Extracorporeal Treatment for Methotrexate Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations from the EXTRIP Workgroup.

Methotrexate is used in the treatment of many malignancies, rheumatological diseases, and inflammatory bowel disease. Toxicity from use is associated with severe morbidity and mortality. Rescue treatments include intravenous hydration, folinic acid, and, in some centers, glucarpidase. We conducted systematic reviews of the literature following published EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) methods to determine the utility of extracorporeal treatments in the management of methotrexate toxicity. The quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations (either "strong" or "weak/conditional") were graded according to the GRADE approach. A formal voting process using a modified Delphi method assessed the level of agreement between panelists on the final recommendations. A total of 92 articles met inclusion criteria. Toxicokinetic data were available on 90 patients (89 with impaired kidney function). Methotrexate was considered to be moderately dialyzable by intermittent hemodialysis. Data were available for clinical analysis on 109 patients (high-dose methotrexate [>0.5 g/m2]: 91 patients; low-dose [≤0.5 g/m2]: 18). Overall mortality in these publications was 19.5% and 26.7% in those with high-dose and low-dose methotrexate-related toxicity, respectively. Although one observational study reported lower mortality in patients treated with glucarpidase compared with those treated with hemodialysis, there were important limitations in the study. For patients with severe methotrexate toxicity receiving standard care, the EXTRIP workgroup: (1) suggested against extracorporeal treatments when glucarpidase is not administered; (2) recommended against extracorporeal treatments when glucarpidase is administered; and (3) recommended against extracorporeal treatments instead of administering glucarpidase. The quality of evidence for these recommendations was very low. Rationales for these recommendations included: (1) extracorporeal treatments mainly remove drugs in the intravascular compartment, whereas methotrexate rapidly distributes into cells; (2) extracorporeal treatments remove folinic acid; (3) in rare cases where fast removal of methotrexate is required, glucarpidase will outperform any extracorporeal treatment; and (4) extracorporeal treatments do not appear to reduce the incidence and magnitude of methotrexate toxicity.

Extracorporeal treatment for calcium channel blocker poisoning: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup.

BACKGROUND: Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are commonly used to treat conditions such as arterial hypertension and supraventricular dysrhythmias. Poisoning from these drugs can lead to severe morbidity and mortality. We aimed to determine the utility of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in the management of CCB poisoning. METHODS: We conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, summarized findings, and formulated recommendations following published EXTRIP methods. RESULTS: A total of 83 publications (6 in vitro and 1 animal experiments, 55 case reports or case series, 19 pharmacokinetic studies, 1 cohort study and 1 systematic review) met inclusion criteria regarding the effect of ECTR. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic data were available on 210 patients (including 32 for amlodipine, 20 for diltiazem, and 52 for verapamil). Regardless of the ECTR used, amlodipine, bepridil, diltiazem, felodipine, isradipine, mibefradil, nifedipine, nisoldipine, and verapamil were considered not dialyzable, with variable levels of evidence, while no dialyzability grading was possible for nicardipine and nitrendipine. Data were available for clinical analysis on 78 CCB poisoned patients (including 32 patients for amlodipine, 16 for diltiazem, and 23 for verapamil). Standard care (including high dose insulin euglycemic therapy) was not systematically administered. Clinical data did not suggest an improvement in outcomes with ECTR. Consequently, the EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using ECTR in addition to standard care for patients severely poisoned with either amlodipine, diltiazem or verapamil (strong recommendations, very low quality of the evidence (1D)). There were insufficient clinical data to draft recommendation for other CCBs, although the workgroup acknowledged the low dialyzability from, and lack of biological plausibility for, ECTR. CONCLUSIONS: Both dialyzability and clinical data do not support a clinical benefit from ECTRs for CCB poisoning. The EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using extracorporeal methods to enhance the elimination of amlodipine, diltiazem, and verapamil in patients with severe poisoning.

Lipid resuscitation in acute poisoning: after a decade of publications, what have we really learned?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The decision to provide intravenous lipid emulsion (ILE) therapy as a treatment modality for the reversal of various drug toxicity was discovered in the last decade. Numerous publications, in both humans and animals attest to its clinical use, but current supporting evidence is inconsistent. RECENT FINDINGS: A recent systematic review reported evidence for benefit of ILE in bupivacaine toxicity. Human randomized trials, large observational studies as well as animal models of orogastric poisoning failed to report a clear benefit of ILE for nonlocal anesthetics poisoning. SUMMARY: ILE can be used to resuscitate local anesthetics especially bupivacaine. The impact of ILE on oral overdoses is controversial and clear evidence on benefit is lacking. A thorough risk benefit assessment with consideration of alternative options is warranted to minimize the risk of adverse effects. Evidence supports using bolus doses of ILE, while infusion rates are still debatable.

