Expert Consensus Guidelines for Stocking of Antidotes in Hospitals That Provide Emergency Care.

We provide recommendations for stocking of antidotes used in emergency departments (EDs). An expert panel representing diverse perspectives (clinical pharmacology, medical toxicology, critical care medicine, hematology/oncology, hospital pharmacy, emergency medicine, emergency medical services, pediatric emergency medicine, pediatric critical care medicine, poison centers, hospital administration, and public health) was formed to create recommendations for antidote stocking. Using a standardized summary of the medical literature, the primary reviewer for each antidote proposed guidelines for antidote stocking to the full panel. The panel used a formal iterative process to reach their recommendation for both the quantity of antidote that should be stocked and the acceptable timeframe for its delivery. The panel recommended consideration of 45 antidotes; 44 were recommended for stocking, of which 23 should be immediately available. In most hospitals, this timeframe requires that the antidote be stocked in a location that allows immediate availability. Another 14 antidotes were recommended for availability within 1 hour of the decision to administer, allowing the antidote to be stocked in the hospital pharmacy if the hospital has a mechanism for prompt delivery of antidotes. The panel recommended that each hospital perform a formal antidote hazard vulnerability assessment to determine its specific need for antidote stocking. Antidote administration is an important part of emergency care. These expert recommendations provide a tool for hospitals that offer emergency care to provide appropriate care of poisoned patients.

Emergency department identification and critical care management of a Utah prison botulism outbreak.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We report botulism poisoning at a state prison after ingestion of homemade wine (pruno). METHODS: This is an observational case series with data collected retrospectively by chart review. All suspected exposures were referred to a single hospital in October 2011. RESULTS: Twelve prisoners consumed pruno, a homemade alcoholic beverage made from a mixture of ingredients in prison environments. Four drank pruno made without potato and did not develop botulism. Eight drank pruno made with potato, became symptomatic, and were hospitalized. Presenting symptoms included dysphagia, diplopia, dysarthria, and weakness. The median time to symptom onset was 54.5 hours (interquartile range [IQR] 49-88 hours) postingestion. All 8 patients received botulinum antitoxin a median of 12 hours post-emergency department admission (IQR 8.9-18.8 hours). Seven of 8 patients had positive stool samples for type A botulinum toxin. The 3 most severely affected patients had respiratory failure and were intubated 43, 64, and 68 hours postingestion. Their maximal inspiratory force values were -5, -15, and -30 cm H2O. Their forced vital capacity values were 0.91, 2.1, and 2.2 L, whereas the 5 nonintubated patients had median maximal inspiratory force of -60 cm H2O (IQR -60 to -55) and forced vital capacity of 4.5 L (IQR 3.7-4.9). Electromyography abnormalities were observed in 1 of the nonintubated and 2 of the intubated patients. CONCLUSION: A pruno-associated botulism outbreak resulted in respiratory failure and abnormal pulmonary parameters in the most affected patients. Electromyography abnormalities were observed in the majority of intubated patients. Potato in the pruno recipe was associated with botulism.

Severe outcomes following pediatric cannabis intoxication: a prospective cohort study of an international toxicology surveillance registry.

