) versus ipecac alone. The collected evidence was mostly of low to very low certainty, often downgraded for indirectness, risk of bias or imprecision due to low numbers of events.First aid interventions that limit or delay the absorption of the poison in the bodyWe are uncertain about the effect of SDAC compared to no intervention on the incidence of adverse events in general (zero events in both treatment groups; 1 study, 451 participants) or vomiting specifically (Peto odds ratio (OR) 4.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 57.26, 1 study, 25 participants), ICU admission (Peto OR 7.77, 95% CI 0.15 to 391.93, 1 study, 451 participants) and clinical deterioration (zero events in both treatment groups; 1 study, 451 participants) in participants with mixed types or paracetamol poisoning, as all evidence for these outcomes was of very low certainty. No studies assessed SDAC for mortality, duration of symptoms, drug absorption or hospitalization.Only one study compared SDAC to syrup of ipecac in participants with mixed types of poisoning, providing very low-certainty evidence. Therefore we are uncertain about the effects on Glasgow Coma Scale scores (mean difference (MD) -0.15, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.13, 1 study, 34 participants) or incidence of adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.24, 95% CI 0.26 to 5.83, 1 study, 34 participants). No information was available concerning mortality, duration of symptoms, drug absorption, hospitalization or ICU admission.This review also considered the added value of SDAC or MDAC to hospital interventions, which mostly included gastric lavage. No included studies investigated the use of body positioning in oral poisoning patients.First aid interventions that evacuate the poison from the gastrointestinal tractWe found one study comparing ipecac versus no intervention in toxic berry ingestion in a pre-hospital setting. Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be an increase in the incidence of adverse events, but the study did not report incidence of mortality, incidence or duration of symptoms of poisoning, drug absorption, hospitalization or ICU admission (103 participants).In addition, we also considered the added value of syrup of ipecac to SDAC plus a cathartic and the added value of a cathartic to SDAC.No studies used cathartics as an individual intervention.First aid interventions that neutralize or dilute the poison No included studies investigated the neutralization or dilution of the poison in oral poisoning patients.The review also considered combinations of different first aid interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The studies included in this review provided mostly low- or very low-certainty evidence about the use of first aid interventions for acute oral poisoning. A key limitation was the fact that only one included study actually took place in a pre-hospital setting, which undermines our confidence in the applicability of these results to this setting. Thus, the amount of evidence collected was insufficient to draw any conclusions.

Enhanced poison elimination in critical care

Nephrologists and critical care physicians are commonly involved in the treatment of severely poisoned patients. Various techniques exist presently to enhance the elimination of poisons. Corporeal treatments occur inside of the body and include multiple-dose activated charcoal, resin binding, forced diuresis, and urinary pH alteration. Extracorporeal treatments include hemodialysis, hemoperfusion, peritoneal dialysis, continuous renal replacement therapy, exchange transfusion, and plasmapheresis. This review illustrates the potential indications and limitations in the application of these modalities as well as the pharmacological characteristics of poisons amenable to enhanced elimination.

Drugs and pharmaceuticals: management of intoxication and antidotes

The treatment of patients poisoned with drugs and pharmaceuticals can be quite challenging. Diverse exposure circumstances, varied clinical presentations, unique patient-specific factors, and inconsistent diagnostic and therapeutic infrastructure support, coupled with relatively few definitive antidotes, may complicate evaluation and management. The historical approach to poisoned patients (patient arousal, toxin elimination, and toxin identification) has given way to rigorous attention to the fundamental aspects of basic life support--airway management, oxygenation and ventilation, circulatory competence, thermoregulation, and substrate availability. Selected patients may benefit from methods to alter toxin pharmacokinetics to minimize systemic, target organ, or tissue compartment exposure (either by decreasing absorption or increasing elimination). These may include syrup of ipecac, orogastric lavage, activated single- or multi-dose charcoal, whole bowel irrigation, endoscopy and surgery, urinary alkalinization, saline diuresis, or extracorporeal methods (hemodialysis, charcoal hemoperfusion, continuous venovenous hemofiltration, and exchange transfusion). Pharmaceutical adjuncts and antidotes may be useful in toxicant-induced hyperthermias. In the context of analgesic, anti-inflammatory, anticholinergic, anticonvulsant, antihyperglycemic, antimicrobial, antineoplastic, cardiovascular, opioid, or sedative-hypnotic agents overdose, N-acetylcysteine, physostigmine, L-carnitine, dextrose, octreotide, pyridoxine, dexrazoxane, leucovorin, glucarpidase, atropine, calcium, digoxin-specific antibody fragments, glucagon, high-dose insulin euglycemia therapy, lipid emulsion, magnesium, sodium bicarbonate, naloxone, and flumazenil are specifically reviewed. In summary, patients generally benefit from aggressive support of vital functions, careful history and physical examination, specific laboratory analyses, a thoughtful consideration of the risks and benefits of decontamination and enhanced elimination, and the use of specific antidotes where warranted. Data supporting antidotes effectiveness vary considerably. Clinicians are encouraged to utilize consultation with regional poison centers or those with toxicology training to assist with diagnosis, management, and administration of antidotes, particularly in unfamiliar cases.

