Efficacy of ipecac during the first hour after drug ingestion in human volunteers

Current and future directions in the treatment and prevention of drug-induced liver injury: a systematic review

While the pace of discovery of new agents, mechanisms and risk factors involved in drug-induced liver injury (DILI) remains brisk, advances in the treatment of acute DILI seems slow by comparison. In general, the key to treating suspected DILI is to stop using the drug prior to developing irreversible liver failure. However, predicting when to stop is an inexact science, and commonly used ALT monitoring is an ineffective strategy outside of clinical trials. The only specific antidote for acute DILI remains N-acetylcysteine (NAC) for acetaminophen poisoning, although NAC is proving to be beneficial in some cases of non-acetaminophen DILI in adults. Corticosteroids can be effective for DILI associated with autoimmune or systemic hypersensitivity features. Ursodeoxycholic acid, silymarin and glycyrrhizin have been used to treat DILI for decades, but success remains anecdotal. Bile acid washout regimens using cholestyramine appear to be more evidenced based, in particular for leflunomide toxicity. For drug-induced acute liver failure, the use of liver support systems is still investigational in the United States and emergency liver transplant remains limited by its availability. Primary prevention appears to be the key to avoiding DILI and the need for acute treatment. Pharmacogenomics, including human leukocyte antigen genotyping and the discovery of specific DILI biomarkers offers significant promise for the future. This article describes and summarizes the numerous and diverse treatment and prevention modalities that are currently available to manage DILI.

The pharmacy of the Benedictine monks: the use of medicinal plants in Northeast Brazil during the nineteenth century (1823-1829)

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

The health of nineteenth century Brazilians is only alluded to in historical documents, and researchers still have much to discover.

AIM OF THE STUDY

This study aims to show the medicinal plants used in the 19th century in Brazil.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To this end, information was obtained from the prescription book deposited in the archive of the Monastery of Saint Benedict in Olinda, Pernambuco, northeastern Brazil, about the daily use of medicinal plants.

RESULTS

By analyzing the prescriptions, we ascertained the terms and/or species and diseases and/or symptoms that existed among the people who were treated at the Benedictine hospital between 1823 and 1829.

CONCLUSIONS

The data presented here are relevant to other subject areas, especially modern pharmaceutical research. This study seeks to demonstrate the importance of plant resources in the nineteenth century and aims, through the detailed study of documentary sources, to provide a wealth of new information to modern science. Understanding the practices of the past provides insight into and may lead to improvements in modern pharmaceutical practice.

Drugs and pharmaceuticals: management of intoxication and antidotes

The treatment of patients poisoned with drugs and pharmaceuticals can be quite challenging. Diverse exposure circumstances, varied clinical presentations, unique patient-specific factors, and inconsistent diagnostic and therapeutic infrastructure support, coupled with relatively few definitive antidotes, may complicate evaluation and management. The historical approach to poisoned patients (patient arousal, toxin elimination, and toxin identification) has given way to rigorous attention to the fundamental aspects of basic life support--airway management, oxygenation and ventilation, circulatory competence, thermoregulation, and substrate availability. Selected patients may benefit from methods to alter toxin pharmacokinetics to minimize systemic, target organ, or tissue compartment exposure (either by decreasing absorption or increasing elimination). These may include syrup of ipecac, orogastric lavage, activated single- or multi-dose charcoal, whole bowel irrigation, endoscopy and surgery, urinary alkalinization, saline diuresis, or extracorporeal methods (hemodialysis, charcoal hemoperfusion, continuous venovenous hemofiltration, and exchange transfusion). Pharmaceutical adjuncts and antidotes may be useful in toxicant-induced hyperthermias. In the context of analgesic, anti-inflammatory, anticholinergic, anticonvulsant, antihyperglycemic, antimicrobial, antineoplastic, cardiovascular, opioid, or sedative-hypnotic agents overdose, N-acetylcysteine, physostigmine, L-carnitine, dextrose, octreotide, pyridoxine, dexrazoxane, leucovorin, glucarpidase, atropine, calcium, digoxin-specific antibody fragments, glucagon, high-dose insulin euglycemia therapy, lipid emulsion, magnesium, sodium bicarbonate, naloxone, and flumazenil are specifically reviewed. In summary, patients generally benefit from aggressive support of vital functions, careful history and physical examination, specific laboratory analyses, a thoughtful consideration of the risks and benefits of decontamination and enhanced elimination, and the use of specific antidotes where warranted. Data supporting antidotes effectiveness vary considerably. Clinicians are encouraged to utilize consultation with regional poison centers or those with toxicology training to assist with diagnosis, management, and administration of antidotes, particularly in unfamiliar cases.