Experts Consensus Recommendations for the Management of Calcium Channel Blocker Poisoning in Adults.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a management approach for adults with calcium channel blocker poisoning. DATA SOURCES, STUDY SELECTION, AND DATA EXTRACTION: Following the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II instrument, initial voting statements were constructed based on summaries outlining the evidence, risks, and benefits. DATA SYNTHESIS: We recommend 1) for asymptomatic patients, observation and consideration of decontamination following a potentially toxic calcium channel blocker ingestion (1D); 2) as first-line therapies (prioritized based on desired effect), IV calcium (1D), high-dose insulin therapy (1D-2D), and norepinephrine and/or epinephrine (1D). We also suggest dobutamine or epinephrine in the presence of cardiogenic shock (2D) and atropine in the presence of symptomatic bradycardia or conduction disturbance (2D); 3) in patients refractory to the first-line treatments, we suggest incremental doses of high-dose insulin therapy if myocardial dysfunction is present (2D), IV lipid-emulsion therapy (2D), and using a pacemaker in the presence of unstable bradycardia or high-grade arteriovenous block without significant alteration in cardiac inotropism (2D); 4) in patients with refractory shock or who are periarrest, we recommend incremental doses of high-dose insulin (1D) and IV lipid-emulsion therapy (1D) if not already tried. We suggest venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, if available, when refractory shock has a significant cardiogenic component (2D), and using pacemaker in the presence of unstable bradycardia or high-grade arteriovenous block in the absence of myocardial dysfunction (2D) if not already tried; 5) in patients with cardiac arrest, we recommend IV calcium in addition to the standard advanced cardiac life-support (1D), lipid-emulsion therapy (1D), and we suggest venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation if available (2D). CONCLUSION: We offer recommendations for the stepwise management of calcium channel blocker toxicity. For all interventions, the level of evidence was very low.

Review of the effect of intravenous lipid emulsion on laboratory analyses.

CONTEXT: Although the clinical use of intravenous lipid emulsion therapy for the treatment of lipophilic drug toxicity is increasing, the focus of most publications is on outcome in laboratory animals or in patients. An unintended consequence of intravenous lipid emulsion is the creation of extremely lipemic blood, which may interfere with the laboratory analysis or interpretation of common analytes. OBJECTIVE: The American Academy of Clinical Toxicology has established a lipid emulsion workgroup to review the evidence and produce recommendations on the use of this novel therapy for drug toxicity. The aim of this subgroup is to review the available evidence regarding the effect of intravenous lipid emulsion on common laboratory testing, which often forms the basis of the appraisal of the balance between benefits and potential adverse events. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive review of the literature. Relevant articles were determined based upon a predefined methodology. Package inserts of manufacturers' assays were collected. Article inclusion required that the article met predefined inclusion criteria with the agreement of at least two members of the subgroup. RESULTS: We included thirty-six articles in the final analysis. Evaluation of the reviewed analytes revealed heterogeneity with regards to the assessment of the effect of intravenous lipid emulsion in terms of consistency and magnitude of effect across the different analytic platforms. CONCLUSIONS: The measurements of a number of common analytes can be markedly affected by the lipemia produced by lipid emulsions such that they cannot always be interpreted in the way that most physicians use this information in typical clinical situations. In fact, a lack of appreciation of this effect may lead to unintentional treatment errors. Because the effect of the lipemia produced is dependent on the reagents and laboratory platform used, it would be useful for all future reports to clearly document sample handling, reagents and laboratory platform used, as well as any procedures employed to reduce the lipid content.

Analytical interferences resulting from intravenous lipid emulsion.

CONTEXT: Lipid resuscitation therapy using intravenous lipid emulsion (IVLE) for drug overdoses has gained widespread use. However, there is little information regarding its adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: We performed lipemic interference studies on typical automated platforms to investigate the potential of lipid resuscitation therapy to interfere with the reliability and turnaround time of analytes that would be of interest in acute intoxications. We also tested methods to minimize interferences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Serum pools were supplemented with increasing concentrations of Intralipid-20%(®) (0-30%). Analyses were performed on Beckman-Coulter DXC800 and DXI and Roche Modular-P. Analytes demonstrating significant interference were re-measured after centrifugation (14 000 × g for 10 minutes). RESULTS: Triglyceride and glycerol-blanked triglyceride concentrations were similar in IVLE-free samples. However, with addition of IVLE, concentrations were markedly different (139 vs. 76 mmol/L). There was no appreciable interference on the troponin-I, sodium, potassium, chloride, calcium, bicarbonate or urea assays. Albumin and magnesium assays demonstrated significant interference. Amylase, lipase, phosphate, creatinine, total protein, ALT, CK and bilirubin became unmeasurable in IVLE-supplemented samples. Whereas glucose measurement by potentiometry was free of interference, colorimetric methodology was error prone. Centrifugation removed > 90% of glycerol-blanked triglyceride (max = 5.8 mmol/L), dramatically reducing lipid interferences. DISCUSSION: IVLE results in appreciable analytical interferences at concentrations demonstrated in lipid resuscitation therapy. Of particular concern is the marked interference on glucose and magnesium, which may result in unsuccessful and potentially harmful interventions. Major implications for patient care include reporting of incorrect results and delays in the reporting of time-sensitive results. Whenever possible, blood samples should be collected prior to initiating lipid therapy. Interferences can be minimized by brief centrifugation at relatively low speeds on equipment readily available in most core labs.