Detoxication treatment for carbamazepine and lithium overdose

Management of acute carbamazepine poisoning: A narrative review

Standard management protocols are lacking and specific antidotes are unavailable for acute carbamazepine (CBZ) poisoning. The objective of this review is to provide currently available information on acute CBZ poisoning, including its management, by describing and summarizing various therapeutic methods for its treatment according to previously published studies. Several treatment methods for CBZ poisoning will be briefly introduced, their advantages and disadvantages will be analyzed and compared, and suggestions for the clinical treatment of CBZ poisoning will be provided. A literature search was performed in various English and Chinese databases. In addition, the reference lists of identified articles were screened for additional relevant studies, including non-indexed reports. Non-peer-reviewed sources were also included. In the present review, 154 articles met the inclusion criteria including case reports, case series, descriptive cohorts, pharmacokinetic studies, and in vitro studies. Data on 67 patients, including 4 fatalities, were reviewed. Based on the summary of cases reported in the included articles, the cure rate of CBZ poisoning after symptomatic treatment was 82% and the efficiency of hemoperfusion was 58.2%. Based on the literature review, CBZ is moderately dialyzable and the recommendation for CBZ poisoning is supportive management and gastric lavage. In severe cases, extracorporeal treatment is recommended, with hemodialysis as the first choice.

Which is the best in carbamazepine overdose?

Intravenous lipid emulsion treatment is safer, faster, and easier to apply and could be a powerful alternative to extracorporeal treatment methods in carbamazepine intoxication.

Lithium Poisoning

Lithium is a commonly prescribed treatment for bipolar affective disorder. However, treatment is complicated by lithium’s narrow therapeutic index and the influence of kidney function, both of which increase the risk of toxicity. Therefore, careful attention to dosing, monitoring, and titration is required. The cause of lithium poisoning influences treatment and 3 patterns are described: acute, acute-on-chronic, and chronic. Chronic poisoning is the most common etiology, is usually unintentional, and results from lithium intake exceeding elimination. This is most commonly due to impaired kidney function caused by volume depletion from lithium-induced nephrogenic diabetes insipidus or intercurrent illnesses and is also drug-induced. Lithium poisoning can affect multiple organs; however, the primary site of toxicity is the central nervous system and clinical manifestations vary from asymptomatic supratherapeutic drug concentrations to clinical toxicity such as confusion, ataxia, or seizures. Lithium poisoning has a low mortality rate; however, chronic lithium poisoning can require a prolonged hospital length of stay from impaired mobility and cognition and associated nosocomial complications. Persistent neurological deficits, in particular cerebellar, are described and the incidence and risk factors for its development are poorly understood, but it appears to be uncommon in uncomplicated acute poisoning. Lithium is readily dialyzable, and rationale support extracorporeal treatments to reduce the risk or the duration of toxicity in high-risk exposures. There is disagreement in the literature regarding factors that define patients most likely to benefit from treatments that enhance lithium elimination, including specific plasma lithium concentration thresholds. In the case of extracorporeal treatments, there are observational data in its favor, without evidence from randomized controlled trials (none have been performed), which may lead to conservative practices and potentially unnecessary interventions in some circumstances. More data are required to define the risk–benefit of extracorporeal treatments and their use (modality, duration) in the management of lithium poisoning.

Extracorporeal Treatment for Lithium Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations from the EXTRIP Workgroup

The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning Workgroup was created to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments in poisoning. Here, the EXTRIP workgroup presents its recommendations for lithium poisoning. After a systematic literature search, clinical and toxicokinetic data were extracted and summarized following a predetermined format. The entire workgroup voted through a two-round modified Delphi method to reach a consensus on voting statements. A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement, and anonymous votes were compiled and discussed in person. A second vote was conducted to determine the final workgroup recommendations. In total, 166 articles met inclusion criteria, which were mostly case reports, yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. A total of 418 patients were reviewed, 228 of which allowed extraction of patient-level data. The workgroup concluded that lithium is dialyzable (Level of evidence=A) and made the following recommendations: Extracorporeal treatment is recommended in severe lithium poisoning (1D). Extracorporeal treatment is recommended if kidney function is impaired and the [Li(+)] is >4.0 mEq/L, or in the presence of a decreased level of consciousness, seizures, or life-threatening dysrhythmias irrespective of the [Li(+)] (1D). Extracorporeal treatment is suggested if the [Li(+)] is >5.0 mEq/L, significant confusion is present, or the expected time to reduce the [Li(+)] to <1.0 mEq/L is >36 hours (2D). Extracorporeal treatment should be continued until clinical improvement is apparent or [Li(+)] is <1.0 mEq/L (1D). Extracorporeal treatments should be continued for a minimum of 6 hours if the [Li(+)] is not readily measurable (1D). Hemodialysis is the preferred extracorporeal treatment (1D), but continuous RRT is an acceptable alternative (1D). The workgroup supported the use of extracorporeal treatment in severe lithium poisoning. Clinical decisions on when to use extracorporeal treatment should take into account the [Li(+)], kidney function, pattern of lithium toxicity, patient's clinical status, and availability of extracorporeal treatments.

