Sightings

Drug Use and Misuse in the Mountains: A UIAA MedCom Consensus Guide for Medical Professionals

Donegani, Enrico, Peter Paal, Thomas Küpper, Urs Hefti, Buddha Basnyat, Anna Carceller, Pierre Bouzat, Rianne van der Spek, and David Hillebrandt. Drug use and misuse in the mountains: a UIAA MedCom consensus guide for medical professionals. High Alt Med Biol. 17:157-184, 2016.-Aims: The aim of this review is to inform mountaineers about drugs commonly used in mountains. For many years, drugs have been used to enhance performance in mountaineering. It is the UIAA (International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation-Union International des Associations d'Alpinisme) Medcom's duty to protect mountaineers from possible harm caused by uninformed drug use. The UIAA Medcom assessed relevant articles in scientific literature and peer-reviewed studies, trials, observational studies, and case series to provide information for physicians on drugs commonly used in the mountain environment. Recommendations were graded according to criteria set by the American College of Chest Physicians.

RESULTS

Prophylactic, therapeutic, and recreational uses of drugs relevant to mountaineering are presented with an assessment of their risks and benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

If using drugs not regulated by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), individuals have to determine their own personal standards for enjoyment, challenge, acceptable risk, and ethics. No system of drug testing could ever, or should ever, be policed for recreational climbers. Sponsored climbers or those who climb for status need to carefully consider both the medical and ethical implications if using drugs to aid performance. In some countries (e.g., Switzerland and Germany), administrative systems for mountaineering or medication control dictate a specific stance, but for most recreational mountaineers, any rules would be unenforceable and have to be a personal decision, but should take into account the current best evidence for risk, benefit, and sporting ethics.

Ibuprofen prevents altitude illness: a randomized controlled trial for prevention of altitude illness with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Acute mountain sickness occurs in more than 25% of the tens of millions of people who travel to high altitude each year. Previous studies on chemoprophylaxis with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are limited in their ability to determine efficacy. We compare ibuprofen versus placebo in the prevention of acute mountain sickness incidence and severity on ascent from low to high altitude.

METHODS

Healthy adult volunteers living at low altitude were randomized to ibuprofen 600 mg or placebo 3 times daily, starting 6 hours before ascent from 1,240 m (4,100 ft) to 3,810 m (12,570 ft) during July and August 2010 in the White Mountains of California. The main outcome measures were acute mountain sickness incidence and severity, measured by the Lake Louise Questionnaire acute mountain sickness score with a diagnosis of ≥ 3 with headache and 1 other symptom.

RESULTS

Eighty-six participants completed the study; 44 (51%) received ibuprofen and 42 (49%) placebo. There were no differences in demographic characteristics between the 2 groups. Fewer participants in the ibuprofen group (43%) developed acute mountain sickness compared with those receiving placebo (69%) (odds ratio 0.3, 95% confidence interval 0.1 to 0.8; number needed to treat 3.9, 95% confidence interval 2 to 33). The acute mountain sickness severity was higher in the placebo group (4.4 [SD 2.6]) than individuals receiving ibuprofen (3.2 [SD 2.4]) (mean difference 0.9%; 95% confidence interval 0.3% to 3.0%).

CONCLUSION

Compared with placebo, ibuprofen was effective in reducing the incidence of acute mountain sickness.

Acetazolamide 125 mg BD Is Not Significantly Different from 375 mg BD in the Prevention of Acute Mountain Sickness: The Prophylactic Acetazolamide Dosage Comparison for Efficacy (PACE) Trial

750 mg per day of acetazolamide in the prevention of acute mountain sickness (AMS), as recommended in the meta-analysis published in 2000 in the British Medical Journal, may be excessive and is controversial. To determine if the efficacy of low-dose acetazolamide 125 mg bd (250 mg), as currently used in the Himalayas, is significantly different from 375 mg bd (750 mg) of acetazolamide in the prevention of AMS, we designed a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. The participants were sampled from a diverse population of (non-Nepali) trekkers at Namche Bazaar (3440 m) in Nepal on the Everest trekking route as they ascended to study midpoints (4280 m/4358 m) and the endpoint, Lobuje (4928 m), where data were collected. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 375 mg bd of acetazolamide (82 participants), 125 mg bd of acetazolamide (74 participants), or a placebo (66 participants), beginning at 3440 m for up to 6 days as they ascended to 4928 m. The results revealed that composite AMS incidence for 125 mg bd was similar to the incidence for 375 mg bd (24% vs. 21%, 95% confidence interval, -12.6%, 19.8%), in contrast to significantly greater AMS (51%) observed in the placebo group (95% confidence interval for differences: 8%, 46%; 12%, 49% for low and high comparisons, respectively). Both doses of acetazolamide improved oxygenation equally (82.9% for 250 mg daily and 82.8% for 750 mg daily), while placebo endpoint oxygen saturation was significantly less at 80.7% (95% confidence interval for differences: 0.5%, 3.9% and 0.4%, 3.7% for low and high comparisons, respectively). There was also more paresthesia in the 375-mg bd group (p < 0.02). We conclude that 125 mg bd of acetazolamide is not significantly different from 375 mg bd in the prevention of AMS; 125 mg bd should be considered the preferred dosage when indicated for persons ascending to altitudes above 2500 m.

Efficacy of low-dose acetazolamide (125 mg BID) for the prophylaxis of acute mountain sickness: a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of low-dose acetazolamide (125 mg twice daily) for the prevention of acute mountain sickness (AMS). The design was a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in the Mt. Everest region of Nepal between Pheriche (4243 m), the study enrollment site, and Lobuje (4937 m), the study endpoint. The participants were 197 healthy male and female trekkers of diverse background, and they were evaluated with the Lake Louise Acute Mountain Sickness Scoring System and pulse oximetry. The main outcome measures were incidence and severity of AMS as judged by the Lake Louise Questionnaire score at Lobuje. Of the 197 participants enrolled, 155 returned their data sheets at Lobuje. In the treatment group there was a statistically significant reduction in incidence of AMS (placebo group, 24.7%, 20 out of 81 subjects; acetazolamide group, 12.2%, 9 out of 74 subjects). Prophylaxis with acetazolamide conferred a 50.6% relative risk reduction, and the number needed to treat in order to prevent one instance of AMS was 8. Of those with AMS, 30% in the placebo group (6 of 20) versus 0% in the acetazolamide group (0 of 9) experienced a more severe degree of AMS as defined by a Lake Louise Questionnaire score of 5 or greater (p = 0.14). Secondary outcome measures associated with statistically significant findings favoring the treatment group included decrease in headache and a greater increase in final oxygen saturation at Lobuje. We concluded that acetazolamide 125 mg twice daily was effective in decreasing the incidence of AMS in this Himalayan trekking population.