Interventions for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

BACKGROUND

Poisoning with paracetamol (acetaminophen) is a common cause of hepatotoxicity in the Western World. Inhibition of absorption, removal from the vascular system, antidotes, and liver transplantation are interventions for paracetamol poisoning.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of interventions for paracetamol overdose.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified trials through electronic databases, manual searches of bibliographies and journals, authors of trials, and pharmaceutical companies until December 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials and observational studies were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality plus liver transplantation. Secondary outcome measures were clinical symptoms, (eg, hepatic encephalopathy, fulminant hepatic failure), hepatotoxicity, adverse events, and plasma paracetamol concentration. We used Peto odds ratios and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for analysis of outcomes. Random- and fixed-effects meta-analyses were performed.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten small and low-methodological quality randomised trials, one quasi-randomised study, and 48 observational studies were identified. It was not possible to perform relevant meta-analyses of randomised trials that have addressed our outcome measures. Activated charcoal, gastric lavage, and ipecacuanha are able to reduce the absorption of paracetamol, but the clinical benefit is unclear. Of these, activated charcoal seems to have the best risk-benefit ratio. N-acetylcysteine seems preferable to placebo/supportive treatment, dimercaprol, and cysteamine, but N-acetylcysteine's superiority to methionine is unproven. It is not clear which N-acetylcysteine treatment protocol offers the best efficacy. No strong evidence supports other interventions for paracetamol overdose. N-acetylcysteine may reduce mortality in patients with fulminant hepatic failure (Peto OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.94, one trial). Liver transplantation has the potential to be life saving in fulminant hepatic failure, but refinement of selection criteria for transplantation and long-term outcome reporting are required.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our results highlight a paucity of randomised trials on interventions for paracetamol overdose. Activated charcoal seems the best choice to reduce absorption. N-acetylcysteine should be given to patients with overdose but the selection criteria are not clear. No N-acetylcysteine regime has been shown to be more effective than any other. It is a delicate balance when to proceed to liver transplantation, which may be life-saving for patients with poor prognosis.

Acetaminophen poisoning: an evidence-based consensus guideline for out-of-hospital management

The objective of this guideline is to assist poison center personnel in the appropriate out-of-hospital triage and initial management of patients with suspected ingestions of acetaminophen. An evidence-based expert consensus process was used to create this guideline. This guideline applies to ingestion of acetaminophen alone and is based on an assessment of current scientific and clinical information. The expert consensus panel recognizes that specific patient care decisions may be at variance with this guideline and are the prerogative of the patient and the health professionals providing care. The panel's recommendations follow. These recommendations are provided in chronological order of likely clinical use. The grade of recommendation is provided in parentheses. 1) The initial history obtained by the specialist in poison information should include the patient's age and intent (Grade B), the specific formulation and dose of acetaminophen, the ingestion pattern (single or multiple), duration of ingestion (Grade B), and concomitant medications that might have been ingested (Grade D). 2) Any patient with stated or suspected self-harm or who is the recipient of a potentially malicious administration of acetaminophen should be referred to an emergency department immediately regardless of the amount ingested. This referral should be guided by local poison center procedures (Grade D). 3) Activated charcoal can be considered if local poison center policies support its prehospital use, a toxic dose of acetaminophen has been taken, and fewer than 2 hours have elapsed since the ingestion (Grade A). Gastrointestinal decontamination could be particularly important if acetylcysteine cannot be administered within 8 hours of ingestion. Acute, single, unintentional ingestion of acetaminophen: 1) Any patient with signs consistent with acetaminophen poisoning (e.g., repeated vomiting, abdominal tenderness in the right upper quadrant or mental status changes) should be referred to an emergency department for evaluation (Grade D). 2) Patients less than 6 years of age should be referred to an emergency department if the estimated acute ingestion amount is unknown or is 200 mg/kg or more. Patients can be observed at home if the dose ingested is less than 200 mg/kg (Grade B). 3) Patients 6 years of age or older should be referred to an emergency department if they have ingested at least 10 g or 200 mg/kg (whichever is lower) or when the amount ingested is unknown (Grade D). 4) Patients referred to an emergency department should arrive in time to have a stat serum acetaminophen concentration determined at 4 hours after ingestion or as soon as possible thereafter. If the time of ingestion is unknown, the patient should be referred to an emergency department immediately (Grade D). 5) If the initial contact with the poison center occurs more than 36 hours after the ingestion and the patient is well, the patient does not require further evaluation for acetaminophen toxicity (Grade D). Repeated supratherapeutic ingestion of acetaminophen (RSTI): 1) Patients under 6 years of age should be referred to an emergency department immediately if they have ingested: a) 200 mg/kg or more over a single 24-hour period, or b) 150 mg/kg or more per 24-hour period for the preceding 48 hours, or c) 100 mg/kg or more per 24-hour period for the preceding 72 hours or longer (Grade C). 2) Patients 6 years of age or older should be referred to an emergency department if they have ingested: a) at least 10 g or 200 mg/kg (whichever is less) over a single 24-hour period, or b) at least 6 g or 150 mg/kg (whichever is less) per 24-hour period for the preceding 48 hours or longer. In patients with conditions purported to increase susceptibility to acetaminophen toxicity (alcoholism, isoniazid use, prolonged fasting), the dose of acetaminophen considered as RSTI should be greater than 4 g or 100 mg/kg (whichever is less) per day (Grade D). 3) Gastrointestinal decontamination is not needed (Grade D). Other recommendations: 1) The out-of-hospital management of extended-release acetaminophen or multi-drug combination products containing acetaminophen is the same as an ingestion of acetaminophen alone (Grade D). However, the effects of other drugs might require referral to an emergency department in accordance with the poison center's normal triage criteria. 2) The use of cimetidine as an antidote is not recommended (Grade A).

