Potential misuse of ipecac

Toxicity of weight loss agents

INTRODUCTION

With the rise of the obesity epidemic in the United States over the last several decades and the medical complications seen with it, weight loss and dieting have become a national public health concern.

DISCUSSION

Because of their increased use and availability through internet sales, several different dieting agents were reviewed for potential toxicity. These included: syrup of ipecac, cathartics, human chorionic gonadotropin hormone, 2,4 Dinitrophenol, guar gum, phenylpropanolamine, ma huang/ ephedra, caffeine, clenbuterol, fenfluramine, sibutramine, thyroid hormone, orlistat and cannabinoid antagonists.

CONCLUSIONS

With the internet making even banned products readily accessible, healthcare providers need to be aware of the potential toxicities of a wide range of weight loss agents. Our review covered topics we thought to be most historically significant as well as pertinent to the practice of medical toxicology today.

Gastrointestinal decontamination of the poisoned patient

Gastrointestinal decontamination has been a historically accepted modality in the emergency management of oral intoxicants. Theoretically, gastric and whole-bowel emptying procedures hinder absorption, remove toxic substances, prevent clinical deterioration, and hasten recovery. This article presents a current overview of gastrointestinal decontamination. It challenges the accepted precepts of gut decontamination and assesses the utility of syrup of ipecac-induced emesis, orogastric lavage, single-dose-activated charcoal, cathartics, and whole-bowel irrigation.

Guideline on the use of ipecac syrup in the out-of-hospital management of ingested poisons

The use of gastric emptying techniques, including ipecac-induced emesis, in the management of poisoned patients has declined significantly in recent years. Historically, poison centers used ipecac syrup in two ways. Ipecac syrup was administered to patients prior to referral to the emergency department in attempts to start the gastric emptying process as early as possible. Additionally, poison centers used ipecac syrup in attempts to keep patients from requiring referral to medical facilities. In these situations, ipecac syrup was administered in the home and poison center staff performed follow-up telephone calls to gauge progress and outcome. Studies to determine the effectiveness of ipecac syrup demonstrate that it induces vomiting in a high percentage of people to whom it is administered and that it decreases the gastrointestinal absorption of ingested substances in a time-dependent fashion. However, the effectiveness of ipecac syrup in affecting patient outcome has not been studied in adequate clinical trials. Its effectiveness in preventing drug absorption has only been documented for a limited number of substances and is substantially reduced if it is given more than 30-90 minutes following ingestion of the toxic material. There are potentially significant contraindications, adverse effects and related problems associated with the use of ipecac syrup. It is the consensus of the panel that the circumstances in which ipecac-induced emesis is the appropriate or desired method of gastric decontamination are rare. The panel concluded that the use of ipecac syrup might have an acceptable benefit-to-risk ratio in rare situations in which: there is no contraindication to the use of ipecac syrup; and there is substantial risk of serious toxicity to the victim; and there is no alternative therapy available or effective to decrease gastrointestinal absorption (e.g., activated charcoal); and there will be a delay of greater than 1 hour before the patient will arrive at an emergency medical facility and ipecac syrup can be administered within 30-90 minutes of the ingestion; and ipecac syrup administration will not adversely affect more definitive treatment that might be provided at a hospital. In such circumstances, the administration of ipecac syrup should occur only in response to a specific recommendation from a poison center, emergency department physician, or other qualified medical personnel. The panel decided not to address the issue of whether ipecac should remain a nonprescription, over-the-counter product. The panel does not support the routine stocking of ipecac in all households with young children but was unable to reach consensus on which households with young children might benefit from stocking ipecac. Instead, the panel concluded that individual practitioners and poison control centers are best able to determine the particular patient population, geographic and other variables that might influence the decision to recommend having ipecac on hand.