INTRODUCTION: An increasing number of jurisdictions have legalized recreational cannabis for adult use. The subsequent availability and marketing of recreational cannabis has led to a parallel increase in rates and severity of pediatric cannabis intoxications. We explored predictors of severe outcomes in pediatric patients who presented to the emergency department with cannabis intoxication. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, we collected data on all pediatric patients (<18 years) who presented with cannabis intoxication from August 2017 through June 2020 to participating sites in the Toxicology Investigators Consortium. In cases that involved polysubstance exposure, patients were included if cannabis was a significant contributing agent. The primary outcome was a composite severe outcome endpoint, defined as an intensive care unit admission or in-hospital death. Covariates included relevant sociodemographic and exposure characteristics. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-eight pediatric patients (54% males, median age 14.0 years, interquartile range 3.7-16.0) presented to a participating emergency department with cannabis intoxication. Fifty-two patients (38%) were admitted to an intensive care unit, including one patient who died. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, polysubstance ingestion (adjusted odds ratio = 16.3; 95% confidence interval: 4.6-58.3; P < 0.001)) and cannabis edibles ingestion (adjusted odds ratio = 5.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.9-15.9; P = 0.001) were strong independent predictors of severe outcome. In an age-stratified regression analysis, in children older than >10 years, only polysubstance abuse remained an independent predictor for the severe outcome (adjusted odds ratio 37.1; 95% confidence interval: 6.2-221.2; P < 0.001). As all children 10 years and younger ingested edibles, a dedicated multivariable analysis could not be performed (unadjusted odds ratio 3.3; 95% confidence interval: 1.6-6.7). CONCLUSIONS: Severe outcomes occurred for different reasons and were largely associated with the patient's age. Young children, all of whom were exposed to edibles, were at higher risk of severe outcomes. Teenagers with severe outcomes were frequently involved in polysubstance exposure, while psychosocial factors may have played a role.

Predictors of severe outcome following opioid intoxication in children.

INTRODUCTION: While the opioid crisis has claimed the lives of nearly 500,000 in the U.S. over the past two decades, and pediatric cases of opioid intoxications are increasing, only sparse data exist regarding risk factors for severe outcome in children following an opioid intoxication. We explore predictors of severe outcome (i.e., intensive care unit [ICU] admission or in-hospital death) in children who presented to the Emergency Department with an opioid intoxication. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study we collected data on all children (0-18 years) who presented with an opioid intoxication to the 50 medical centers in the US and two international centers affiliated with the Toxicology Investigators Consortium (ToxIC) of the American College of Medical Toxicology, from August 2017 through June 2020, and who received a bedside consultation by a medical toxicologist. We collected relevant demographic, clinical, management, disposition, and outcome data, and we conducted a multivariable logistic regression analysis to explore predictors of severe outcome. The primary outcome was a composite severe outcome endpoint, defined as ICU admission or in-hospital death. Covariates included sociodemographic, exposure and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 165 (87 females, 52.7%) children with an opioid intoxication, 89 (53.9%) were admitted to ICU or died during hospitalization, and 76 did not meet these criteria. Seventy-four (44.8%) children were exposed to opioids prescribed to family members. Fentanyl exposure (adjusted OR [aOR] = 3.6, 95% CI: 1.0-11.6; p = 0.03) and age ≥10 years (aOR = 2.5, 95% CI: 1.2-4.8; p = 0.01) were independent predictors of severe outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Children with an opioid toxicity that have been exposed to fentanyl and those aged ≥10 years had 3.6 and 2.5 higher odds of ICU admission or death, respectively, than those without these characteristics. Prevention efforts should target these risk factors to mitigate poor outcomes in children with an opioid intoxication.

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.

Breath alcohol analyzer mistakes methanol poisoning for alcohol intoxication.

Breath alcohol analyzers are used to detect ethanol in motorists and others suspected of public intoxication. One concern is their ability to detect interfering substances that may falsely increase the ethanol reading. A 47-year-old-man was found in a public park, acting intoxicated. A breath analyzer test (Intoxilyzer 5000EN) measured 0.288 g/210 L breath ethanol, without an interferent noted. In the emergency department, the patient admitted to drinking HEET Gas-Line antifreeze, which contains 99% methanol. Two to three hours after ingestion, serum and urine toxicology screen results were negative for ethanol and multiple other substances. His serum methanol concentration was 589 mg/dL, serum osmolality 503 mOsm/kg, osmolar gap 193 mOsm/kg, and anion gap 17 mmol/L. The patient was treated with intravenous ethanol, fomepizole, and hemodialysis without complication. This is a unique clinical case of a breath alcohol analyzer reporting methanol as ethanol. Intoxilyzer devices have been shown to indicate some substances (acetone) as interferents in humans but not methanol. Increased serum concentrations of methanol can be reported as ethanol by a commonly used breath alcohol analyzer, which can result in a delayed diagnosis or misdiagnosis and subsequent methanol toxicity if antidotal treatment is not administered in a timely manner.