Diagnosis and management of the poisoned child

Pediatric toxic ingestions are treated commonly by pediatricians and emergency physicians. Significant injury after these ingestions is infrequent, but identifying the dangerous ingestion is sometimes a difficult task. By performing a detailed history, focused physical examination, and directed laboratory evaluation, an estimation of risk can be developed. This article introduced the term "toxic triage" to describe this process. The toxic triage estimation allows the clinician to make thoughtful decontamination and treatment decisions. Familiarity with the literature supporting or refuting each decontamination method allows educated decisions to be made. Supportive care is an integral part of treatment for all poisonings, from asymptomatic to life-threatening. Most antidotes are used rarely in clinical practice, but familiarity with common antidotes benefits those patients with specific hazardous ingestions. Prevention efforts have the potential to decrease the incidence of pediatric poisonings. The universal poison control center number provided should be distributed and posted in homes, clinics, and emergency departments.

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.

Eficacia y seguridad de la descontaminación digestiva en la intoxicación medicamentosa aguda

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Gut decontamination (GD) may be used as a treatment for acute therapeutic drug overdose (ATDO) to reduce the absorption of the drug and thereby avoid the presence or worsening of signs and symptoms of intoxication. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of GD in ATDO patients.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

A 4-month prospective observational study was designed to include all patients admitted to the emergency department due to an ATDO. On admission, epidemiological data, vital signs and physical examination results were all recorded and a blood sample was taken for toxicological analysis. An algorithm was used to determine the GD method to be applied. A clinical reassessment was made at 3-6 hours and a further sample was taken for toxicological analysis. Patients were followed until hospital discharge, with all possible adverse events due to GD being recorded.

RESULTS

Ninety-four patients were included. GD was indicated in 60 patients (63.8%): 3.3% received ipecacuana syrup, 8.3% gastric lavage, 21.6% gastric lavage followed by activated charcoal and 71.6% oral activated charcoal alone. The clinical state worsened in 19.1% of patients, usually on the basis of a diminished consciousness. Adverse events attributable to GD were observed in 8.3% of patients. A toxicological analysis was made in 50 patients and in 42% of them, drug concentrations were higher at 3 or 6 hours than on admission. An analysis of the method of decontamination used showed that the procedure recommended by the algorithm was applied in 70 patients (group A) while in the remaining 24 (group B) another decontamination technique was used. Clinical deterioration was seen in 14.3% of patients in group A and 33.3% in group B (p = 0.041). There was a favourable evolution of the analytic curve in 63.9% patients in group A and 42.9% in group B (p = NS); severe adverse events attributable to GD were suffered by 2.4% patients in group A and 11.1% in group B (p = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy and safety of GD in ATDO increases in patients in whom the decision-making algorithm is applied. However, this does not prevent clinical deterioration or continued drug absorption in all cases and may be accompanied by adverse events.

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.

Evaluation of the time frame for home ipecac syrup use when not kept in the home

INTRODUCTION

The home administration of ipecac syrup remains a recommendation in some guidelines for the management of specific pediatric poisonings. A common challenge for poison specialists is how to approach the situation when ipecac syrup is indicated but not kept in the home. This study examines whether or not ipecac syrup can be administered and produce timely emesis in this situation.

