An observational study of adverse drug reactions to COVID-19 vaccines reported to the New Mexico poison center hotline.

INTRODUCTION: Post-marketing data on coronavirus vaccines are limited. This study evaluated adverse reactions reported to a statewide hotline after the administration of a coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccine. METHODS: We collected reports between 1 December 2020 through 30 August 2021 of any individual 12 years of age and older who received an FDA EUA-approved vaccine and experienced an adverse reaction. For each case, we collected vaccine brand, demographics, adverse reaction type, severity, onset of reaction, duration, and outcome. Relative risk analyses were conducted to investigate factors associated with vaccine adverse reactions. RESULTS: 638 adverse drug reaction cases were recorded. The majority identified as female (70.8%) and the median age was 56. Implicated brands were Pfizer BNT162b2 (46.6%), Moderna mRNA-1273 (43.41%), and Janssen Ad26.COV2.S (8.78%). Although the lowest number of cases was with Janssen, this vaccine had the highest incident rate based on reactions per 100,000 doses. Adverse reactions with the highest incidence were systemic reactions (92.7%), injection-site reactions (8.5%), and local non-injection-site reactions (10.4%), with most judged as minor severity. Relative risk was higher for Moderna compared to Pfizer for injection-site non-severe (RR 2.01) and injection-site severe (RR 1.94) reactions. Janssen had a higher risk of headache, dyspnea, and vision changes compared to Pfizer, and a higher risk of headache compared to Moderna. The relative risk for fever, chills, and lymphadenopathy was higher for the second dose than the first dose for all patients. CONCLUSION: This observational study analyzing adverse drug reactions of the COVID-19 vaccine found that most complaints concerned systemic reactions. We found reaction differences among vaccine brands, between first and second doses for some effects, and selected recurrent events. Poison control centers are uniquely positioned to conduct post-marketing surveillance for the new vaccines as they are available 24/7 to the public and are healthcare providers. Further post-marketing studies are essential to provide a holistic safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines.

A systematic review of second line therapies in toxic seizures.

BACKGROUND: Seizures are a common manifestation of toxic exposures requiring immediate and possibly ongoing management. Guidelines recommend benzodiazepines as first-line therapy for toxic seizures; however, there is a paucity of literature regarding optimal secondary treatment. We systematically evaluated the available literature for second-line treatment of toxic seizures. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from inception through August of 2018, following PRISMA Guideline. The MESH terms focused on identifying treatments for seizures induced by drugs or other potentially toxic substances. We excluded the articles if they involved animals, had seizures resulting from alcohol withdrawal, were case reports, or not peer-reviewed. Our primary outcome was seizure termination and/or suppression by the second-line agent as agreed upon by two authors. We used descriptive statistics for analysis. RESULTS: We identified six case series that met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included case series contained nine to 235 patient cases each. The most common xenobiotic exposures were bupropion, isoniazid, and anti-psychotics. The description of seizure type and duration was diverse. First-line treatments were primarily benzodiazepines. Secondary treatments included propofol, barbiturates, phenytoin, valproic acid, and levetiracetam. Patient outcomes differed, attributable to any of the following: mixed toxic substances, drug-drug interactions, inability to control seizures, or toxicity of the anti-epileptic drugs (AED) themselves. Few cases specifically discussed the success of secondary treatment administration to suppress or terminate seizures. CONCLUSIONS: Available literature discussing second-line treatment for toxic seizures is of poor quality with high heterogeneity. Although the majority of articles used similar second-line agents, it is difficult to compare the efficacy of the regimens. Additional studies are necessary to identify the most efficacious second-line therapies in toxic seizures.

Serious Adverse Health Events, Including Death, Associated with Ingesting Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizers Containing Methanol - Arizona and New Mexico, May-June 2020.

