Extracorporeal treatments in poisonings from four non-traditionally dialysed toxins (acetaminophen, digoxin, opioids and tricyclic antidepressants): A combined single-centre and national study.

The use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) for poisonings with four non-traditionally dialysed toxins (NTDTs) is increasing in the United States. This study evaluated whether ECTRs are prescribed for toxin removal or the treatment of other medical illnesses or complications. We performed a 2-Phase retrospective analysis evaluating the main indication for ECTRs in patients with poisoning from a NTDT (defined for this study as acetaminophen, opioids, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) or digoxin) and ECTR. The first phase assessed all cases from a single site (New York City Poison Control Center) between the years 2000 and 2016, and the second phase surveyed all United States Poison Control Centers (PCCs). In Phase 1, demographics, toxin ingested and main indication for ECTR were extracted. In Phase 2, a query to the National Poison Data System using the a pragmatic subset of inclusion criteria from Phase 1 restricted to single toxin ingestions over a narrower time frame (2014-2016) provided the cases for study. A structured online questionnaire was sent to all United States PCCs to request their database review regarding the indication for ECTR for their cases. In Phase 1, 92 cases met inclusion criteria. In Phase 2, 519 cases were screened and 425 met inclusion criteria. In Phase 1 91/92 (98.9%) and Phase 2 411/425 (96.7%), of extracorporeal treatments were used to treat underlying medical conditions or poisoning-related complications rather than accelerate toxin removal. The increasing number of ECTRs reported in patients who ingested one of the four NTDTs thus appears to be for medical indications rather than attempts at toxin removal, a distinction that is important.

Changes in Neutrophil Count After Antipsychotic Prescription Among a Retrospective Cohort of Patients With Benign Neutropenia.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of literature regarding the effect of antipsychotics on absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of patients with benign neutropenia (BN). We evaluated the change in ANC after atypical antipsychotic prescription (excluding clozapine) in a retrospective cohort of 22 patients with BN. METHODS/PROCEDURES: Records of all patients with BN who were prescribed antipsychotics and who had ANC measured before and during antipsychotic treatment were obtained from Bronx VA Medical Center between 2005 and 2015 (inclusive). Twenty-two patients met criteria for inclusion. Individual and group mean ANC were calculated before treatment and during treatment. A paired, two-tailed t test was performed on the group ANC means. RESULTS: The group mean pretreatment ANC was 1.24 ± 0.220 K/cmm, and the mean ANC during the time of antipsychotic prescription increased to 1.40 ± 0.230 K/cmm, with a P value of 0.0045, t value of 3.18, degrees of freedom equal to 21, and 95% confidence interval of 1.30 to 1.49 K/cmm. CONCLUSIONS: There was a statistically significant increase in ANC among our cohort during the time of antipsychotic prescription. All BN patients who were prescribed antipsychotics maintained a stable neutrophil count, with none of the 22 patients with BN in this study developing agranulocytosis during treatment. Although this study is limited by a low patient count as well as other demographic factors, these findings provide initial evidence regarding the safety of prescribing atypical antipsychotics to BN patients. Further studies are needed to replicate these findings and assess for effects of individual medications.

Clinical utility of the list sign as a predictor of non-demyelinating disorders in a multiple sclerosis (MS) practice.

OBJECTIVES: Not all patients referred for evaluation of multiple sclerosis (MS) meet criteria required for MS or related entities. Identification of markers to exclude demyelinating disease may help detect patients whose presenting symptoms are inconsistent with MS. In this study, we evaluate whether patients who present a self-prepared list of symptoms during an initial visit are less likely to have demyelinating disease and whether this action, which we term the "list sign," may help exclude demyelinating disease. METHODS: Using chart review, 300 consecutive new patients who presented for evaluation to a neurologist at a tertiary MS referral center were identified retrospectively. Patients were defined as having demyelinating disease if diagnosed with MS or a related demyelinating condition. RESULTS: Of the 233 enrolled subjects, 157 were diagnosed with demyelinating disease and 74 did not meet criteria for demyelinating disease. Fifteen (8.4%) subjects had a positive list sign, of which 1 patient had demyelinating disease. The 15 subjects described a mean of 12.07 symptoms, and 8 of these patients met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria for somatic symptom disorder. The specificity and positive predictive value of the list sign for non-demyelinating disease were 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96-0.99) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.66-0.99), respectively. CONCLUSION: A positive list sign may be useful to exclude demyelinating disease and to guide diagnostic evaluations for other conditions. Patients with a positive list sign also have a high incidence of somatic symptom disorder.