Rapid urine drug screens: diphenhydramine and methadone cross-reactivity.

BACKGROUND: Rapid urine screens to detect drugs of abuse are often used in pediatric emergency departments (PEDs). A positive result may lead to further clinical testing, social evaluation, and increased stress/inconvenience. A PED patient with suspected diphenhydramine (DPH) ingestion had a positive methadone result on the rapid urine drug screen, One Step Multi-Drug, Multi-Line Screen Test Device (ACON Laboratories, San Diego, Calif). There was no history of methadone exposure so the patient was admitted while confirmatory testing was performed. Gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy testing of the urine failed to confirm the presence of methadone. We present this unreported false-positive methadone result and evaluation of the kit for cross-reactivity of DPH and methadone. METHODS: The same One Step urine drug screen was tested at an independent laboratory for cross-reactivity between methadone and DPH including the DPH metabolites. Drug-free urine was fortified with DPH, nordiphenhydramine, or dinordiphenhydramine at 0, 10, 25, 50, and 100 µg/mL for each analyte. One hundred microliters of the solutions were added to each of the 4 wells on test cassettes. Urine was allowed to migrate according to manufacturer instructions. Each cassette was interpreted by 2 analysts to ensure consistent interpretation and accurate data recording. RESULTS: In vitro laboratory testing results showed cross-reactivity between methadone and DPH but not for nordiphenhydramine or dinordiphenhydramine. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid urine drug screens using immunoassays based on the principle of competitive binding may show false-positive methadone results for patients who have ingested DPH. Product information for urine drug screens may not include all cross-reacting agents and should be used with caution when interpreting drug screen results in PED patients.

Expert consensus guidelines for stocking of antidotes in hospitals that provide emergency care.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We developed recommendations for antidote stocking at hospitals that provide emergency care. METHODS: An expert panel representing diverse perspectives (clinical pharmacology, clinical toxicology, critical care medicine, clinical pharmacy, emergency medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, poison centers, pulmonary medicine, and hospital accreditation) was formed to create recommendations for antidote stocking. Using a standardized summary of the medical literature, the primary reviewer for each antidote proposed guidelines for antidote stocking to the full panel. The panel used a formal iterative process to reach their recommendation for the quantity of an antidote that should be stocked and the acceptable period for delivery of each antidote. RESULTS: The panel recommended consideration of 24 antidotes for stocking. The panel recommended that 12 of the antidotes be available for immediate administration on patient arrival. In most hospitals, this period requires that the antidote be stocked in the emergency department. Another 9 antidotes were recommended for availability within 1 hour of the decision to administer, allowing the antidote to be stocked in the hospital pharmacy if the hospital has a mechanism for prompt delivery of antidotes. The panel identified additional antidotes that should be stocked by the hospital but are not usually needed within the first hour of treatment. The panel recommended that each hospital perform a formal antidote hazard vulnerability assessment to determine the need for antidote stocking in that hospital. CONCLUSION: The antidote expert recommendations provide a tool to be used in creating practices for appropriate and adequate antidote stocking in hospitals that provide emergency care.

An examination of adherence strategies and challenges in poison control communication.

INTRODUCTION: The principal objective of this study was to characterize how nurses and pharmacists at a poison control center (PCC) determine the likelihood of caller adherence to a health care facility referral. METHODS: A focus group was conducted with 6 nurses and 4 pharmacists from a regional PCC. Content analysis was used to determine themes within the discussion. All participants were certified as specialists in poison information (SPIs). RESULTS: Four themes were identified: (1) SPIs' generation of informal "likelihood-of-adherence" assessments as to whether a caller will follow the recommendation to go to a health care facility, (2) SPI communication strategies used to promote adherence, (3) behavior of SPIs during periods of high call volume, and (4) communication training for PCC staff members. DISCUSSION: This pilot study provides insights in SPIs' current assessment and communication, particularly those related to promoting caller adherence to recommendations.

