Extracorporeal Treatments In Poisoning Workgroup Research Articles

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 treatments for isoniazid poisoning: Systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup.

Isoniazid toxicity from self-poisoning or dosing errors remains common in regions of the world where tuberculosis is prevalent. Although the treatment of isoniazid poisoning is centered on supportive care and pyridoxine administration, extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs), such as hemodialysis, have been advocated to enhance elimination of isoniazid. No systematic reviews or evidence-based recommendations currently exist on the benefit of ECTRs for isoniazid poisoning. The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup systematically collected and rated the available evidence on the effect of and indications for ECTRs in cases of isoniazid poisoning. We conducted a systematic review of the literature, screened studies, extracted data on study characteristics, outcomes, and measurement characteristics, summarized findings, and formulated recommendations following published EXTRIP methods. Forty-three studies (two animal studies, 34 patient reports or patient series, and seven pharmacokinetic studies) met inclusion criteria. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic analysis was available for 60 patients, most treated with hemodialysis (n=38). The workgroup assessed isoniazid as "Moderately Dialyzable" by hemodialysis for patients with normal kidney function (quality of evidence=C) and "Dialyzable" by hemodialysis for patients with impaired kidney function (quality of evidence=A). Clinical data for ECTR in isoniazid poisoning were available for 40 patients. Mortality of the cohort was 12.5%. Historical controls who received modern standard care including appropriately dosed pyridoxine generally had excellent outcomes. No benefit could be extrapolated from ECTR, although there was evidence of added costs and harms related to the double lumen catheter insertion, the extracorporeal procedure itself, and the extracorporeal removal of pyridoxine. The EXTRIP workgroup suggests against performing ECTR in addition to standard care (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence) in patients with isoniazid poisoning. If standard dose pyridoxine cannot be administered, we suggest performing ECTR only in patients with seizures refractory to GABAA receptor agonists (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence).

Extracorporeal Treatment for Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine, and Quinine Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations from the EXTRIP Workgroup.

Although chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and quinine are used for a range of medical conditions, recent research suggested a potential role in treating COVID-19. The resultant increase in prescribing was accompanied by an increase in adverse events, including severe toxicity and death. The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup sought to determine the effect of and indications for extracorporeal treatments in cases of poisoning with these drugs. We conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, and summarized findings following published EXTRIP methods. A total of 44 studies (three in vitro studies, two animal studies, 28 patient reports or patient series, and 11 pharmacokinetic studies) met inclusion criteria regarding the effect of extracorporeal treatments. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic analysis was available for 61 patients (13 chloroquine, three hydroxychloroquine, and 45 quinine). Clinical data were available for analysis from 38 patients, including 12 with chloroquine toxicity, one with hydroxychloroquine toxicity, and 25 with quinine toxicity. All three drugs were classified as non-dialyzable (not amenable to clinically significant removal by extracorporeal treatments). The available data do not support using extracorporeal treatments in addition to standard care for patients severely poisoned with either chloroquine or quinine (strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence). Although hydroxychloroquine was assessed as being non-dialyzable, the clinical evidence was not sufficient to support a formal recommendation regarding the use of extracorporeal treatments for this drug. On the basis of our systematic review and analysis, the EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using extracorporeal methods to enhance elimination of these drugs in patients with severe chloroquine or quinine poisoning.

