Journal of Medical Toxicology最新文献

Introduction: Vortioxetine is an antidepressant with a multimodal mechanism of action. It is used as a treatment option for patients with major depressive episodes. There have only been two previously reported non-fatal overdoses of vortioxetine; neither of these were analytically confirmed There has also been one case of serotonin syndrome potentially related to vortioxetine and two deaths where vortioxetine was detected. We report here a non-fatal analytically confirmed case of vortioxetine overdose.

Case report: A 32-year-old male presented to the emergency department (ED) 12-13 h after oral ingestion of 1,260 mg of vortioxetine and 350 mg of diazepam. A family member reported that he had been drowsy after the overdose, but his level of consciousness and observations (heart rate, blood pressure and temperature) were normal on review by the pre-hospital emergency services and on arrival to the ED. During a period of observation, he did not develop any features of serotonin syndrome or any other significant toxicity. Toxicological analysis of a blood sample taken in the ED detected vortioxetine (plasma concentration 457 ng/mL 10 h after ingestion) and sub-therapeutic concentrations of diazepam and pregabalin.

Discussion: Despite having a plasma vortioxetine concentration nearly 15-times therapeutic vortioxetine concentrations, this patient did not develop any significant toxicity. In particular he did not develop any clinical or biochemical features of serotonin toxicity that would be expected with this class of antidepressant. Additional reporting of analytically confirmed vortioxetine overdoses will allow clinicians and licensing authorities to further understand the safety of this medication in overdose.

Introduction: Quetiapine is available in both immediate-release (IR) and extended-release (XR) formulations. Quetiapine XR overdose is known to cause delayed increase in serum quetiapine concentrations. However, it is not certain whether quetiapine IR overdose would similarly cause a delayed increase in serum quetiapine concentrations.

Case report: A 57-year-old woman with depression who was taking half a tablet of 25 mg quetiapine IR daily was transported to our emergency department with a complaint of disturbance of consciousness 12 h after a quetiapine IR overdose. On arrival, her initial vital signs were heart rate of 116 beats per minute, blood pressure of 77/43 mm Hg, and oxygen saturation of 91% under 10 L oxygen administration. Whole body plain computed tomography showed a large amount of gastric hyperdense content suggesting pharmacobezoar with a volume of 71.2 ml. After treatment with respiratory and circulatory support, gastric lavage was performed. Her disturbance of consciousness persisted until day 5, and she was extubated on day 7. The serum concentrations of quetiapine were 2690 ng/mL at 12 h after overdose, 5940 ng/mL at 40 h, and 350 ng/mL at 124 h after overdose. Serum concentrations of other co-ingestions were all below lethal levels.

Conclusion: A massive quetiapine IR overdose with pharmacobezoars can cause a delayed increase in serum quetiapine concentrations.

More than 20 years that have elapsed since the inaugural American College of Medical Toxicology Spring Conference in 2002. During this time, the now ACMT Annual Scientific Meeting has grown in many ways, as demonstrated by the increase in attendance and abstract submissions, and diversification of educational offerings, and partners. Most importantly, the scientific rigor and presentation of new knowledge has continued to mature, and the conference is now firmly rooted in the annual educational schedule for medical toxicologists. In anticipation of the upcoming 2025 ASM, we reflect upon the evolution and growth of ACMT's research and educational agendas, and the Annual Scientific Meeting itself.

Introduction: Physostigmine fell out of widespread use in the 1980s due to safety concerns; however, more recent research has demonstrated that its safety profile is better than previously thought. These studies have mainly included adults. We theorized that improved safety data may lead to more acceptance. Our objectives, therefore, were to characterize current frequency of use of physostigmine in pediatric patients as well as to study adverse effect rates in a national pediatric patient population.

