The relative efficacy of antidotes: the IPCS evaluation series. International Programme on Chemical Safety.

Abstract

Antidotes may play an important role in the treatment of poisoning. For many physicians and toxicologists an antidote is an antidote. According to the IPCS definition, an antidote is a therapeutic substance used to counteract the toxic action(s) of a specified xenobiotic. Given this wide definition, the efficacy of an antidote may vary considerably depending on which toxic action(s) is/are being counteracted and on the level of counteracting power: An almost 100% efficacy is seen using specific antagonists, such as naloxone in opiate poisoning or flumazenil in benzodiazepine poisoning, e.g. resulting in complete reversal of opiate toxicity unless complications, such as anoxic brain damage, have developed. At the other end of the efficacy scale, we may place chelating agents for heavy metal poisoning and diazepam for organophosphorus insecticide poisoning. Therefore, in the IPCS/EC evaluation series of antidotes, some chelating agents are considered only to be an adjunct to supportive care which is the cornerstone of treatment. When teaching clinical toxicology or recommending the use of antidotes in poisoned patients, the expected efficacy level of the antidote in question should be stressed. This may be particularly important in severe poisonings when the antidote may only be considered as an adjunct to supportive care, e.g. deferoxamine in acute iron poisoning. Unless this is stressed, the unexperienced physician may rely too much on the antidote and may not pay sufficient attention to the supportive care. In this presentation, the varying efficacy levels of antidotes are discussed as based on the presently ongoing IPCS/EC evaluation programme on antidotes.