Alcohol-based hand sanitizer is a liquid, gel, or foam that contains ethanol or isopropanol used to disinfect hands. Hand hygiene is an important component of the U.S. response to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). If soap and water are not readily available, CDC recommends the use of alcohol-based hand sanitizer products that contain at least 60% ethyl alcohol (ethanol) or 70% isopropyl alcohol (isopropanol) in community settings (1); in health care settings, CDC recommendations specify that alcohol-based hand sanitizer products should contain 60%-95% alcohol (≥60% ethanol or ≥70% isopropanol) (2). According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates alcohol-based hand sanitizers as an over-the-counter drug, methanol (methyl alcohol) is not an acceptable ingredient. Cases of ethanol toxicity following ingestion of alcohol-based hand sanitizer products have been reported in persons with alcohol use disorder (3,4). On June 30, 2020, CDC received notification from public health partners in Arizona and New Mexico of cases of methanol poisoning associated with ingestion of alcohol-based hand sanitizers. The case reports followed an FDA consumer alert issued on June 19, 2020, warning about specific hand sanitizers that contain methanol. Whereas early clinical effects of methanol and ethanol poisoning are similar (e.g., headache, blurred vision, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, loss of coordination, and decreased level of consciousness), persons with methanol poisoning might develop severe anion-gap metabolic acidosis, seizures, and blindness. If left untreated methanol poisoning can be fatal (5). Survivors of methanol poisoning might have permanent visual impairment, including complete vision loss; data suggest that vision loss results from the direct toxic effect of formate, a toxic anion metabolite of methanol, on the optic nerve (6). CDC and state partners established a case definition of alcohol-based hand sanitizer-associated methanol poisoning and reviewed 62 poison center call records from May 1 through June 30, 2020, to characterize reported cases. Medical records were reviewed to abstract details missing from poison center call records. During this period, 15 adult patients met the case definition, including persons who were American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN). All had ingested an alcohol-based hand sanitizer and were subsequently admitted to a hospital. Four patients died and three were discharged with vision impairment. Persons should never ingest alcohol-based hand sanitizer, avoid use of specific imported products found to contain methanol, and continue to monitor FDA guidance (7). Clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for methanol poisoning when evaluating adult or pediatric patients with reported swallowing of an alcohol-based hand sanitizer product or with symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings (e.g., elevated anion-gap metabolic acidosis) compatible with methanol poisoning. Treatment of methanol poisoning includes supportive care, correction of acidosis, administration of an alcohol dehydrogenase inhibitor (e.g., fomepizole), and frequently, hemodialysis.

Levetiracetam in toxic seizures.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The use of levetiracetam (LEV) in the management of drug-induced seizures has not been systematically investigated. Repetitive and continuous seizures that do not respond to benzodiazepines require second line therapy. Levetiracetam has a unique receptor binding site, rapid absorption, no known cardiac effects at therapeutic doses, and is theoretically a good candidate for use in drug-induced seizures. We evaluate the safety of LEV and its association with seizure cessation in this retrospective chart review of patients who received LEV as a control agent in drug-induced seizures. METHODS: We identified the medical records of patients presenting to an urban, level 1 trauma center between 1 January 2010 and 31 May 2015 by ICD-9 codes based on the following: (1) a poisoning diagnosis, (2) a seizure diagnosis, and (3) administration of LEV. We included patients with a drug-induced seizure based on history, electroencephalogram results, blood alcohol concentrations, urine drug screens, and adequate documentation. We excluded patients with alcohol withdrawal, anoxic brain injury, subtherapeutic concentrations of other antiepileptics, hypoglycemia, and pseudoseizures. Primary outcomes of interest included cessation of active seizures or the prevention of seizure recurrence. We assessed safety by the presence or absence of adverse drug effects (ADE) attributed to the administration of LEV. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Half of the study cohort (17) presented with generalized tonic-clonic seizures (TCS); half (17) presented in generalized convulsive status epilepticus (GCSE). Six patients in GCSE received LEV during their seizures; 2 also received fosphenytoin. One improved immediately following LEV administration, and the remaining 5 had seizure control. Eleven GCSE patients (65%) remained seizure free after LEV therapy. The patients with TCS (17) received LEV after seizure(s) control. Sixteen (94%) were seizure-free during their hospital course. We found no adverse drug effects. In total, 27 of 34 patients (79%) had a return to baseline neurological and physical health. Six had long-term sequelae; none of which are known LEV side-effects. We identified 46 toxic substances and 22 known seizurogenic agents (48%). The median length of stay was 3.7 days (0.4-96), and the median duration of in-hospital LEV therapy was 1.6 days (0-49). CONCLUSIONS: Levetiracetam used as a second-line agent was associated with control of drug-induced seizures and prevention of seizure recurrence without obvious adverse effects. A prospective study is needed to confirm these results.

