Randomized controlled study on the use of multiple-dose activated charcoal in patients with supratherapeutic phenytoin levels

Phenytoin Intoxication in a Patient Receiving a Therapeutic Dose for Postoperative Seizure Prophylaxis: A Case Study

OBJECTIVE

Phenytoin is commonly prescribed to prevent postoperative seizures. Despite the rarity of the CYP2C9 genetic polymorphism, which may result in poor phenytoin metabolism, in the Thai population, the authors report a case of phenytoin toxicity in a patient with poor metabolism administered with a standard dose of phenytoin.

CASE REPORT

A 58-year-old Thai woman presented to the outpatient clinic with a 2-day history of nausea, vomiting, and dizziness. She underwent craniotomy for tumor removal 2 weeks after being diagnosed with tuberculum sellae meningioma. After the surgery, she was prescribed 300 mg of phenytoin daily to prevent seizures. During the physical examination, ataxia, horizontal nystagmus, and cerebellar abnormalities were observed, with an initial serum phenytoin concentration of 58.85 mg/L. The brain imaging results were unremarkable. Omeprazole was the only recognized drug interaction; however, it is highly unlikely to account for this condition. Pharmacogenetic investigation of CYP2C9 revealed a homozygous CYP2C9*3/*3 mutation, which is indicative of suboptimal drug metabolism and can reduce phenytoin metabolism by 50%. This patient was administered repeated dosages of activated charcoal over the course of 2 days. Her symptoms eventually subsided, with the phenytoin levels dropping to 29.51 mg/L.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of an overdose history or drug-drug interaction, CYP2C9 polymorphism should be suspected in patients with phenytoin toxicity. In such situations, the phenytoin dosage must be decreased and monitored closely.

Management of Poisonings and Intoxications

Poisoning occurs after exposure to any of a number of substances, including medicines, which can result in severe toxicity including death. The nephrologist may be involved in poisonings that cause kidney disease and for targeted treatments. The overall approach to the poisoned patient involves the initial acute resuscitation and performing a risk assessment, whereby the exposure is considered in terms of the anticipated severity and in the context of the patient's status and treatments that may be required. Time-critical interventions such as gastrointestinal decontamination ( e.g. , activated charcoal) and antidotes are administered when indicated. The nephrologist is usually involved when elimination enhancement techniques are required, such as urine alkalinization or extracorporeal treatments. There is increasing data to guide decision making for the use of extracorporeal treatments in the poisoned patient. Principles to consider are clinical indications such as whether severe toxicity is present, anticipated, and/or will persist and whether the poison will be significantly removed by the extracorporeal treatment. Extracorporeal clearance is maximized for low-molecular weight drugs that are water soluble with minimal protein binding (<80%) and low endogenous clearance and volume of distribution. The dosage of some antidotes ( e.g. , N-acetylcysteine, ethanol, fomepizole) should be increased to maintain therapeutic concentrations once the extracorporeal treatment is initiated. To maximize the effect of an extracorporeal treatment, blood and effluent flows should be optimized, the filter with the largest surface area selected, and duration tailored to remove enough poison to reduce toxicity. Intermittent hemodialysis is recommended in most cases when an extracorporeal treatment is required because it is the most efficient, and continuous kidney replacement therapy is prescribed in some circumstances, particularly if intermittent hemodialysis is not readily available.

Systematic review on the use of activated charcoal for gastrointestinal decontamination following acute oral overdose

INTRODUCTION

The use of activated charcoal in poisoning remains both a pillar of modern toxicology and a source of debate. Following the publication of the joint position statements on the use of single-dose and multiple-dose activated charcoal by the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology and the European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists, the routine use of activated charcoal declined. Over subsequent years, many new pharmaceuticals became available in modified or alternative-release formulations and additional data on gastric emptying time in poisoning was published, challenging previous assumptions about absorption kinetics. The American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, the European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists and the Asia Pacific Association of Medical Toxicology founded the Clinical Toxicology Recommendations Collaborative to create a framework for evidence-based recommendations for the management of poisoned patients. The activated charcoal workgroup of the Clinical Toxicology Recommendations Collaborative was tasked with reviewing systematically the evidence pertaining to the use of activated charcoal in poisoning in order to update the previous recommendations.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was: Does oral activated charcoal given to adults or children prevent toxicity or improve clinical outcome and survival of poisoned patients compared to those who do not receive charcoal?  Secondary objectives were to evaluate pharmacokinetic outcomes, the role of cathartics, and adverse events to charcoal administration. This systematic review summarizes the available evidence on the efficacy of activated charcoal.

