Dataset Information

Haemodialysis for lithium poisoning: Translating EXTRIP recommendations into practical guidelines.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This study aimed to determine the impact on practice of applying the Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) Workgroup criteria to lithium toxicity.

Method

We retrospectively examined the medical records of patients from three hospitals who presented with chronic or acute on chronic lithium poisoning with a lithium concentration ≥1.3 mmol/L (2008-2018). We determined which criteria were met by patients and their subsequent course. We developed and validated a method to predict if lithium concentration would be >1mmol/L at 36 hours.

Results

There were 111 acute on chronic and 250 chronic lithium toxic patients. Nine patients (2.5%) were treated with haemodialysis. Six chronic patients had neurological sequelae. The "estimated lithium concentration at 36 hours > 1 mmol/L" criterion required pharmacokinetic calculations. A simple nomogram was developed using Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR) and lithium concentration. For chronic toxicity, the nomogram would have correctly predicted lithium concentration >1.4 mmol/L at 36 hours in all except two patients. If EXTRIP criteria were followed, dialysis would have been instituted for 211 patients (58%). However, only 51 patients with chronic toxicity fulfilled both a concentration and a clinical criterion. Late neurological sequelae were observed in five out of six patients who fulfilled a concentration and a clinical criterion on admission, with the sixth meeting these criteria shortly after admission.

Conclusions

The EXTRIP criteria are too broad, but minor modifications allow haemodialysis to be targeted to those most at risk of sequelae. Most acute on chronic poisonings do not need haemodialysis, but it might shorten hospital stay in those with very high concentrations. The nomogram accurately predicts the fall in lithium concentration for chronic poisoning.

SUBMITTER: Buckley NA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7163377 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning Workgroup was created to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments in poisoning. Here, the EXTRIP workgroup presents its recommendations for lithium poisoning. 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. In total, 166 articles met inclusion criteria, which were mostly case reports, yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. A total of 418 patients were reviewed, 228 of which allowed extraction of patient-level data. The workgroup concluded that lithium is dialyzable (Level of evidence=A) and made the following recommendations: Extracorporeal treatment is recommended in severe lithium poisoning (1D). Extracorporeal treatment is recommended if kidney function is impaired and the [Li(+)] is >4.0 mEq/L, or in the presence of a decreased level of consciousness, seizures, or life-threatening dysrhythmias irrespective of the [Li(+)] (1D). Extracorporeal treatment is suggested if the [Li(+)] is >5.0 mEq/L, significant confusion is present, or the expected time to reduce the [Li(+)] to <1.0 mEq/L is >36 hours (2D). Extracorporeal treatment should be continued until clinical improvement is apparent or [Li(+)] is <1.0 mEq/L (1D). Extracorporeal treatments should be continued for a minimum of 6 hours if the [Li(+)] is not readily measurable (1D). Hemodialysis is the preferred extracorporeal treatment (1D), but continuous RRT is an acceptable alternative (1D). The workgroup supported the use of extracorporeal treatment in severe lithium poisoning. Clinical decisions on when to use extracorporeal treatment should take into account the [Li(+)], kidney function, pattern of lithium toxicity, patient's clinical status, and availability of extracorporeal treatments.

Project description:Ethylene glycol (EG) is metabolized into glycolate and oxalate and may cause metabolic acidemia, neurotoxicity, acute kidney injury (AKI), and death. Historically, treatment of EG toxicity included supportive care, correction of acid-base disturbances and antidotes (ethanol or fomepizole), and extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs), such as hemodialysis. With the wider availability of fomepizole, the indications for ECTRs in EG poisoning are debated. We conducted systematic reviews of the literature following published EXTRIP methods to determine the utility of ECTRs in the management of EG toxicity. The quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations, either strong ("we recommend") or weak/conditional ("we suggest"), were graded according to the GRADE approach. A total of 226 articles met inclusion criteria. EG was assessed as dialyzable by intermittent hemodialysis (level of evidence = B) as was glycolate (Level of evidence = C). Clinical data were available for analysis on 446 patients, in whom overall mortality was 18.7%. In the subgroup of patients with a glycolate concentration ≤ 12 mmol/L (or anion gap ≤ 28 mmol/L), mortality was 3.6%; in this subgroup, outcomes in patients receiving ECTR were not better than in those who did not receive ECTR. The EXTRIP workgroup made the following recommendations for the use of ECTR in addition to supportive care over supportive care alone in the management of EG poisoning (very low quality of evidence for all recommendations): i) Suggest ECTR if fomepizole is used and EG concentration > 50 mmol/L OR osmol gap > 50; or ii) Recommend ECTR if ethanol is used and EG concentration > 50 mmol/L OR osmol gap > 50; or iii) Recommend ECTR if glycolate concentration is > 12 mmol/L or anion gap > 27 mmol/L; or iv) Suggest ECTR if glycolate concentration 8-12 mmol/L or anion gap 23-27 mmol/L; or v) Recommend ECTR if there are severe clinical features (coma, seizures, or AKI). In most settings, the workgroup recommends using intermittent hemodialysis over other ECTRs. If intermittent hemodialysis is not available, CKRT is recommended over other types of ECTR. Cessation of ECTR is recommended once the anion gap is < 18 mmol/L or suggested if EG concentration is < 4 mmol/L. The dosage of antidotes (fomepizole or ethanol) needs to be adjusted during ECTR.