Extracorporeal treatment of metforminassociated lactic acidosis in clinical practice: a retrospective cohort study

PurposeTo assess whether extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) improves outcome of patients with metformin-associated lactic acidosis (MALA) and to evaluate the clinical applicability of the Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning Workgroup (EXTRIP) criteria for starting ECTR in metformin poisoning.MethodsPatients with metformin serum concentrations above 2 mg/l who were admitted in the Deventer Teaching Hospital between January 2000 and July 2019 and complied with the definition of MALA (pH < 7.35 and lactate concentration > 5 mmol/l) were included. Mortality and clinical parameters of patients treated with ECTR or not were compared. In addition, treatment of MALA in clinical practice was verified against the criteria of EXTRIP.ResultsForty-two patients were included. Lactate (13.8 versus 10.5 mmol/l, p = 0.01), creatinine (575 versus 254 umol/l, p < 0.01)), metformin (29.4 versus 8.6 mg/l, p < 0.01) concentrations, and vasopressor requirement (72% versus 23%, p < 0.01) were significantly higher in the ECTR-group. Blood pH (7.05 versus 7.19, p = 0.03) and bicarbonate (6 versus 11 mmol/l, p < 0.01) were significantly lower. Mortality, length of hospital stay, and mechanical ventilation requirement were not statistically different. In 83% of patients, treatment of MALA was in accordance with the EXTRIP criteria.ConclusionsAlthough there was no statistical benefit in mortality shown from ECTR, ECTR might be lifesaving in MALA, considering the ECTR-group was significantly sicker than the non-ECTR-group.The majority of patients were treated in line with the EXTRIP criteria. Severity of lactic acidosis and renal impairment were the main indications for initiating ECTR.

Extracorporeal treatment for digoxin poisoning: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP Workgroup

Background: The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup was formed to provide recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTR) in poisoning. Here, we present our results for digoxin. Methods: After a systematic literature search, clinical and toxicokinetic data were extracted and summarized following a predetermined format. The entire workgroup voted through a two-round modified Delphi method to reach a consensus on voting statements. A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement, and anonymous votes were compiled and discussed in person. A second vote was conducted to determine the final workgroup recommendations. Results: Out of 435 articles screened, 77 met inclusion criteria. Only in-vitro, animal studies, case reports and case series were identified yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Based on data from 84 patients, including six fatalities, it was concluded that digoxin is slightly dialyzable (level of evidence = B), and that ECTR is unlikely to improve the outcome of digoxin-toxic patients whether or not digoxin immune Fab (Fab) is administered. Despite the lack of robust clinical evidence, the workgroup recommended against the use of ECTR in cases of severe digoxin poisoning when Fab was available (1D) and also suggested against the use of ECTR when Fab was unavailable (2D). Conclusion: ECTR, in any form, is not indicated for either suspected or proven digoxin toxicity, regardless of the clinical context, and is not indicated for removal of digoxin-Fab complex.

Extracorporeal treatment for valproic acid poisoning: Systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

Background. The EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup presents its systematic review and clinical recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) in valproic acid (VPA) poisoning. Methods. The lead authors reviewed all of the articles from a systematic literature search, extracted the data, summarized the key findings, and proposed structured voting statements following a predetermined format. A two-round modified Delphi method was chosen to reach a consensus on voting statements and the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement. Anonymous votes were compiled, returned, and discussed in person. A second vote was conducted to determine the final workgroup recommendations. Results. The latest literature search conducted in November 2014 retrieved a total of 79 articles for final qualitative analysis, including one observational study, one uncontrolled cohort study with aggregate analysis, 70 case reports and case series, and 7 pharmacokinetic studies, yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Clinical data were reported for 82 overdose patients while pharmaco/toxicokinetic grading was performed in 55 patients. The workgroup concluded that VPA is moderately dialyzable (level of evidence = B) and made the following recommendations: ECTR is recommended in severe VPA poisoning (1D); recommendations for ECTR include a VPA concentration > 1300 mg/L (9000 μmol/L)(1D), the presence of cerebral edema (1D) or shock (1D); suggestions for ECTR include a VPA concentration > 900 mg/L (6250 μmol/L)(2D), coma or respiratory depression requiring mechanical ventilation (2D), acute hyperammonemia (2D), or pH ≤ 7.10 (2D). Cessation of ECTR is indicated when clinical improvement is apparent (1D) or the serum VPA concentration is between 50 and 100 mg/L (350–700 μmol/L)(2D). Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred ECTR in VPA poisoning (1D). If hemodialysis is not available, then intermittent hemoperfusion (1D) or continuous renal replacement therapy (2D) is an acceptable alternative. Conclusions. VPA is moderately dialyzable in the setting of overdose. ECTR is indicated for VPA poisoning if at least one of the above criteria is present. Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred ECTR modality in VPA poisoning.