Building knowledge for poison control: the novel pairing of communication analysis with data mining methods.

As information systems become increasingly integrated with health care delivery, vast amounts of clinical data are stored. Knowledge discovery and data mining methods are potentially powerful for the induction of knowledge models from this data relevant to nursing outcomes. However, an important barrier to the widespread application of these methods for induction of nursing knowledge models is that important concepts relevant to nursing outcomes are often unrepresented in clinical data. For instance, communication approaches are not necessarily consciously chosen by nurses, yet they are known to impact multiple clinical outcomes including satisfaction, pain and symptom response, recovery, physiological change (e.g., blood pressure), and adherence. Decisions about communication behaviors are likely intuitive and instantaneously made in response to cues offered by the patient. For this reason, among others, important choices and actions of nurses are not routinely documented. And so for many clinical outcomes relevant to nursing, important concepts such as communication are not represented in clinical data repositories. In studying poison control center outcomes, it is important to consider not only routinely documented clinical data, but the communication processes and verbal cues of both patient and SPI. In a novel approach, our current study of poison control center outcomes pairs a qualitative study of the communication patterns of SPIs and callers to a regional poison control center, with predictive modeling of poison control center outcomes using knowledge discovery and data mining methods. This three year study, currently in progress, pairs SPI-caller communication analysis with predictive models resulting from the application of knowledge discovery and data mining methods to three years' of archived clinical data. The results will form a hybrid model and the basis for future decision support interventions that leverage knowledge about both implicit and explicit factors that contribute to poison control center outcomes.

Requirements analysis for HL7 message development in poison control center.

HL7 is the commonly accepted messaging standard for achieving interoperability among information systems. Until now, no analysis has been done on how poison control data can be matched in HL7 messages. The purpose of this study was to create a preliminary domain analysis model which can be used to identify the data required to message poison control data in HL7 messages.

Elemental mercury exposure: an evidence-based consensus guideline for out-of-hospital management.

UNLABELLED: The objective of this guideline is to assist poison center personnel in the out-of-hospital triage and initial management of patients with suspected exposures to elemental mercury. An evidence-based expert consensus process was used to create this guideline. It is based on an assessment of current scientific and clinical information. The panel recognizes that specific patient care decisions may be at variance with this guideline and are the prerogative of the patient and health professionals providing care. The grade of recommendation is in parentheses. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) Patients with exposure due to suspected self-harm, abuse, misuse, or potentially malicious administration should be referred to an emergency department immediately regardless of the exposure reported (Grade D). 2) Patients with symptoms of acute elemental mercury poisoning (e.g., cough, dyspnea, chest pain) should be referred immediately to an emergency department for evaluation regardless of the reported dose. Patients with symptoms of chronic toxicity (rash, tremor, weight loss, etc.) should be referred for healthcare evaluation, the timing and location of which is guided by the severity of illness and circumstances of the exposure (Grade C). 3) If the elemental mercury was recently heated (e.g., from stove top, oven, furnace) in an enclosed area, all people within the exposure area should be evaluated at a healthcare facility due to the high risk of toxicity (Grade C). 4) If the elemental mercury was vacuumed or swept with a broom, the health department should be contacted to perform an environmental assessment for mercury contamination. Consider healthcare referral for those exposed to documented high air mercury concentrations (Grade C). 5) Patients ingesting more mercury than in a household fever thermometer or those with abdominal pain after ingestion should be referred to an emergency department for evaluation (Grade C). Do not induce emesis or administer activated charcoal. 6) Asymptomatic patients with brief, unintentional, low-dose vapor exposures can be observed at home. Asymptomatic patients can be evaluated as non-urgent outpatients if there is concern for exposures to high doses (e.g., more than contained in a thermometer) or for chronic duration (Grade D). 7) Pregnant patients unintentionally exposed to elemental mercury and who are asymptomatic should be evaluated by their obstetrician or primary care provider as an outpatient. Immediate referral to an ED is not required (Grade D). 8) Patients with elemental mercury deposited or injected into soft tissue should be referred for evaluation of surgical removal (Grade C). 9) All elemental mercury spills should be properly cleaned up, including the small amount of mercury from a broken thermometer. Brooms and vacuum cleaners should not be used to clean up elemental mercury. The clean-up of any spill larger than a broken thermometer should be performed by a professional company, state health department, or the EPA. Detailed instructions are provided on the EPA website: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/mercury/faq/spills.htm (Grade D). 10) Patients with dermal exposures should remove all jewelry and wash the affected area with mild soap and water. Remove all contaminated clothing and place these items in a sealed plastic double-bag for proper disposal (Grade D). 11) Do not discard elemental mercury in household trash, plumbing drains, or sewer systems. Consult local authorities for the proper disposal of low-level elemental mercury-contaminated household items and thermometers (Grade D).