Dietary Supplements in Children.

High-quality systematic reviews of use of herbal or homeopathic remedies in children often suffer from design flaws, such as not following PRISMA guidelines, inconsistent outcome measurements, and paucity of high-quality studies. Herbal remedies have modest demonstrated benefits with insufficient evidence to recommend any particular supplement. Homeopathic remedies have no role in treatment of pediatric conditions, and have been associated with great harm in infants given homeopathic teething products. Two types of herbal supplements are associated with high risk in adolescents, energy drinks and adulterated weight-loss products. Parents should be counseled about risks of these products.

Consumer perception of household hazardous materials.

UNLABELLED: We evaluated consumer perception of household hazardous materials (HHM) to identify links between storage of HHMs and consumer perception. METHODS: 357 telephone surveys were conducted within one county to determine home storage location (high, low, unknown) of 10 substances common to pediatric poisoning. Questions addressed look-alikes, poison information resources, disposal/recycling practices, and the transfer of cleaning products to other containers. RESULTS: Prescription medications were stored in lower elevations than vitamins with iron and OTC ibuprofen or acetaminophen. Products common in poisoning were often stored at low elevations. Poison center (PCC) awareness was modest; 35% stated the PCC would be first choice; 43% chose 911. Nineteen percent indicated they transferred cleaning items to other containers, usually bleach (6.7%), but 29% transferred prescription medications. CONCLUSION: Results will be utilized to develop a community-specific educational campaign targeted toward lack of awareness of the poison center and reinforcement of proper storage and disposal practices.

Foxy methoxy: a new drug of abuse.

INTRODUCTION: In 1999, a new synthetic tryptamine, 5-MeO-DIPT, became known as a street drug, with the street name of "Foxy" or "Foxy Methoxy". By February 2003, the DEA reported law enforcement seizures and/or reports of abuse in 12 states. We report a case along with an analysis of poison center data on this new drug of abuse. CASE REPORT: A 19-year-old male was brought to the emergency department following ingestion of a larger than his usual dose of Foxy. Upon arrival, he had hallucinations, hypertension, tachycardia, mydriasis, and catalepsy. Symptoms resolved within two hours after administration of lorazepam and he recovered uneventfully. DISCUSSION: The AAPCC TESS database contained 41 exposures to "Foxy" between April, 2002 and June, 2003; 26 had moderate or major effects, indicating this drug has significant toxic potential. Given the expanding use of this and other club drugs, the spectrum of toxicity from this new agent will continue to be elucidated.

Adverse events associated with dietary supplements: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events associated with dietary supplements are difficult to monitor in the USA, because such products are not registered before sale, and there is little information about their content and safety. METHODS: In 1998, 11 poison control centres in the USA recorded details of 2332 telephone calls about 1466 ingestions of dietary supplements, in 784 of which patients had symptoms. We used a multitiered review process (kappa 0.42) to select 489 cases for whom we were at least 50% certain that their negative events were associated with dietary supplements. We aimed to assess the effects of multiple ingredients and long-term use, and collated data for patterns of use and information resources. FINDINGS: A third of events were of greater than mild severity. We noted both new and previously reported associations that included myocardial infarction, liver failure, bleeding, seizures, and death. Increased symptom severity was associated with use of several ingredients, long-term use, and age. Paediatric exposures were more often unintentional than were adult ingestions, and treatment of disease was the reason for supplement use in at least 28% of reports. Most products and ingredients were not identified in the information database (Poisindex) used by poison control centres, and specific adverse events were reported variably among five additional sources. INTERPRETATION: Dietary supplements are associated with adverse events that include all levels of severity, organ systems, and age groups. Associations between adverse events and ingredients are difficult to verify if a product has more than one ingredient, and because of incomplete information systems. Research into hazards and risks of dietary supplements should be a priority.