Efficacy of intravenous hydrocortisone administered 2–4 h prior to antivenom as prophylaxis against adverse drug reactions to snake antivenom in Sri Lanka: An open labelled randomized controlled trial

Revolutionizing snakebite care with novel antivenoms: Breakthroughs and barriers

Snakebite envenoming (SBE) is a global public health concern, primarily due to the lack of effective antivenom for treating snakebites inflicted by medically significant venomous snakes prevalent across various geographic locations. The rising demand for safe, cost-effective, and potent snakebite treatments highlights the urgent need to develop alternative therapeutics targeting relevant toxins. This development could provide promising discoveries to create novel recombinant solutions, leveraging human monoclonal antibodies, synthetic peptides and nanobodies. Such technologies as recombinant DNA, peptide and epitope mapping phage display etc) have the potential to exceed the traditional use of equine polyclonal antibodies, which have long been used in antivenom production. Recombinant antivenom can be engineered to target certain toxins that play a critical role in snakebite pathology. This approach has the potential to produce antivenom with improved efficacy and safety profiles. However, there are limitations and challenges associated with these emerging technologies. Therefore, identifying the limitations is critical for overcoming the associated challenges and optimizing the development of recombinant antivenoms. This review is aimed at presenting a thorough overview of diverse technologies used in the development of recombinant antivenom, emphasizing their limitations and offering insights into prospects for advancing recombinant antivenoms.

Incidence of serum sickness following Indian polyvalent antivenom therapy in a cohort of snake-envenomed patients in rural Sri Lanka

INTRODUCTION

Serum sickness is a poorly reported delayed adverse reaction following snake antivenom therapy. We aimed to assess the frequency of serum sickness associated with administering Indian polyvalent antivenom in Sri Lanka.

METHODS

We recruited patients from the Anuradhapura snakebite cohort who were admitted to a rural tertiary care hospital in Sri Lanka over one year period. Patients were interviewed over the phone 21 to 28 days post-envenoming to collect data on clinical effects: fever/chills, arthralgia/myalgia, rash, malaise, headache, abdominal pain, and nausea/vomiting. The presence of three or more symptoms between the 5th to 20th days after snake envenoming was defined as serum sickness.

RESULTS

We were able to contact 98/122 (80%) patients who received antivenom and 423/588 (72%) who did not receive antivenom during the study period. The treated patients received a median dose of 20 vials (interquartile range: 20-30) of Indian polyvalent antivenom and of them, 92 (92%) received premedication. However, 67/98 (68%) developed acute adverse reactions to antivenom, including 19/98 (19%) developing anaphylaxis. Only 4/98 (4%) who received antivenom met the criteria for serum sickness, compared to none who did not receive antivenom therapy. All patients who developed serum sickness were envenomed by Russell's vipers, were premedicated, and received VINS Bioproducts antivenom. Three of them were treated with hydrocortisone in the acute stage, as premedication or as a treatment for acute adverse reactions of antivenom. Although all four patients sought medical advice for their symptoms, only one was clinically suspected to be serum sickness and treated, while the others were treated for infections.

CONCLUSIONS

We confirmed that Indian polyvalent antivenom use in Sri Lanka is associated with high rates of acute adverse reactions. In contrast to studies of other antivenoms only a small proportion of patients developed serum sickness.

Outcomes in intervention research on snakebite envenomation: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

A core outcome set (COS) is a minimal list of consensus outcomes that should be used in all intervention research in a specific domain. COS enhance the ability to undertake meaningful comparisons and to understand the benefits or harms of different treatments. A first step in developing a COS is to identify outcomes that have been used previously. We did this global systematic review to provide the foundation for development of a region-specific COS for snakebite envenomation.  Methods: We searched 15 electronic databases, eight trial registries, and reference lists of included studies to identify reports of relevant trials, protocols, registry records and systematic reviews. We extracted verbatim data on outcomes, their definitions, measures, and time-points. Outcomes were classified as per an existing outcome taxonomy, and we identified unique outcomes based on similarities in the definition and measurement of the verbatim outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 107 records for 97 studies which met our inclusion criteria. These reported 538 outcomes, with a wide variety of outcome measures, definitions, and time points for measurement. We consolidated these into 88 unique outcomes, which we classified into core areas of mortality (1, 1.14 %), life impact (6, 6.82%), resource use (15, 17.05%), adverse events (7, 7.95%), physiological/clinical (51, 57.95%), and composite (8, 9.09%) outcomes. The types of outcomes varied by the type of intervention, and by geographic region. Only 15 of the 97 trials (17.04%) listed Patient Related Outcome Measures (PROMS).

CONCLUSION

Trials evaluating interventions for snakebite demonstrate heterogeneity on outcomes and often omit important information related to outcome measurement (definitions, instruments, and time points). Developing high quality, region-specific COS for snakebite could inform the design of future trials and improve outcome reporting. Measurement of PROMS, resource use and life impact outcomes in trials on snakebite remains a gap.