Extracorporeal treatment for carbamazepine poisoning: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

Context. The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup was created to provide evidence and consensus-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in poisoning. Objectives. To perform a systematic review and provide clinical recommendations for ECTR in carbamazepine poisoning. Methods. After a systematic literature search, the subgroup extracted the data and summarized the findings following a pre-determined format. The entire workgroup voted via a two-round modified Delphi method to reach a consensus on voting statements, using a RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to quantify disagreement. Anonymous votes were compiled, returned, and discussed in person. A second vote determined the final recommendations. Results. Seventy-four articles met inclusion criteria. Articles included case reports, case series, descriptive cohorts, pharmacokinetic studies, and in-vitro studies; two poor-quality observational studies were identified, yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Data on 173 patients, including 6 fatalities, were reviewed. The workgroup concluded that carbamazepine is moderately dialyzable and made the following recommendations: ECTR is suggested in severe carbamazepine poisoning (2D). ECTR is recommended if multiple seizures occur and are refractory to treatment (1D), or if life-threatening dysrhythmias occur (1D). ECTR is suggested if prolonged coma or respiratory depression requiring mechanical ventilation are present (2D) or if significant toxicity persists, particularly when carbamazepine concentrations rise or remain elevated, despite using multiple-dose activated charcoal (MDAC) and supportive measures (2D). ECTR should be continued until clinical improvement is apparent (1D) or the serum carbamazepine concentration is below 10 mg/L (42 the μ in μmol/L looks weird.) (2D). Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred ECTR (1D), but both intermittent hemoperfusion (1D) or continuous renal replacement therapies (3D) are alternatives if hemodialysis is not available. MDAC therapy should be continued during ECTR (1D). Conclusion. Despite the low quality of the available clinical evidence and the high protein binding capacity of carbamazepine, the workgroup suggested extracorporeal removal in cases of severe carbamazepine poisoning.

Severe carbamazepine intoxication unresponsive to albumin-enhanced continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration with low dialysate flow

Carbamazepine (CBZ) intoxication can be associated with severe toxicity, including neurological and cardio-respiratory abnormalities. Highly protein-bound, CBZ is not removed efficiently through conventional hemodialysis. Charcoal hemoperfusion is the most effective extracorporeal elimination therapy for CBZ intoxication. Recent reports have indicated that continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF), albumin-enhanced continuous venovenous hemodialysis, high-flux hemodialysis and plasma exchange can be as effective as charcoal hemoperfusion. In contrast to recent reports, which demonstrated the effectiveness of CVVHDF with high dialysate flow in CBZ intoxication, we observed that serum CBZ level was decreased minimally by albumin-enhanced CVVHDF with low dialysate flow. Therefore, albumin-enhanced CVVHDF with high dialysate flow should be considered in severe CBZ intoxication, if hemoperfusion is unavailable because of the lack of facilities or if it cannot be performed.

Enhanced clearance of highly protein-bound drugs by albumin-supplemented dialysate during modeled continuous hemodialysis

BACKGROUND

In 2006, there were 16 796 toxic exposures attributed to valproic acid (VPA), carbamazepine (CBZ) and phenytoin (PHT) reported to the US Toxic Exposure Surveillance System. Of these, 30% (5046) were treated in a health care facility with 12 cases resulting in death. These drugs are highly protein bound and poorly dialyzable; however, it has been suggested that albumin-supplemented dialysate may enhance dialytic clearance. We investigated whether the addition of albumin to dialysate affects dialytic clearance of VPA, CBZ and PHT.

METHODS

VPA, CBZ and PHT were added to a bovine blood-based in vitro continuous hemodialysis circuit, which included a polysulfone or an AN69 hemodialyzer. VPA, CBZ and PHT clearances were calculated from spent dialysate and pre-dialyzer plasma concentrations. VPA, CBZ and PHT clearances with control (albumin-free) dialysate were compared to clearances achieved with 2.5% or 5% human albumin-containing dialysate. The influences of blood flow (180 and 270 mL/min) and dialysate flow (1, 2 and 4 L/h) on dialysis clearance were also assessed.

RESULTS

The addition of 2.5% albumin to dialysate significantly enhanced dialytic clearance of VPA and CBZ, but not PHT. Use of 5% albumin dialysate further increased VPA and CBZ clearance. Overall, drug clearance was related directly to dialysate flow but independent of blood flow.

CONCLUSION

Continuous hemodialysis with albumin-supplemented dialysate significantly enhanced VPA and CBZ, but not PHT, clearance compared to control dialysate. Continuous hemodialysis with albumin-supplemented dialysate may be a promising therapy to enhance dialytic clearance of selected highly protein-bound drugs.