Acute pneumonitis associated with nickel carbonyl exposure in the workplace.

BACKGROUND: We describe the clinical course of one industrial technician occupationally exposed to nickel carbonyl (NiC). CASE REPORT: A 50-year-old male industrial technician presented with complaints of nausea, myalgia, and cough to a local clinic after suspected occupational exposure to nickel carbonyl. He has no history of lung disease or smoking. His initial urine nickel concentration was 692 ug/L. He had infiltrates on the initial chest X-ray (CXR) and an oxygen saturation (O2) of 97% on room air. The patient was started on disulfiram 1 g by mouth (PO), 500 mg six hours after the first dose, then 250 mg twice daily for five days with prednisone 60 mg by mouth for five days. He presented 48 hours later with worsening respiratory symptoms. His O2 saturation decreased to 85% despite two days of oral steroids, and he was admitted to a hospital. He received prednisone 60 mg/day PO, 4 L nasal O2, and disulfiram 500 mg twice daily. He was discharged on day 7 post-exposure with disulfiram and prednisone. Case discussions: NiC is a severe respiratory irritant. Disulfiram was used off-label and was based on an established company protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Inhalation exposure to NiC resulted in a delayed respiratory dysfunction which responded to disulfiram treatment.

Severe neurotoxicity associated with exposure to the solvent 1-bromopropane (n-propyl bromide).

BACKGROUND: 1-bromopropane was recently substituted for traditional ozone-depleting solvents in the industrial setting. CASE SERIES: We report a cohort of six cases of 1-bromopropane neurotoxicity occurring in foam cushion gluers exposed to 1-bromopropane vapors from spray adhesives. Patients 1-5 were exposed 30-40 hours per week over three years; patient 6 had been employed for the previous three months. Exposure had peaked over the previous month when ventilatory fans were turned off. All patients complained of subacute onset of lower extremity pain or paresthesias. Five of six complained of difficulty walking and on examination had spastic paraparesis, distal sensory loss, and hyperreflexia. Three patients initially had nausea and headache. Serum bromide concentrations ranged from 44 to 170 mg/dL (reference 0-40 mg/dL). Apparent hyperchloremia was present with serum chloride concentrations of 105 to 139 mmol/L (reference 98-107 mmol/L). Air samples taken at the workplace during gluing operations revealed the mean air concentration of 1-bromopropane to be 130 ppm (range 91-176 ppm) with a seven hour time-weighted average of 108 ppm (range 92-127 ppm), well above the EPA-proposed limit of 25 ppm. Two years after exposure, the two most severely affected patients had minimal improvement of function and they, with a third patient, continued to experience chronic neuropathic pain. CONCLUSION: This report supports the growing recognition of 1-bromopropane neurotoxicity in humans consisting most commonly of headache, nausea, and subacute spastic paraparesis with distal sensory loss. The pathogenesis of 1-BP neurotoxicity in humans has yet to be fully elucidated but may reflect a central distal axonopathy syndrome.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor poisoning: An evidence-based consensus guideline for out-of-hospital management.