Phase II Study of Activated Charcoal to Prevent Irinotecan-Induced Diarrhea

Purpose

The dose-limiting toxicity of irinotecan (CPT-11; Camptosar) is delayed-onset diarrhea, with an incidence at the grade 3 to 4 level of 20% to 35%. SN38, its active moiety, is responsible by a direct effect on mucosal topoisomerase-I. The aim of this study was to assess whether activated charcoal (AC), possibly by adsorbing free lumenal SN38, can reduce irinotecan-induced diarrhea (CID) and optimize its dose-intensity.

Patients and Methods

Patients with advanced colorectal cancer receiving irinotecan 125 mg/m2intravenously once a week for 4 weeks every 6 weeks were studied. In cycle 1, patients received irinotecan plus AC (5 mL aqueous Charcodote [1,000 mg AC] plus 25 mL water) given the evening before the irinotecan dose and then tid for 48 hours after the dose. In cycle 2, no AC was given. National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria diarrhea grade, irinotecan dose-intensity, and loperamide consumption were recorded prospectively in both cycles.

Results

Twenty-eight patients had completed cycle 1 with AC; 24 subsequently completed cycle 2 without AC. Grade 3 to 4 diarrhea was 7.1% v 25%, and grade 0 diarrhea was 46.4% v 20.8% in cycles 1 and 2, respectively. Median percent planned dose delivered was 98% v 70% in cycles 1 and 2, respectively. In cycles 1 and 2, respectively, 25% v 54% patients took more than 10 loperamide tablets. AC was well tolerated with excellent compliance.

Conclusion

The administration of AC with irinotecan reduced the incidence of grade 3 to 4 diarrhea and antidiarrheal medication consumption and increased irinotecan dose-intensity. Prophylactic AC may have a role in reducing dose-limiting CID and optimizing irinotecan therapy.

Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine the scientific quality of systematic reviews published in 5 leading emergency medicine journals.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were electronically searched to identify published systematic reviews. Searches were only conducted in emergency medicine journals during the past 10 years; 4 of the journals were also hand searched. Potential reviews were assessed independently by 2 reviewers for inclusion. Data regarding methods were extracted from each review independently by 2 reviewers. All systematic reviews were retrieved and rated for quality by using the 10 questions from the overview quality assessment questionnaire.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine reviews were identified from more than 100 citations. The overall scientific quality of the systematic reviews was low (mean score, 2.7; 95% confidence interval 2.1 to 3.2; maximum possible score, 7.0). Selection and publication biases were rarely addressed in this collection of reviews. For example, the search strategies were only identified in 9 (31%) reviews, whereas independent study selection (6 [21%]) and quality assessment of included studies (9 [31%]) were infrequently performed. Overall, the majority of reviews had extensive flaws, and only 3 (10%) had minimal flaws.

CONCLUSION

The results of the study indicate that many of the systematic reviews published in the emergency medicine literature contain major flaws; reviews with poor methodology may limit the validity of reported results. Further efforts should be made to improve the design, reporting, and publication of systematic reviews in emergency medicine.

Position statement and practice guidelines on the use of multi-dose activated charcoal in the treatment of acute poisoning. American Academy of Clinical Toxicology; European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists

In preparing this Position Statement, all relevant scientific literature was identified and reviewed critically by acknowledged experts using agreed criteria. Well-conducted clinical and experimental studies were given precedence over anecdotal case reports and abstracts were not usually considered. A draft Position Statement was then produced and subjected to detailed peer review by an international group of clinical toxicologists chosen by the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology and the European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists. The Position Statement went through multiple drafts before being approved by the Boards of the two societies. The Position Statement includes a summary statement for ease of use and is supported by detailed documentation which describes the scientific evidence on which the Statement is based. Although many studies in animals and volunteers have demonstrated that multiple-dose activated charcoal increases drug elimination significantly, this therapy has not yet been shown in a controlled study in poisoned patients to reduce morbidity and mortality. Further studies are required to establish its role and the optimal dosage regimen of charcoal to be administered. Based on experimental and clinical studies, multiple-dose activated charcoal should be considered only if a patient has ingested a life-threatening amount of carbamazepine, dapsone, phenobarbital, quinine, or theophylline. With all of these drugs there are data to confirm enhanced elimination, though no controlled studies have demonstrated clinical benefit. Although volunteer studies have demonstrated that multiple-dose activated charcoal increases the elimination of amitriptyline, dextropropoxyphene, digitoxin, digoxin, disopyramide, nadolol, phenylbutazone, phenytoin, piroxicam, and sotalol, there are insufficient clinical data to support or exclude the use of this therapy. The use of multiple-dose charcoal in salicylate poisoning is controversial. One animal study and 2 of 4 volunteer studies did not demonstrate increased salicylate clearance with multiple-dose charcoal therapy. Data in poisoned patients are insufficient presently to recommend the use of multiple-dose charcoal therapy for salicylate poisoning. Multiple-dose activated charcoal did not increase the elimination of astemizole, chlorpropamide, doxepin, imipramine, meprobamate, methotrexate, phenytoin, sodium valproate, tobramycin, and vancomycin in experimental and/or clinical studies. Unless a patient has an intact or protected airway, the administration of multiple-dose activated charcoal is contraindicated. It should not be used in the presence of an intestinal obstruction. The need for concurrent administration of cathartics remains unproven and is not recommended. In particular, cathartics should not be administered to young children because of the propensity of laxatives to cause fluid and electrolyte imbalance. In conclusion, based on experimental and clinical studies, multiple-dose activated charcoal should be considered only if a patient has ingested a life-threatening amount of carbamazepine, dapsone, phenobarbital, quinine, or theophylline.

Correlation of drug pharmacokinetics and effectiveness of multiple-dose activated charcoal therapy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate an animal model of multiple-dose activated charcoal (MDAC) therapy and correlate the pharmacokinetic properties of four drugs with the efficacy of MDAC.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled, crossover design.

SETTING

A university animal research facility.

PARTICIPANTS

Seven female pigs (15 to 22 kg) with an indwelling central venous line and gastrostomy tube.

INTERVENTIONS

Acetaminophen (30 mg/kg), digoxin (30 micrograms/kg), theophylline (8.9 mg/kg), and valproic acid (18 mg/kg) were simultaneously administered intravenously over 12 minutes. In the experimental arm, 25 g activated charcoal was administered at 0, 2, 4, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 hours through the gastric tube. In the control arm, an equal volume of water was given at the same times. Blood specimens were obtained over 36 hours to measure serum drug concentrations.

RESULTS

Each drug exhibited enhanced elimination (P < .01) in the MDAC group except valproic acid. Lower intrinsic clearance was correlated (P < .05) with increased systemic elimination during the charcoal arm. Volume of distribution, half-life, and protein binding were not significantly correlated with charcoal-enhanced systemic drug elimination.

CONCLUSION

The response of a drug to MDAC may be affected by its intrinsic clearance. The restrictive nature of the protein binding of valproic acid may be responsible for its lack of response. Results with the porcine model are consistent with the effects observed in human beings.

Multiple-dose activated charcoal and enhancement of systemic drug clearance: summary of studies in animals and human volunteers

Multiple-dose activated charcoal therapy can enhance the systemic elimination of many drugs. Studies in animals and human volunteers provide a framework for understanding the indications and limitations of multiple-dose activated charcoal therapy. Enterocapillary exsorption creates a compartment for diffusion drugs out of the bloodstream and activated charcoal can augment this process to enhance drug clearance. Once charcoal reaches the intestine, there is a rapid onset of action. Clearance at exsorption sites is limited by blood flow; moreover, the rate of exsorption is related to the dose of charcoal up to a ceiling dose. Drug absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination dynamically interact with multiple-dose activated charcoal therapy making it difficult to identify a single variable that may predict the success or failure with this therapy. Drug characteristics associated with enhanced systemic clearance with multiple-dose activated charcoal include a low intrinsic clearance, presence in the body for a sufficient time period for charcoal to act, a prolonged distributive phase, non-restrictive protein binding, and a small volume of distribution. Drugs that are unaffected at low doses may respond to multiple doses of activated charcoal when nonlinear kinetics are apparent due to overdose or disease. Although our current understanding is incomplete, multiple-dose activated charcoal therapy will play a role in the future therapy of poisoning patients.