The Use of Activated Charcoal to Treat Intoxications.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, according to the German Federal Statistical Office, 178 425 cases of intoxication (poisoning) were treated in German hospitals. The poison control centers in the German-speaking countries gave advice in a total of 268 787 instances of poisoning in that year, and use of activated charcoal was recommended in 4.37% of cases. The application of activated charcoal plays a major role in both primary and secondary detoxification. This article serves as an overview of the mechanism of action, indications, contraindications, modes of application, and dosing of activated charcoal. METHODS: This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective search in PubMed. The opinions of experts from the poison control centers in the German-speaking countries were considered in the interpretation of the data. RESULTS: The administration of activated charcoal is indicated to treat moderately severe to life-threatening intoxication. It should be carried out as soon as possible, within the first hour of the ingestion; timed-release preparations can be given up to 6 hours after the ingestion. An important contraindication is impaired consciousness with the danger of aspiration in a patient whose air- way has not yet been secured. Activated charcoal is ineffective or inadequately effective in cases of poisoning with acids or bases, alcohols, organic solvents, inorganic salts, or metals. The proper dosage consists of an amount that is 10 to 40 times as much as that of the intoxicating substance, or else 0.5-1 g/kg body weight in children or 50 g in adults. Repeated application is indicated for intoxications with agents that persist for a longer time in the stomach and for intoxications with timed-release drugs or drugs with a marked enterohepatic or entero-enteric circulation. The routine combination of activated charcoal with a laxative is not recommended. CONCLUSION: Even though intoxications are common, there is still no internationally valid guideline concerning the administration of activated charcoal. A precise analysis of the risks and benefits is needed for each administration, and a poison control center should be consulted for this purpose.

Eye hazard classification according to UN GHS / EU CLP and the severity of eye symptoms caused by accidental exposures to detergents and cleaning products.

The use of lower cut-off values/concentration limits for the calculation of mixture classification in UN GHS/EU CLP versus the previous regulatory scheme (EU Dangerous Preparations Directive, DPD), has resulted in an increased number of classifications in the highest eye hazard category. Herein, a semi-quantitative categorisation of severity of eye effects, following accidental human exposures to detergents, was compared to the classification category of the products. Three schemes were evaluated: EU DPD; EU CLP (based on all available data and information, including weight of evidence); and EU CLP (based entirely on the calculation method). As reported by four EU Poison Centres, the vast majority of exposures had caused minor or no symptoms. Classification was a poor predictor of effects in man subjected to accidental exposure. Note however that this is also because effects are not only driven by the intrinsic hazard (as reflected in the classification), but also by the exposure conditions and mitigation (i.e. rinsing). EU CLP classification using all available data and information was more predictive of medically relevant symptoms than the EU CLP calculation method. The latter led to a poorer differentiation between irritating products versus products potentially causing serious eye damage.

MAGAM II - prospective observational multicentre poisons centres study on eye exposures caused by cleaning products.

Objective: Local effects on the eye following cleaning product exposures are frequently reported. According to EU chemicals legislation many cleaning products are labelled with Hazard Phrase 318 indicating risk of irreversible eye damage. The objectives of this study were to identify cleaning products with potential for irreversible eye damage by collecting human exposure data from poisons centres (PC), and to clarify to what degree exact product identification is possible during a PC telephone call. Methods: MAGAM II was a multicentre binational prospective observational PC study. All human eye exposures to detergents or maintenance products reported to nine PCs taking calls from the public and medical professionals during an 18-month period were included. The severity of eye effects was rated according to the WHO Poisoning Severity Score. Results: Five hundred and eighty-six cases were included. Product identification by name leading to formula information was successful in 533 cases (91%). Follow-up was successful in 528 exposures. Irrigation was performed in 94% of cases. Duration of symptoms was ≥24 hours in 73 patients (25%). 33 (6%) patients developed moderate eye injury. Healing was reported in all cases. The percentage of moderate cases was highest in the group of drain cleaners (25%), toilet cleaners (18%) and oven cleaners (15%). Products intended for professional use caused relatively more moderate eye injuries than products also intended for consumer use. Conclusion: MAGAM II has shown that PCs are able to identify formulas in sufficiently high quality as needed for product-directed toxicovigilance. The results underline the potential of PC exposure case data for product safety monitoring. The results indicate that irreversible eye damage is very rare after cleaning product exposure.

Atypical antipsychotic poisoning in young children: a multicentre analysis of poisons centres data.

UNLABELLED: Although paediatric patients frequently suffer from intoxications with atypical antipsychotics, the number of studies in young children, which have assessed the effects of acute exposure to this class of drugs, is very limited. The aim of this study was to achieve a better characterization of the acute toxicity profile in young children of the atypical antipsychotics clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone. We performed a multicentre retrospective analysis of cases with atypical antipsychotics intoxication in children younger than 6 years, reported by physicians to German, Austrian, and Swiss Poisons Centres for the 9-year period between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2009. One hundred and six cases (31 clozapine, 29 olanzapine, 12 quetiapine, and 34 risperidone) were available for analysis. Forty-seven of the children showed minor, 28 moderate, and 2 severe symptoms. Twenty-nine cases were asymptomatic. No fatalities were recorded. Symptoms predominantly involved the central nervous and cardiovascular systems. Minor reduction in vigilance (Glasgow Coma Scale score >9) (62 %) was the most frequently reported symptom, followed by miosis (12 %) and mild tachycardia (10 %). Extrapyramidal motor symptoms were observed in one case (1 %) after ingestion of risperidone. In most cases, surveillance and supportive care were sufficient to achieve a good outcome, and all children made full recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Paediatric antipsychotic exposure can result in significant poisoning; however, in most cases only minor or moderate symptoms occurred and were followed by complete recovery. Symptomatic patients should be monitored for central nervous system depression and an electrocardiogram should be obtained.

Angiotensin II antagonists - an assessment of their acute toxicity.

OBJECTIVE: In Germany, increasing prescription rates of angiotensin II antagonists resulted in rising enquiries to Poisons Information Centres (PICs) during the last decade. Therefore, we aimed to assess their acute toxicity for deriving triage recommendations. METHODS: An observational case series with data collected retrospectively from eight PICs in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Inclusion criteria were monoexposure, defined dose, and documented follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 206 cases of exposures to angiotensin II antagonists were included (candesartan, 94; eprosartan, 3; irbesartan, 20; losartan, 26; olmesartan, 16; telmisartan, 18; and valsartan, 29). The median dose expressed as a multiple of their maximum daily dose for adults adjusted to body weight (MDDw) was 2.3 in children and 6.8 in adults. Patients involved were 150 children with a median age of 2 years and a median body weight of 13 kg and 56 adults with a median age of 47 years and a median body weight of 70 kg. Most children remained asymptomatic (82.7%), 16.7% developed minor symptoms. Only once, a low blood pressure of 60/40 mm Hg required intravenous fluids after ingestion of a 8.75-fold MDDw of candesartan by a 2.5-year-old toddler. Among adults, 53.6% remained asymptomatic while almost half of the patients suffered from minor (37.5%) or moderate (8.9%) symptoms. CONCLUSION: As no or only minor symptoms were observed after ingestion of less than a fivefold MDDw in both children and adults, only symptomatic patients and those who have ingested a fivefold MDDw or higher dose should be referred for medical assessment.