Prevention of drug absorption in simulated theophylline overdose

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.

A Modern View of Excipient Effects on Bioequivalence: Case Study of Sorbitol

PURPOSE

To examine the effect of common excipients such as sugars (sorbitol versus sucrose) on bioequivalence between pharmaceutical formulations, using ranitidine and metoprolol as model drugs.

METHODS

Two single-dose, replicated, crossover studies were first conducted in healthy volunteers (N=20 each) to compare the effect of 5 Gm of sorbitol and sucrose on bioequivalence of 150 mg ranitidine or 50 mg metoprolol in aqueous solution, followed by a single-dose, nonreplicated, crossover study (N=24) to determine the threshold of sorbitol effect on bioequivalence of 150 mg ranitidine in solution.

RESULTS

Ranitidine Cmax and AUC0-infinity were decreased by approximately 50% and 45%, respectively, in the presence of sorbitol versus sucrose. Similarly, sorbitol reduced metoprolol Cmax by 23% but had no significant effect on AUC0-infinity. An appreciable subject-by-formulation interaction was found for ranitidine Cmax and AUC0-infinity, as well as metoprolol Cmax. Sorbitol decreased the systemic exposure of ranitidine in a dose-dependent manner and affected bioequivalence at a level of 1.25 Gm or greater.

CONCLUSIONS

As exemplified by sorbitol, some common excipients have unexpected effect on bioavailability/bioequivalence, depending on the pharmacokinetic characteristics of the drug, as well as the type and amount of the excipient present in the formulation. More research is warranted to examine other 'common' excipients that may have unintended influence on bioavailability/bioequivalence.

Position Paper: Cathartics

The administration of a cathartic alone has no role in the management of the poisoned patient and is not recommended as a method of gut decontamination. Experimental data are conflicting regarding the use of cathartics in combination with activated charcoal. No clinical studies have been published to investigate the ability of a cathartic, with or without activated charcoal, to reduce the bioavailability of drugs or to improve the outcome of poisoned patients. Based on available data, the routine use of a cathartic in combination with activated charcoal is not endorsed. If a cathartic is used, it should be limited to a single dose in order to minimize adverse effects of the cathartic. A review of the literature since the preparation of the 1997 Cathartics Position Statement revealed no new evidence that would require a revision of the conclusions of the Statement.

Delayed recovery associated with persistent serum concentrations after clozapine overdose

Experience with managing overdoses of the atypical antipsychotic agent, clozapine, has been limited. A 20-year-old woman, who presented 6 h after ingesting 3500 mg of clozapine, had an unexpectedly prolonged duration of tachycardia and somnolence. Successful recovery followed management with supportive measures for several days in the intensive care unit. However, the duration of symptoms greatly exceeded that predicted by the published 12-h half-life of clozapine and was associated with an unexplained persistence of serum clozapine concentrations. Recovery with normalization of autonomic function occurred only after serum clozapine began to decline again after a 4-day plateau, as revealed by serum monitoring. Similar observations have been reported in two other cases. In overdose, clozapine may not behave as predicted by its published pharmacokinetics. Persistent serum drug concentrations may prolong the period of intensive care, suggesting that aggressive measures to remove clozapine from the gut at the time of overdose may be warranted.

Adsorptive capacity of activated charcoal for rifampicin with and without sodium chloride and sodium citrate

The effects of two saline cathartics (sodium chloride and sodium citrate) on the adsorptive capacity of activated charcoal (AC) for rifampicin were studied. Solutions of rifampicin alone and rifampicin with 7.5 mg/ml cathartic solution were vortex-mixed for 30 s with different quantities of AC. These were incubated for 30 min at 37 degrees C and analyzed for free rifampicin spectrophotometrically at 320 nm. The addition of sodium citrate significantly increased (p<0.05) the adsorptive capacity of AC for rifampicin with a resulting decrease in B-50 values at both the therapeutic and simulated toxic doses. Sodium chloride addition reduced the binding of rifampicin to AC at the toxic doses. The adsorption of rifampicin to activated charcoal, both alone and with the two saline cathartics, obeyed quantity-dependent kinetics. AC may be co-administered with sodium citrate in the management of rifampicin overdose.

In vitro study of oxytetracycline adsorption on activated charcoal

In vitro adsorption experiments simulating pH in gastric environment and using Langmuir isotherm, showed that 408 mg of oxytetracycline was adsorbed per gram of activated charcoal. Langmuir isotherm fitted adsorption data better than a Freundlich isotherm. Freundlich isotherm showed a specific adsorption capacity of 518 mg/g for activated charcoal. Both isotherm parameters indicated a strong oxytetracycline adsorption on activated charcoal in terms of quantity and binding strength. The results demonstrate that the concomitant use of oxytetracyline and activated charcoal should be avoided.

Position statement and practice guidelines on the use of multi-dose activated charcoal in the treatment of acute poisoning. 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. 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. Although many studies in animals and volunteers have demonstrated that multiple-dose activated charcoal increases drug elimination significantly, this therapy has not yet been shown in a controlled study in poisoned patients to reduce morbidity and mortality. Further studies are required to establish its role and the optimal dosage regimen of charcoal to be administered. Based on experimental and clinical studies, multiple-dose activated charcoal should be considered only if a patient has ingested a life-threatening amount of carbamazepine, dapsone, phenobarbital, quinine, or theophylline. With all of these drugs there are data to confirm enhanced elimination, though no controlled studies have demonstrated clinical benefit. Although volunteer studies have demonstrated that multiple-dose activated charcoal increases the elimination of amitriptyline, dextropropoxyphene, digitoxin, digoxin, disopyramide, nadolol, phenylbutazone, phenytoin, piroxicam, and sotalol, there are insufficient clinical data to support or exclude the use of this therapy. The use of multiple-dose charcoal in salicylate poisoning is controversial. One animal study and 2 of 4 volunteer studies did not demonstrate increased salicylate clearance with multiple-dose charcoal therapy. Data in poisoned patients are insufficient presently to recommend the use of multiple-dose charcoal therapy for salicylate poisoning. Multiple-dose activated charcoal did not increase the elimination of astemizole, chlorpropamide, doxepin, imipramine, meprobamate, methotrexate, phenytoin, sodium valproate, tobramycin, and vancomycin in experimental and/or clinical studies. Unless a patient has an intact or protected airway, the administration of multiple-dose activated charcoal is contraindicated. It should not be used in the presence of an intestinal obstruction. The need for concurrent administration of cathartics remains unproven and is not recommended. In particular, cathartics should not be administered to young children because of the propensity of laxatives to cause fluid and electrolyte imbalance. In conclusion, based on experimental and clinical studies, multiple-dose activated charcoal should be considered only if a patient has ingested a life-threatening amount of carbamazepine, dapsone, phenobarbital, quinine, or theophylline.

Position statement: cathartics. 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. The administration of a cathartic alone has no role in the management of the poisoned patient and is not recommended as a method of gut decontamination. Experimental data are conflicting regarding the use of cathartics in combination with activated charcoal. No clinical studies have been published to investigate the ability of a cathartic, with or without activated charcoal, to reduce the bioavailability of drugs or to improve the outcome of poisoned patients. Based on available data, the routine use of a cathartic in combination with activated charcoal is not endorsed. If a cathartic is used, it should be limited to a single dose in order to minimize adverse effects.