Project description:Backgroundβ-adrenergic antagonists (BAAs) are used to treat cardiovascular disease such as ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, dysrhythmias, and hypertension. Poisoning from BAAs can lead to severe morbidity and mortality. We aimed to determine the utility of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in BAAs poisoning.MethodsWe conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, and summarized findings following published EXTRIP methods.ResultsA total of 76 studies (4 in vitro and 2 animal experiments, 1 pharmacokinetic simulation study, 37 pharmacokinetic studies on patients with end-stage kidney disease, and 32 case reports or case series) met inclusion criteria. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic data were available on 334 patients (including 73 for atenolol, 54 for propranolol, and 17 for sotalol). For intermittent hemodialysis, atenolol, nadolol, practolol, and sotalol were assessed as dialyzable; acebutolol, bisoprolol, and metipranolol were assessed as moderately dialyzable; metoprolol and talinolol were considered slightly dialyzable; and betaxolol, carvedilol, labetalol, mepindolol, propranolol, and timolol were considered not dialyzable. Data were available for clinical analysis on 37 BAA poisoned patients (including 9 patients for atenolol, 9 for propranolol, and 9 for sotalol), and no reliable comparison between the ECTR cohort and historical controls treated with standard care alone could be performed. The EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using ECTR for patients severely poisoned with propranolol (strong recommendation, very low quality evidence). The workgroup offered no recommendation for ECTR in patients severely poisoned with atenolol or sotalol because of apparent balance of risks and benefits, except for impaired kidney function in which ECTR is suggested (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence). Indications for ECTR in patients with impaired kidney function include refractory bradycardia and hypotension for atenolol or sotalol poisoning, and recurrent torsade de pointes for sotalol. Although other BAAs were considered dialyzable, clinical data were too limited to develop recommendations.ConclusionsBAAs have different properties affecting their removal by ECTR. The EXTRIP workgroup assessed propranolol as non-dialyzable. Atenolol and sotalol were assessed as dialyzable in patients with kidney impairment, and the workgroup suggests ECTR in patients severely poisoned with these drugs when aforementioned indications are present.

Project description:IntroductionPaediatric antiretroviral therapy (ART) guidelines have been updated several times in recent years. We assessed implementation of ART guidelines among under-five children to inform the transition to universal paediatric ART in Tanzania.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of infants (0 to 11 months) and children (12 to 59 months) enrolled between 2010 and 2012 using routinely collected data. Infants and children were initiated on ART according to the 2008 World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations/2009 Tanzania guidelines (universal ART for infants). Cumulative ART initiation incidence and correlates of ART initiation were examined using competing risk methods accounting for attrition (death or loss to follow-up). Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression models were used to examine attrition on ART and its correlates.ResultsA total of 1679 children were enrolled at 69 clinics: 469 (28%) infants and 1210 (74%) children. Infant cumulative ART initiation incidence was 59.6, 71.3 and 78.0% at one, three and six months of follow-up. Infants were more likely to start ART if enrolled in 2012 [adjusted sub-hazard ratio (AsHR)=2.2, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.7 to 2.8] or 2011 (AsHR=1.8, 95% CI: 1.4 to 2.3) compared to 2010; they were more likely to start ART from prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission (AsHR=1.6, 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.1) and inpatient wards (AsHR=1.5, 95% CI: 1.2 to 2.0) versus being enrolled from voluntary counselling and testing centres. Attrition at 12 months on ART was 33.9% and was more likely among infants with WHO Stage 4 [adjusted hazard ratio (AHR)=3.1. 95% CI: 1.8 to 5.2] and severe malnutrition (AHR=1.4, 95% CI: 1.0 to 1.9).Among 599 children eligible for ART at enrollment, cumulative ART initiation incidence was 51.8, 68.6 and 76.1% at one, three, and six months. Children were more likely to start ART if enrolled in 2012 (AsHR=1.8, 95% CI: 1.4 to 2.3) or 2011 (AsHR=1.5, 95% CI: 1.2 to 1.8) compared to 2010; they were more likely to start ART at primary health facilities (AsHR=1.5, 95% CI: 1.1 to 2.0) and less likely at urban facilities (AsHR=0.6, 95% CI: 0.5 to 0.9) and facilities without CD4 testing on site (AsHR=0.7, 95% CI: 0.5 to 0.9). Attrition at 12 months on ART was 23.1% and was more likely with severe malnutrition (AHR=1.8, 95% CI: 1.1 to 3.0), WHO Stage 4 (AHR=3.0, 95% CI: 1.0 to 8.5) and outpatient enrolees (AHR=1.7, 95% CI: 1.1 to 2.7).ConclusionsOur findings suggest the gradual adoption of guidelines over calendar time. Interventions to expedite ART initiation and support retention on ART are needed.