Extracorporeal treatment for acetaminophen poisoning: Recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

Background. The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup was created to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTR) in poisoning and the results are presented here for acetaminophen (APAP). Methods. After a systematic review of the literature, a subgroup selected and reviewed the articles and summarized clinical and toxicokinetic data in order to propose structured voting statements following a pre-determined format. A two-round modified Delphi method was chosen to reach a consensus on voting statements, and the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement. Following discussion, a second vote determined the final recommendations. Results. Twenty-four articles (1 randomized controlled trial, 1 observational study, 2 pharmacokinetic studies, and 20 case reports or case series) were identified, yielding an overall very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Clinical data on 135 patients and toxicokinetic data on 54 patients were analyzed. Twenty-three fatalities were reviewed. The workgroup agreed that N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is the mainstay of treatment, and that ECTR is not warranted in most cases of APAP poisoning. However, given that APAP is dialyzable, the workgroup agreed that ECTR is suggested in patients with excessively large overdoses who display features of mitochondrial dysfunction. This is reflected by early development of altered mental status and severe metabolic acidosis prior to the onset of hepatic failure. Specific recommendations for ECTR include an APAP concentration over 1000 mg/L if NAC is not administered (1D), signs of mitochondrial dysfunction and an APAP concentration over 700 mg/L (4630 mmol/L) if NAC is not administered (1D) and signs of mitochondrial dysfunction and an APAP concentration over 900 mg/L (5960 mmol/L) if NAC is administered (1D). Intermittent hemodialysis (HD) is the preferred ECTR modality in APAP poisoning (1D). Conclusion. APAP is amenable to extracorporeal removal. Due to the efficacy of NAC, ECTR is reserved for rare situations when the efficacy of NAC has not been definitively demonstrated.

Guidelines for reporting case studies on extracorporeal treatments in poisonings: methodology.

A literature review performed by the EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup highlighted deficiencies in the existing literature, especially the reporting of case studies. Although general reporting guidelines exist for case studies, there are none in the specific field of extracorporeal treatments in toxicology. Our goal was to construct and propose a checklist that systematically outlines the minimum essential items to be reported in a case study of poisoned patients undergoing extracorporeal treatments. Through a modified two-round Delphi technique, panelists (mostly chosen from the EXTRIP workgroup) were asked to vote on the pertinence of a set of items to identify those considered minimally essential for reporting complete and accurate case reports. Furthermore, independent raters validated the clarity of each selected items between each round of voting. All case reports containing data on extracorporeal treatments in poisoning published in Medline in 2011 were reviewed during the external validation rounds. Twenty-one panelists (20 from the EXTRIP workgroup and an invited expert on pharmacology reporting guidelines) participated in the modified Delphi technique. This group included journal editors and experts in nephrology, clinical toxicology, critical care medicine, emergency medicine, and clinical pharmacology. Three independent raters participated in the validation rounds. Panelists voted on a total of 144 items in the first round and 137 items in the second round, with response rates of 96.3% and 98.3%, respectively. Twenty case reports were evaluated at each validation round and the independent raters' response rate was 99.6% and 98.8% per validation round. The final checklist consists of 114 items considered essential for case study reporting. This methodology of alternate voting and external validation rounds was useful in developing the first reporting guideline for case studies in the field of extracorporeal treatments in poisoning. We believe that this guideline will improve the completeness and transparency of published case reports and that the systematic aggregation of information from case reports may provide early signals of effectiveness and/or harm, thereby improving healthcare decision-making.