Hydrocortisone for Preventing Adverse Drug Reactions to Snake Antivenom: A Meta-Analysis

Objective

Pretreatment with hydrocortisone (prehydrocortisone) has been used to protect against adverse drug reactions (ADRs) following antivenom administration after snakebite. However, controversial results have been reported in studies evaluating its efficacy. Herein, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of prehydrocortisone on the risk of ADRs.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for relevant studies on the literature published up to December 6, 2020, with no language restrictions. Premedications, including hydrocortisone with or without other drugs, were compared with placebo or no premedication. Our primary end point was the risk of ADRs, which was reported as the number of patients who developed ADRs divided by the total number of snakebite patients administered with antivenom separately for the prehydrocortisone and control groups for each study. We evaluated pooled data using of a random-effects model.

Results

Among 831 identified studies, 4 were eligible and included in our analysis (N = 1348 participants). Upon combining all eight comparisons from the four selected studies, the overall pooled odds ratio (OR) for ADRs was 0.47 (95% CI 0.19, 1.17; p=0.11; I² = 68%). When the analysis was restricted to only articles using hydrocortisone with other drugs, the pooled OR was 0.19 (95% CI 0.05, 0.75; p=0.02; I² = 55%). The result was not statistically significant when the analysis was restricted to studies using prehydrocortisone alone, or randomized controlled designs, or cohorts. Our study was limited by heterogeneity, quality, and a paucity of data.

Conclusions

The findings in this study revealed that prehydrocortisone alone was ineffective. However, the substantial beneficial effect of prehydrocortisone combinations with premedications (injectable antihistamines or adrenaline) used against ADRs cannot be excluded. Therefore, the use of prehydrocortisone combinations with premedications (injectable antihistamines or adrenaline) as a prophylaxis may reduce the ADRs to antivenom.

Adjunct treatment in snakebite envenoming: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Adjunct therapy in snakebite may be lifesaving if administered appropriately or can be harmful if non-judicious use leads to avoidable delays in administering antivenom. This systematic review analyses the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of adjunct treatment administered with antivenom. PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane library and CINAHL were searched for RCTs enrolling patients with snakebite envenoming where a treatment other than antivenom has been assessed for its efficacy within the last 25 y. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The interventions assessed were categorised as adjunct therapies (heparin or fresh frozen plasma) to reverse haemotoxicity (three studies), antibiotics to prevent local infections (three studies), steroids to reduce local swelling (one study), premedication (adrenaline, steroids and antihistamines, either alone or in combination) to reduce hypersensitivity reactions to antivenom (five studies) and other interventions (three studies). Apart from a beneficial effect of low-dose adrenaline (1:1000, 0.25 ml administered subcutaneously) in preventing antivenom-induced hypersensitivities (OR: 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.93, two RCTs, 354 participants, moderate certainty evidence) in Sri Lanka, evidence for any other adjunct therapy is either non-existent or needs confirmation by larger better designed trials.

Do Corticosteroids Prevent Biphasic Anaphylaxis?

Anaphylaxis is a severe hypersensitivity reaction that is rapid in onset and can result in death. The pattern of an anaphylactic reaction can be uniphasic (or monophasic), biphasic (also called delayed or late phase), or refractory in nature. The most widely cited definition of biphasic anaphylaxis is a recurrence of anaphylactic symptoms after initial resolution despite no further exposure to the trigger. Corticosteroids are thought by some to prevent the development of biphasic symptoms and, therefore, commonly used in the emergency treatment of anaphylaxis but this has not been systemtically analyzed. In this review, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for articles using "anaphylaxis" combined with the key terms "biphasic" and/or "corticosteroids" and/or "epinephrine." A total of 31 appropriate studies were identified. Biphasic anaphylactic reactions are more likely to occur in moderate to severe anaphylaxis or when anaphylaxis is not treated with timely epinephrine. Because of the potential detrimental adverse effects of corticosteroids and lack of compelling evidence demonstrating an effective role in reducing anaphylaxis severity or preventing biphasic anaphylaxis, we do not advocate for their routine use in anaphylaxis.

Antivenom therapy: efficacy of premedication for the prevention of adverse reactions

Antivenoms or antitoxins have been effectively used for more than a century. During this time, these products have always proven to be highly effective in the treatment of infections and envenomations. However, antivenoms did not exhibit good safety results in their initial applications. After many improvements, antivenoms have substantially better safety profiles but still have some side effects. Due to the occurrence of adverse reactions, the practice of using premedication with the intent to decrease side effects has become accepted or mandatory in many countries. The drugs used for premedication belong to the histamine H1 antagonist, glucocorticoid and catecholamine groups. Currently, this practice is being questioned due to low or controversial efficacies in clinical assays. In this article, we discuss the causes of adverse reactions, the mechanisms of drugs that block the undesired effects and the results obtained in clinical trials. Although these three families of drugs could have positive effects on reducing adverse reactions, only adrenaline has demonstrated positive results in clinical assays.