A review of US poison center data for 2004 showed over 48,000 exposures to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). A guideline that determines the conditions for emergency department referral and prehospital care could potentially optimize patient outcome, avoid unnecessary emergency department visits, reduce health care costs, and reduce life disruption for patients and caregivers. An evidence-based expert consensus process was used to create the guideline. Relevant articles were abstracted by a trained physician researcher. The first draft of the guideline was created by the lead author. The entire panel discussed and refined the guideline before distribution to secondary reviewers for comment. The panel then made changes based on the secondary review comments. The objective of this guideline is to assist poison center personnel in the appropriate out-of-hospital triage and initial management of patients with a suspected ingestion of an SSRI by 1) describing the process by which an ingestion of an SSRI might be managed, 2) identifying the key decision elements in managing cases of SSRI ingestion, 3) providing clear and practical recommendations that reflect the current state of knowledge, and 4) identifying needs for research. This guideline applies to ingestion of immediate-release forms of SSRIs alone. Co-ingestion of additional substances might require different referral and management recommendations depending on their combined toxicities. This guideline 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, considering all of the circumstances involved. This guideline does not substitute for clinical judgment. Recommendations are in chronological order of likely clinical use. The grade of recommendation is in parentheses. 1) All patients with suicidal intent, intentional abuse, or in cases in which a malicious intent is suspected (e.g., child abuse or neglect) should be referred to an emergency department. This activity should be guided by local poison center procedures. In general, this should occur regardless of the dose reported (Grade D). 2) Any patient already experiencing any symptoms other than mild effects (mild effects include vomiting, somnolence [lightly sedated and arousable with speaking voice or light touch], mydriasis, or diaphoresis) should be transported to an emergency department. Transportation via ambulance should be considered based on the condition of the patient and the length of time it will take the patient to arrive at the emergency department (Grade D). 3) Asymptomatic patients or those with mild effects (defined above) following isolated unintentional acute SSRI ingestions of up to five times an initial adult therapeutic dose (i.e., citalopram 100 mg, escitalopram 50 mg, fluoxetine 100 mg, fluvoxamine 250 mg, paroxetine 100 mg, sertraline 250 mg) can be observed at home with instructions to call the poison center back if symptoms develop. For patients already on an SSRI, those with ingestion of up to five times their own single therapeutic dose can be observed at home with instructions to call the poison center back if symptoms develop (Grade D). 4) The poison center should consider making follow-up calls during the first 8 hours after ingestion, following its normal procedure. Consideration should be given to the time of day when home observation will take place. Observation during normal sleep hours might not reliably identify the onset of toxicity. Depending on local poison center policy, patients could be referred to an emergency department if the observation would take place during normal sleeping hours of the patient or caretaker (Grade D). 5) Do not induce emesis (Grade C). 6) The use of oral activated charcoal can be considered since the likelihood of SSRI-induced loss of consciousness or seizures is small. However, there are no data to suggest a specific clinical benefit. The routine use of out-of-hospital oral activated charcoal in patients with unintentional SSRI overdose cannot be advocated at this time (Grade C). 7) Use intravenous benzodiazepines for seizures and benzodiazepines and external cooling measures for hyperthermia (>104 degrees F [>40 degrees C]) for SSRI-induced serotonin syndrome. This should be done in consultation with and authorized by EMS medical direction, by a written treatment protocol or policy, or with direct medical oversight (Grade C).

