Rosuvastatin-induced rhabdomyolysis due to medication errors.

Case (description): A 74 years old Caucasian suffering from chronic kidney disease presented with progressive asthenia and diffuse myalgia. It was revealed that the patient used three different rosuvastatin-containing preparations in a total daily dose of 120 mg for 76 days. Laboratory investigations revealed a marked elevation of serum urea, creatinine, myoglobin, creatine kinase (CK) and transaminases. Two serious medication errors have been identified as possible major factors that synergistically contributed to the development of rosuvastatin-induced rhabdomyolysis. First, 40 mg of rosuvastatin dose was prescribed to the patient, although the estimation of glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) declined below 40 ml/min/1.73 m2. Moreover, the patient used 3 different rosuvastatin formulations simultaneously in a total dose of 120 mg/day. The heterozygous CYP2C9*1/*3 genotype and warfarin co-administration could further contribute to the development of rhabdomyolysis. A number of preventive measures, notably in drug policy, are suggested to overcome unintended intoxications. Conclusion: Rosuvastatin-induced myopathy is a rare, but serious adverse effect. This case report highlights the need for a proper treatment and dose adjustment during chronic medical therapy, the need for adequate patient education and application of adequate drug policy measures in the era of fragmented health care delivery and polypragmasia.

Efficiency of acidemia correction on intermittent versus continuous hemodialysis in acute methanol poisoning.

CONTEXT: Acidemia is a marker of prognosis in methanol poisoning, as well as compounding formate-induced cytotoxicity. Prompt correction of acidemia is a key treatment of methanol toxicity and methods to optimize this are poorly defined. OBJECTIVE: We studied the efficiency of acidemia correction by intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) in a mass outbreak of methanol poisoning. METHODS: The study was designed as observational cohort study. The mean time for an increase of 1 mmol/L HCO3-, 0.01 unit arterial blood pH, and the total time for correction of HCO3- were determined in IHD- and CRRT-treated patients. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 18 patients treated with IHD and 13 patients treated with CRRT. At baseline, CRRT group was more acidemic than IHD group (mean arterial pH 6.79 ± 0.10 versus 7.05 ± 0.10; p = 0.001). No association was found between the rate of acidemia correction and age, weight, serum methanol, lactate, formate, and glucose on admission. The time to HCO3- correction correlated with arterial blood pH (r= -0.511; p = 0.003) and creatinine (r = 0.415; p = 0.020). There was association between the time to HCO3- correction and dialysate/effluent and blood flow rates (r= -0.738; p < 0.001 and r= -0.602; p < 0.001, correspondingly). The mean time for HCO3- to increase by 1 mmol/L was 12 ± 2 min for IHD versus 34 ± 8 min for CRRT (p < 0.001), and the mean time for arterial blood pH to increase 0.01 was 7 ± 1 mins for IHD versus 11 ± 4 min for CRRT (p = 0.024). The mean increase in HCO3- was 5.67 ± 0.90 mmol/L/h for IHD versus 2.17 ± 0.74 mmol/L/h for CRRT (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the superiority of IHD over CRRT in terms of the rate of acidemia correction.