Position paper: Ipecac syrup

Syrup of ipecac should not be administered routinely in the management of poisoned patients. In experimental studies the amount of marker removed by ipecac was highly variable and diminished with time. There is no evidence from clinical studies that ipecac improves the outcome of poisoned patients and its routine administration in the emergency department should be abandoned. There are insufficient data to support or exclude ipecac administration soon after poison ingestion. Ipecac may delay the administration or reduce the effectiveness of activated charcoal, oral antidotes, and whole bowel irrigation. Ipecac should not be administered to a patient who has a decreased level or impending loss of consciousness or who has ingested a corrosive substance or hydrocarbon with high aspiration potential. A review of the literature since the preparation of the 1997 Ipecac Syrup Position Statement revealed no new evidence that would require a revision of the conclusions of that Statement.

Poison treatment in the home. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention

The ingestion of a potentially poisonous substance by a young child is a common event, with the American Association of Poison Control Centers reporting approximately 1.2 million such events in the United States in 2001. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has long concerned itself with this issue and has made poison prevention an integral component of its injury prevention initiatives. A key AAP recommendation has been to keep a 1-oz bottle of syrup of ipecac in the home to be used only on the advice of a physician or poison control center. Recently, there has been interest regarding activated charcoal in the home as a poison treatment strategy. After reviewing the evidence, the AAP believes that ipecac should no longer be used routinely as a home treatment strategy, that existing ipecac in the home should be disposed of safely, and that it is premature to recommend the administration of activated charcoal in the home. The first action for a caregiver of a child who may have ingested a toxic substance is to consult with the local poison control center.

Past, present, and future role of ipecac syrup

Historically, ipecac syrup has played a principal role in the management of acute poisonings and overdoses. Presently, its role largely has been relegated to prompt decontamination of acute childhood poisonings for which emesis is not contraindicated. However, even this specific and limited role has undergone rigorous re-evaluation, and many toxicologists have discouraged against its use in any circumstance. This article reviews the history, scientific literature, and public health implications of ipecac syrup that support its present clinical application.

Prospective evaluation of mild to moderate pediatric acetaminophen exposures

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine whether pediatric patients with acute, mild to moderate acetaminophen exposures, treated with home monitoring alone, develop systemic signs of hepatic injury.

METHODS

A prospective, observational study of calls to a regional poison center over a 25-month period was performed. Patients were eligible for the study if they were younger than 7 years and had an acute maximum possible acetaminophen exposure of up to 200 mg/kg. Exclusion criteria included previous decontamination measures, possibility of ingestion of an extended-release preparation, health or medication issues that could increase susceptibility to hepatotoxicity, current symptoms of hepatotoxicity, and indeterminable ingestions. Study protocol included reviewing the signs and symptoms of early and late acetaminophen toxicity, a 4- to 6-hour follow-up call, and a 72-hour follow-up call. Outcome measures were defined as a verbal report by the patient's parent or guardian of the presence or absence of signs or symptoms of hepatotoxicity.

RESULTS

A total of 1,039 patients were enrolled in the study, including 519 girls and 520 boys, with exposures ranging from 20 to 200 mg/kg. Eighteen patients were lost to follow-up; data were incomplete for 2 patients. At 72-hour follow-up, the remaining 1,019 patients were all doing well, without signs or symptoms of hepatotoxicity.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of these data, pediatric patients with acute acetaminophen exposures of up to 200 mg/kg, treated with home monitoring alone, do not develop signs or symptoms of hepatic injury.

Position statement: ipecac syrup. 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 and being endorsed by other 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. Syrup of ipecac should not be administered routinely in the management of poisoned patients. In experimental studies the amount of marker removed by ipecac was highly variable and diminished with time. There is no evidence from clinical studies that ipecac improves the outcome of poisoned patients and its routine administration in the emergency department should be abandoned. There are insufficient data to support or exclude ipecac administration soon after poison ingestion. Ipecac may delay the administration or reduce the effectiveness of activated charcoal, oral antidotes, and whole bowel irrigation. Ipecac should not be administered to a patient who has a decreased level or impending loss of consciousness or who has ingested a corrosive substance or hydrocarbon with high aspiration potential.