Efficacy and expenses of succimer vs. d-penicillamine plus garlic in the treatment of lead poisoning: a retrospective cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: Lead Poisoning is a major health problem in Iran. We aimed to compare efficacy of a standard regimen (Succimer) with that of a low-priced combination of D-penicillamine and Garlic in outpatients with lead poisoning. METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, year-long clinical files of outpatients with lead poisoning in two referral toxicology clinics in Mashhad, Iran were reviewed. A total of 79 patients (all men), received either Succimer or a combination of D-penicillamen plus garlic (DPN + Gar), for 19 and 30 days, respectively. Clinical and laboratory data, including blood lead level (BLL), were analyzed and treatment expanses were compared between the two regimens. RESULTS: Of 79 male patients, 42 were treated by DPN + Gar and 37 received Succimer. Mean BLL of DPN + Gar group before treatment (965.73 ± 62.54 µg/L) was higher than that of the Succimer group (827.59 ± 24.41) (p < 0.001). After treatment, BLL in both groups significantly reduced to 365.52 ± 27.61 µg/L and 337.44 ± 26.34 µg/L, respectively (p < 0.001). The price of a 19-day treatment with Succimer was approximately 28.6 times higher than a one-month course of treatment with garlic plus DPN. None of the treatments caused serious side effects in the patients. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy with DPN + Gar is as effective as Succimer in Pb poisoning, while treatment with Succimer is significantly more expensive.

Emergent reversal of oral factor Xa inhibitors with four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding first-line use of the recently approved reversal agent andexanet alfa due to limitations of the ANEXXA-4 study, thrombotic risks, and high medication acquisition cost. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of 4F-PCC for the reversal of emergent oral fXa inhibitor-related bleeding. Furthermore, we aimed to evaluate a subgroup using strict ANNEXA-4 patient selection criteria. METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted utilizing chart review of adult patients that received 4F-PCC for oral fXa inhibitor-related bleeding. The primary endpoint was the rate of clinical success defined as achieving excellent or good hemostatic effectiveness following the administration of 4F-PCC. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital mortality and arterial/venous thromboembolism, and cost compared with andexanet alfa. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients were included, with 83 patients in the ANNEXA-4 criteria subgroup. Eighty-five of the 119 patients (71%) required reversal due to intracranial bleeding. Prior to reversal, 70 patients (59%) were taking apixaban and 49 patients (41%) were taking rivaroxaban. Clinical success was achieved in 106 of 119 patients (89%) and 74 of 83 patients (90%) in the strict criteria subgroup. Three of 119 patients (2.5%) had a thrombotic event during hospital stay and the overall mortality rate was 13%. The average cost increase of andexanet alfa compared to 4F-PCC would have been $29,500 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of 4F-PCC for the reversal of oral fXa inhibitors was effective with relatively low thrombotic risk. Further direct prospective comparison of 4F-PCC to andexanet alfa is warranted.