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

A review of US poison center data for 2004 showed over 8,000 ingestions of methylphenidate. A guideline that determines the conditions for emergency department referral and prehospital care could potentially optimize patient outcome, avoid unnecessary emergency department visits, reduce health care costs, and reduce life disruption for patients and caregivers. An evidence-based expert consensus process was used to create the guideline. Relevant articles were abstracted by a trained physician researcher. The first draft of the guideline was created by the lead author. The entire panel discussed and refined the guideline before distribution to secondary reviewers for comment. The panel then made changes based on the secondary review comments. The objective of this guideline is to assist poison center personnel in the appropriate out-of-hospital triage and initial out-of-hospital management of patients with suspected ingestions of methylphenidate by 1) describing the process by which a specialist in poison information should evaluate an exposure to methylphenidate, 2) identifying the key decision elements in managing cases of methylphenidate ingestion, 3) providing clear and practical recommendations that reflect the current state of knowledge, and 4) identifying needs for research. This review focuses on the ingestion of more than a single therapeutic dose of methylphenidate and the effects of an overdose 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, considering all of the circumstances involved. This guideline does not substitute for clinical judgment. Recommendations are in chronological order of likely clinical use. The grade of recommendation is in parentheses. 1) All patients with suicidal intent, intentional abuse, or in cases in which a malicious intent is suspected (e.g., child abuse or neglect) should be referred to an emergency department (Grade D). 2) In patients without evidence of self-harm, abuse, or malicious intent, poison center personnel should elicit additional information including the time of the ingestion, the precise dose ingested, and the presence of coingestants (Grade D). 3) Patients who are chronically taking a monoamine oxidase inhibitor and who have ingested any amount of methylphenidate require referral to an emergency department (Grade D). 4) Patients experiencing any changes in behavior other than mild stimulation or agitation should be referred to an emergency department. Examples of moderate to severe symptoms that warrant referral include moderate-to-severe agitation, hallucinations, abnormal muscle movements, headache, chest pain, loss of consciousness, or convulsions (Grade D). 5) For patients referred to an emergency department, transportation via ambulance should be considered based on several factors including the condition of the patient and the length of time it will take for the patient to arrive at the emergency department (Grade D). 6) If the patient has no symptoms, and more than 3 hours have elapsed between the time of ingestion and the call to the poison center, referral to an emergency department is not recommended (Grade D). 7) Patients with acute or acute-on-chronic ingestions of less than a toxic dose (see recommendations 8, 9, and 10) or chronic exposures to methylphenidate with no or mild symptoms can be observed at home with instructions to call the poison center back if symptoms develop or worsen. For acute-on-chronic ingestions, the caller should be instructed not to administer methylphenidate to the patient for the next 24 hours. The poison center should consider making a follow-up call at approximately 3 hours after ingestion (Grade D). 8) Patients who ingest more than 2 mg/kg or 60 mg, whichever is less, of an immediate-release formulation (or the equivalent amount of a modified-release formulation that has been chewed) should be referred to an emergency department (Grade C). 9) If a patch has been swallowed, consider the entire contents of the patch (not just the labeled dose of the patch) to have been ingested. Patients who ingest more than 2 mg/kg or 60 mg, whichever is less should be referred to an emergency department. If it is known that the patch has been chewed only briefly, and the patch remains intact, significant toxicity is unlikely and emergency department referral is not necessary (Grade D). 10) Patients who ingest more than 4 mg/kg or 120 mg, whichever is less, of an intact modified-release formulation should be referred to an emergency department (Grade D). 11) For oral exposures, do not induce emesis (Grade D). 12) Pre-hospital activated charcoal administration, if available, should only be carried out by health professionals and only if no contraindications are present. Do not delay transportation in order to administer activate charcoal (Grade D). 13) Benzodiazepines can be administered by EMS personnel if agitation, dystonia, or convulsions are present and if authorized by EMS medical direction expressed by written treatment protocol or policy or direct medical oversight (Grade C). 14) Standard advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) measures should be administered by EMS personnel if respiratory arrest, cardiac dysrhythmias, or cardiac arrest are present and if authorized by EMS medical direction expressed by written treatment protocol or policy or direct medical oversight (Grade C).