Methods: The National Poison Data System was queried for cases of patients aged 0-18 years that involved single-substance exposures to antimuscarinic xenobiotics that were reported to a poison center between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2020. Cases were stratified into groups by therapy received: benzodiazepines alone, benzodiazepines and physostigmine, physostigmine alone, or no physostigmine or benzodiazepines. Patient demographics, clinical effects, and medical outcomes were analyzed.

Results: A total of 694,132 cases were reviewed, and 150,075 were included for analysis. Nearly 5% (7562/150,075) of patients received specific pharmacological therapy with benzodiazepines, physostigmine, or both. A benzodiazepine as a single agent was the most frequently used pharmacologic therapy (92% of 7562). Among patients receiving any pharmacological therapy, only 8.3% (n = 627) of patients received physostigmine. Frequency of serious outcomes significantly increased across the study period among patients receiving benzodiazepines alone or with physostigmine. There was no increase in serious outcomes among patients receiving only physostigmine.

Conclusions: Physostigmine frequency of use was low overall, but when used, was associated with less severe outcomes when compared to benzodiazepines.

The advancement of medical toxicology knowledge has traditionally relied on case reports and case series because of the ethical challenges involved in studying poisoned patients. The growing availability of several large databases and registries now allows researchers to describe and analyze patterns in poisoned patients who share a particular exposure, outcome, or condition. A large database or registry can be useful in generating hypotheses, supporting extramural funding applications, and planning more rigorous studies. Knowing how to access and interpret data in registries such as NPDS, NHAMCS, and HCUP is essential for all stakeholders engaged in medical toxicology research. This review describes the strengths and limitations of different toxicology-relevant registries and databases and how to leverage these powerful tools to advance the science in the field of medical toxicology.

Background: Caustic ingestions are relatively uncommon, but remain a significant source of morbidity. Patients with caustic injury often undergo an urgent EGD, although it is not clear if an EGD is routinely needed in an asymptomatic patient. The study has two primary objectives; 1) to determine the utility of routine EGD in asymptomatic suicidal caustic ingestions; 2) to determine if asymptomatic unintentional acidic ingestions can be managed with observation alone, similar to basic ingestions.

Methods: This retrospective study, which took place at 14 hospitals in three countries evaluated all patients who presented with a caustic ingestion between 2014-2020. The presence of symptoms and esophageal injury, demographic information, pH of ingested substance, reason for the ingestion, and outcome were recorded.

Results: 409 patients were identified; 203 (46.9%) were male. The median (IQR) age was 18 (4-31) years; overall range 10 months to 78 years. Suicidal ingestions accounted for 155 (37.9%) of cases. Dysphagia or dysphonia were more likely in those with significant esophageal injury compared to those without (59.3% vs. 12.6% respectively; OR 10.1; 95% CI 4.43-23.1). Among 27 patients with significant esophageal injury, 48% were found in suicidal patients, compared with 51.9% in non-suicidal patients (p = NS). On multivariate regression, there was no difference in the rate of significant esophageal injury among suicidal vs. non suicidal patients (aOR 1.55; p = 0.45, 95% CI 0.45-5.33). Most ingestions involved basic substances (332/409; 81.2%). Unknown or mixed ingestions accounted for 25 (6.11%) of the ingestions. Significant esophageal burns were found in 6/52 (11.5%) of acid ingestions, compared with 21/332 (6.3%) of basic ingestions. Of the 42 cases of acidic ingestions without dysphagia or odynophagia, 2 (4.8%; 0.58-16.1%) had significant esophageal burns, compared with 9 (3.2%; 95% CI 1.4-5.9%) of the 284 basic ingestions; p = 0.64). On multivariate logistic regression, patients with acidic ingestions were not more likely to experience a significant burn (aOR 1.7; p = 0.11, 95% CI 0.9-3.1) compared to those with basic ingestions. No patient with significant esophageal burns was asymptomatic.

Conclusion: In this study, there was no statistical differences in the rates of significant burns between acidic and basic caustic ingestions. There were no significant esophageal injuries noted among asymptomatic patients.