METHODS

A medical librarian created a systematic search strategy for Medline (Ovid), subsequently translated for Embase (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), BIOSIS Previews (via Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library/DARE. All databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2019. There were no language limitations.  One author screened all citations identified in the search based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Excluded citations were confirmed by an additional author and remaining articles were obtained in full text and evaluated by at least two authors for inclusion. All authors cross-referenced full-text articles to identify articles missed in the searches. Data from included articles were extracted by the authors on a standardized spreadsheet and two authors used the GRADE methodology to independently assess the quality and risk of bias of each included study.

RESULTS

From 22,950 titles originally identified, the final data set consisted of 296 human studies, 118 animal studies, and 145 in vitro studies. Also included were 71 human and two animal studies that reported adverse events. The quality was judged to have a Low or Very Low GRADE in 469 (83%) of the studies. Ninety studies were judged to be of Moderate or High GRADE. The higher GRADE studies reported on the following drugs: paracetamol (acetaminophen), phenobarbital, carbamazepine, cardiac glycosides (digoxin and oleander), ethanol, iron, salicylates, theophylline, tricyclic antidepressants, and valproate. Data on newer pharmaceuticals not reviewed in the previous American Academy of Clinical Toxicology/European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists statements such as quetiapine, olanzapine, citalopram, and Factor Xa inhibitors were included. No studies on the optimal dosing for either single-dose or multiple-dose activated charcoal were found. In the reviewed clinical data, the time of administration of the first dose of charcoal was beyond one hour in 97% (n = 1006 individuals), beyond two hours in 36% (n = 491 individuals), and beyond 12 h in 4% (n = 43 individuals) whereas the timing of the first dose in controlled studies was within one hour of ingestion in 48% (n = 2359 individuals) and beyond two hours in 36% (n = 484) of individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review found heterogenous data. The higher GRADE data was focused on a few select poisonings, while studies that addressed patients with unknown and or mixed ingestions were hampered by low rates of clinically meaningful toxicity or death.  Despite these limitations, they reported a benefit of activated charcoal beyond one hour in many clinical scenarios.

[Cardiac arrest under special circumstances]

These guidelines of the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Cardiac Arrest under Special Circumstances are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the modifications required for basic and advanced life support for the prevention and treatment of cardiac arrest under special circumstances; in particular, specific causes (hypoxia, trauma, anaphylaxis, sepsis, hypo-/hyperkalaemia and other electrolyte disorders, hypothermia, avalanche, hyperthermia and malignant hyperthermia, pulmonary embolism, coronary thrombosis, cardiac tamponade, tension pneumothorax, toxic agents), specific settings (operating room, cardiac surgery, cardiac catheterization laboratory, dialysis unit, dental clinics, transportation [in-flight, cruise ships], sport, drowning, mass casualty incidents), and specific patient groups (asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, neurological disease, morbid obesity, pregnancy).

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Cardiac arrest in special circumstances

These European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Cardiac Arrest in Special Circumstances guidelines are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the modifications required to basic and advanced life support for the prevention and treatment of cardiac arrest in special circumstances; specifically special causes (hypoxia, trauma, anaphylaxis, sepsis, hypo/hyperkalaemia and other electrolyte disorders, hypothermia, avalanche, hyperthermia and malignant hyperthermia, pulmonary embolism, coronary thrombosis, cardiac tamponade, tension pneumothorax, toxic agents), special settings (operating room, cardiac surgery, catheter laboratory, dialysis unit, dental clinics, transportation (in-flight, cruise ships), sport, drowning, mass casualty incidents), and special patient groups (asthma and COPD, neurological disease, obesity, pregnancy).