Atypical antipsychotic medication 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 out-of-hospital management of patients with suspected acute ingestions of atypical antipsychotic medications by 1) describing the process by which an ingestion of an atypical antipsychotic medication might be evaluated, 2) identifying the key decision elements in managing cases of atypical antipsychotic medication ingestion, 3) providing clear and practical recommendations that reflect the current state of knowledge, and 4) identifying needs for research. This guideline applies to ingestion of atypical antipsychotic medications alone. Co-ingestion of additional substances could require different referral and management recommendations depending on the combined toxicities of the substances. This guideline is based on an assessment of current scientific and clinical information. The expert consensus panel recognizes that specific patient care decisions might be at variance with this guideline and are the prerogative of the patient and the health professionals providing care, considering all of the circumstances involved. This guideline does not substitute for clinical judgment. The grade of recommendation is in parentheses. 1) Patients with stated or suspected self-harm or the recipient of a potentially malicious administration of an atypical antipsychotic medication should be referred to an emergency department immediately. This activity should be guided by local poison center procedures. In general, this should occur regardless of the dose reported (Grade D). 2) Patients without evidence of self-harm should have further evaluation, including determination of the precise dose ingested, presence of signs or symptoms of toxicity, history of other medical conditions, and the presence of co-ingestants (Grade C). 3) Asymptomatic patients without evidence of attempted self-harm are unlikely to develop symptoms if the interval between the ingestion and the call is greater than 6 hours. These patients do not need referral and should receive follow-up based on local poison center protocols (Grade C). 4) All patients less than 12 years of age who are naïve to atypical antipsychotic medications and are experiencing no more than mild drowsiness (lightly sedated and can be aroused with speaking voice or light touch) can be observed at home unless they have ingested more than four times the initial adult dose for the implicated antipsychotic medication or a dose that is equal to or more than the lowest reported acute dose that resulted in at least moderate toxicity, whichever dose is smaller (i.e., aripiprazole 15 mg, clozapine 50 mg, olanzapine 10 mg, quetiapine 100 mg, risperidone 1 mg, ziprasidone 80 mg) (Grade D). 5) All patients 12 years of age or older who are naïve to atypical antipsychotic medications and are experiencing no more than mild drowsiness can be observed at home unless they have ingested more than five times the initial adult dose for the implicated antipsychotic medication (i.e., aripiprazole 50 mg, clozapine 62.5 mg, olanzapine 25 mg, quetiapine 125 mg, risperidone 5 mg, ziprasidone 100 mg) (Grade D). 6) Patients who use atypical antipsychotic medications on a chronic basis can be observed at home unless they have acutely ingested more than 5 times their current single dose (not daily dose) of the implicated antipsychotic medication (Grade C). 7) Patients who have ingested less than a threshold dose (see Recommendations 4-6) and are exhibiting no more than mild drowsiness can be observed at home with instructions to call the poison center if symptoms develop or worsen. If mild drowsiness is present at the time of the initial call, the poison center should make follow-up calls until at least 6 hours after ingestion. Consideration should be given to the time of day that home observation will take place. Observation during normal sleep hours might not be reliable. Depending on local poison center policy, patients could be referred to an emergency department if the observation would take place during normal sleeping hours of the patient or caretaker (Grade D). 8) Any patient already experiencing any signs or symptoms, other than mild drowsiness, thought to be related to atypical antipsychotic medication toxicity should be transported to an emergency department. Transportation via ambulance should be considered based on the condition of the patient and the length of time it will take the patient to arrive at the emergency department (Grade D). 9) Do not induce emesis (Grade D). 10) There are no specific data to suggest benefit from out-of-hospital administration of activated charcoal in patients exposed to atypical antipsychotic medications. Poison centers should follow local protocols and experience with the out-of-hospital use of activated charcoal in this context. Do not delay transportation in order to administer charcoal (Grade D). 11) For patients who merit evaluation in an emergency department, transportation via ambulance should be considered based on the condition of the patient and the length of time it will take the patient to arrive at the emergency department. Continuous cardiac monitoring should be implemented given reports of conduction disturbances associated with this class of medications. Provide usual supportive care en route to the hospital, including airway management and intravenous fluids for hypotension (Grade D). 12) Depending on the specific circumstances, follow-up calls should be made to determine outcome at appropriate intervals based on the clinical judgment of the poison center staff (Grade D).