METHODS

Over a 6-month period, a prospective observational study was undertaken to determine if ipecac syrup can be administered in a timely manner when it is indicated but not available in the home. Cases where ipecac syrup was indicated but not kept in the home were included if parents stated that they could obtain ipecac within 15 minutes. Timely administration and the onset of emesis were defined as < 30 min and < 60 min, respectively.

RESULTS

During our study 14,603 human exposures were evaluated; ipecac syrup was recommended by a poison specialist in 75 cases, and 25 of these were included in our study. Ages ranged from 1 to 6 years. The mean time to administration of ipecac from exposure time was 40 min (SD +/- 14 min). Administration of ipecac syrup occurred in < 30 min in 20% of the cases. The mean time to first emesis from exposure was 58 min (SD +/- 13). Initial emesis occurred in < 60 min in 36% of the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Ipecac syrup was rarely recommended by our center and was frequently unavailable when it was recommended. Ipecac syrup often could not be administered in a timely manner because it was not kept in the home. Parents of pediatric patients who have a significant ingestion should not be referred to purchase ipecac syrup.

The role of activated charcoal and gastric emptying in gastrointestinal decontamination: a state-of-the-art review

Gastrointestinal decontamination has been practiced for hundreds of years; however, only in the past few years have data emerged that demonstrate a clinical benefit in some patients. Because most potentially toxic ingestions involve agents that are not toxic in the quantity consumed, the exact circumstances in which decontamination is beneficial and which methods are most beneficial in those circumstances remain important topics of research. Maximum benefit from decontamination is expected in patients who present soon after the ingestion. Unfortunately, many overdose patients present at least 2 hours after taking a medication, when most of the toxin has been absorbed or has moved well into the intestine, beyond the expected reach of gastrointestinal decontamination. Decontamination probably does not contribute to the outcome of many such patients, especially those without symptoms. However, if absorption has been delayed or gastrointestinal motility has been slowed, activated charcoal may reduce the final amount absorbed. The use of activated charcoal in these cases may be beneficial and is associated with few complications. Therefore, administration of activated charcoal is recommended as soon as possible after emergency department presentation, unless the agent and quantity are known to be nontoxic, the agent is known not to adsorb to activated charcoal, or the delay has been so long that absorption is probably complete. The use of gastric emptying in addition to activated charcoal has generated intense debate. Several large comparative studies have failed to demonstrate a benefit of gastric emptying before activated charcoal. Because complications of such 2-step decontamination include a higher rate of intubation, aspiration, and ICU admission, gastric emptying in addition to activated charcoal cannot be considered the routine approach to patients. However, there are several infrequent circumstances in which the data are inadequate to accurately assess the potential benefit of gastric emptying in addition to activated charcoal: symptomatic patients presenting in the first hour after ingestion, symptomatic patients who have ingested agents that slow gastrointestinal motility, patients taking sustained release medications, and those taking massive or life-threatening amounts of medication. These circumstances represent only a small subset of ingestions. In the absence of convincing data about benefit or lack of benefit of gastric emptying for these patients, individual physicians must act on a personal valuation: Is it better to use a treatment that might have some benefit but definitely has some risk or not to use a treatment that has any risk unless there is proven benefit?

How long after drug ingestion is activated charcoal still effective?

OBJECTIVE

The recent American Academy of Clinical Toxicology/European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists position statement on activated charcoal stated "there are insufficient data to support or exclude its use after 1 hour of ingestion.'' The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of activated charcoal administered 1, 2, and 3 hours after drug ingestion.

METHODS

This was a human volunteer, randomized crossover study. Ten volunteers ingested 4 g of acetaminophen on four occasions at least 1 week apart. One ingestion served as a control and the other three as experimental ingestions with charcoal being administered at 1, 2, and 3 hours after acetaminophen dosing. Eight blood specimens were obtained over the initial 8 hours for serum acetaminophen concentrations that were used for calculation of routine pharmacokinetic parameters. Repeated measures of ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Pharmacokinetic parameters for acetaminophen in our volunteers were consistent with literature values. The mean area under the curve (AUC+/-SD) for the control and the 1-, 2-, and 3-hour groups were 221 +/- 54, 154 +/- 71, 206 +/- 67 and 204 +/- 58 mg/L/h, respectively. The 1-hour group was the only one differing from control (p < 0.01). The decrease of bioavailability at 1 hour was 30.3%, which is similar to previous studies.

CONCLUSION

Our data do not support the administration of activated charcoal as a gastrointestinal decontamination strategy beyond 1 hour after drug overdose.

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.