Antiepileptic Overdose

Antiepileptics include various groups of drugs that have different mechanisms of actions and adverse effects. They are often also used to treat other disorders such as psychosis, chronic pain, and migraine. The most common drugs implicated in overdose include phenytoin, sodium valproate, carbamazepine, and phenobarbital. Common signs of toxicity of these drugs are central nervous system manifestations such as altered sensorium, lethargy, ataxia, and nystagmus. Some ingestions can paradoxically precipitate seizures and even status epilepticus. Sodium valproate can cause hyperammonemic encephalopathy and cerebral edema. Carbamazepine is implicated in cardiac arrhythmias and hyponatremia. Phenobarbital causes sedation, respiratory depression, and hypotension. In suspected overdose, apart from the routine laboratory tests, serum levels of the drug should be sent. Serial levels should be measured, as drug toxicity can be prolonged. Treatment of all these overdoses begins with stabilization of airway, breathing, and circulation, and endotracheal intubation being performed to protect the airway in patients with altered mental status. For decontamination, a single dose of activated charcoal should be given. Multidose of activated charcoal may be useful in phenytoin, carbamazepine, and phenobarbital overdose. Naloxone and carnitine are indicated in valproate overdose. Carbamazepine overdose can cause a widened QRS complex and arrhythmias, which can be treated with sodium bicarbonate. Forced alkaline diuresis is no longer advocated for phenobarbital poisoning. The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup have formulated guidelines for extracorporeal removal of all these drugs. In most cases, hemodialysis is preferred. Other modalities include charcoal hemoperfusion (especially for carbamazepine) or continuous venovenous hemodialysis. Patients who ingest long-acting preparations should be monitored for longer periods.

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.

Extracorporeal Treatment in Phenytoin Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations from the EXTRIP (Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning) Workgroup

The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) Workgroup conducted a systematic literature review using a standardized process to develop evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) in patients with phenytoin poisoning. The authors reviewed all articles, extracted data, summarized findings, and proposed structured voting statements following a predetermined format. A 2-round modified Delphi method was used to reach a consensus on voting statements, and the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement. 51 articles met the inclusion criteria. Only case reports, case series, and pharmacokinetic studies were identified, yielding a very low quality of evidence. Clinical data from 31 patients and toxicokinetic grading from 46 patients were abstracted. The workgroup concluded that phenytoin is moderately dialyzable (level of evidence = C) despite its high protein binding and made the following recommendations. ECTR would be reasonable in select cases of severe phenytoin poisoning (neutral recommendation, 3D). ECTR is suggested if prolonged coma is present or expected (graded 2D) and it would be reasonable if prolonged incapacitating ataxia is present or expected (graded 3D). If ECTR is used, it should be discontinued when clinical improvement is apparent (graded 1D). The preferred ECTR modality in phenytoin poisoning is intermittent hemodialysis (graded 1D), but hemoperfusion is an acceptable alternative if hemodialysis is not available (graded 1D). In summary, phenytoin appears to be amenable to extracorporeal removal. However, because of the low incidence of irreversible tissue injury or death related to phenytoin poisoning and the relatively limited effect of ECTR on phenytoin removal, the workgroup proposed the use of ECTR only in very select patients with severe phenytoin poisoning.

Common causes of poisoning: etiology, diagnosis and treatment

BACKGROUND

In 2011, German hospitals treated approximately 205 000 patients suffering from acute poisoning. Change is seen over time both in the types of poisoning that occur and in the indications for specific treatment.

METHODS

This article is based on a selective review of the literature, with special attention to the health reports of the German federal government, the annual reports of the GIZ-Nord Poisons Center (the poison information center for the four northwestern states of Germany, i.e. Bremen, Hamburg, Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein), and the recommendations of international medical associations.

RESULTS

From 1996 to 2011, the GIZ-Nord Poisons Center answered more than 450 000 inquiries, most of which involved exposures to medical drugs, chemicals, plants, foods, or cosmetics. Poisoning was clinically manifest in only a fraction of these cases. Ethanol intoxication is the commonest type of acute poisoning and suicide by medical drug overdose is the commonest type of suicide by poisoning. Death from acute poisoning is most commonly the result of either smoke inhalation or illegal drug use. Severe poisoning is only rarely due to the ingestion of chemicals (particularly detergents and cleaning products), cosmetics, or plant matter. Medical procedures that are intended to reduce the absorption of a poison or enhance its elimination are now only rarely indicated. Antidotes (e.g., atropine, 4-dimethylaminophenol, naloxone, toluidine blue) are available for only a few kinds of poisoning. Randomized clinical trials of treatment have been carried out for only a few substances.

CONCLUSION

Most exposures to poisons can be treated with general emergency care and, if necessary, with symptomatic intensive-care measures. Poison information centers help ensure that cases of poisoning are dealt with efficiently. The data they collect are a useful aid to toxicological assessment and can serve as a point of departure for research projects.