The general external exposome and the development or progression of chronic kidney disease: A systematic review and meta-analyses.

The impact of environmental risk factors on chronic kidney disease (CKD) remains unclear. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the literature on the association between the general external exposome and CKD development or progression. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for case-control or cohort studies, that investigated the association of the general external exposome with a change in eGFR or albuminuria, diagnosis or progression of CKD, or CKD-related mortality. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Summary effect estimates were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses. Most of the 66 included studies focused on air pollution (n = 33), e.g. particulate matter (PM) and nitric oxides (NOx), and heavy metals (n = 21) e.g. lead and cadmium. Few studies investigated chemicals (n = 7) or built environmental factors (n = 5). No articles on other environment factors such as noise, food supply, or urbanization were found. PM2.5 exposure was associated with an increased CKD and end-stage kidney disease incidence, but not with CKD-related mortality. There was mixed evidence regarding the association of NO2 and PM10 on CKD incidence. Exposure to heavy metals might be associated with an increased risk of adverse kidney outcomes, however, evidence was inconsistent. Studies on effects of chemicals or built environment on kidney outcomes were inconclusive. In conclusion, prolonged exposure to PM2.5 is associated with an increased risk of CKD incidence and progression to kidney failure. Current studies predominantly investigate the exposure to air pollution and heavy metals, whereas chemicals and the built environment remains understudied. Substantial heterogeneity and mixed evidence were found across studies. Therefore, long-term high-quality studies are needed to elucidate the impact of exposure to chemicals or other (built) environmental factors and CKD.

Expanding the evidence for managing metformin poisoning to support decision-making.

INTRODUCTION: Metformin-associated lactic acidosis is a well-described and commonly encountered condition associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Patients with metformin-associated lactic acidosis are frequently managed in the intensive care unit with supportive care, including volume resuscitation and consideration of an extracorporeal treatment to correct metabolic acidemia and remove metformin and lactate. EXTRACORPOREAL TREATMENTS IN POISONING WORKGROUP: The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning Workgroup published evidence-based consensus recommendations in 2015 regarding the use of extracorporeal treatment in metformin toxicity. These recommendations list both clinical and biochemical indications, and they outline the rationale and evidence supporting each recommendation. NEW RESEARCH SINCE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE PUBLISHED: Subsequent publications have provided new information regarding metformin-associated lactic acidosis and its treatment. A retrospective study showed that patients who did not meet the Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning Workgroup criteria for initiation of an extracorporeal treatment had a 100% survival. In patients who met the criteria, survival was approximately 75%; only 66% of these patients received an extracorporeal treatment, and this treatment did not appear to impact survival. Two other retrospective studies in patients diagnosed with metformin-associated lactic acidosis noted that extracorporeal treatments did not improve survival. However, those who received an extracorporeal treatment were more severely ill, potentially supporting a benefit from this intervention. A systematic review of patients receiving continuous kidney replacement therapy identified an overall survival that was higher than the overall survival in patients included in the Workgroup publication. This led the authors to suggest that intermittent hemodialysis may not be the preferred treatment for metformin toxicity. However, a closer look at the Workgroup data identified improved survival with each decade since the initial reports in the 1970s. Furthermore, there are multiple reports of persistent metformin-associated lactic acidosis that did not improve with standard continuous kidney replacement therapy, prompting an increase in the dosage of the extracorporeal treatment. The data supporting these observations are largely derived from retrospective studies, which have inherent biases, so prospective studies are required. PRESCRIBING EXTRACORPOREAL TREATMENTS FOR PATIENTS WITH METFORMIN POISONING: Case-based decision-making is always necessary, but in general, we continue to follow the Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning Workgroup criteria because a convincing reason for changing these has not yet been presented. This includes the use of intermittent hemodialysis where possible, particularly in cases of severe poisoning. For patients with less severe poisoning or when intermittent hemodialysis is not readily available, it is reasonable to trial continuous modalities with careful observation for deterioration.

Management of Poisonings and Intoxications.

Poisoning occurs after exposure to any of a number of substances, including medicines, which can result in severe toxicity including death. The nephrologist may be involved in poisonings that cause kidney disease and for targeted treatments. The overall approach to the poisoned patient involves the initial acute resuscitation and performing a risk assessment, whereby the exposure is considered in terms of the anticipated severity and in the context of the patient's status and treatments that may be required. Time-critical interventions such as gastrointestinal decontamination ( e.g. , activated charcoal) and antidotes are administered when indicated. The nephrologist is usually involved when elimination enhancement techniques are required, such as urine alkalinization or extracorporeal treatments. There is increasing data to guide decision making for the use of extracorporeal treatments in the poisoned patient. Principles to consider are clinical indications such as whether severe toxicity is present, anticipated, and/or will persist and whether the poison will be significantly removed by the extracorporeal treatment. Extracorporeal clearance is maximized for low-molecular weight drugs that are water soluble with minimal protein binding (<80%) and low endogenous clearance and volume of distribution. The dosage of some antidotes ( e.g. , N-acetylcysteine, ethanol, fomepizole) should be increased to maintain therapeutic concentrations once the extracorporeal treatment is initiated. To maximize the effect of an extracorporeal treatment, blood and effluent flows should be optimized, the filter with the largest surface area selected, and duration tailored to remove enough poison to reduce toxicity. Intermittent hemodialysis is recommended in most cases when an extracorporeal treatment is required because it is the most efficient, and continuous kidney replacement therapy is prescribed in some circumstances, particularly if intermittent hemodialysis is not readily available.

Extracorporeal treatment for ethylene glycol poisoning: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup.

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.

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.

The serum glycolate concentration: its prognostic value and its correlation to surrogate markers in ethylene glycol exposures.

CONTEXT: Ethylene glycol poisoning manifests as metabolic acidemia, acute kidney injury and death. The diagnosis and treatment depend on history and biochemical tests. Glycolate is a key toxic metabolite that impacts prognosis, but assay results are not widely available in a clinically useful timeframe. We quantitated the impact of serum glycolate concentration for prognostication and evaluated whether more readily available biochemical tests are acceptable surrogates for the glycolate concentration. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to 1) assess the prognostic value of the initial glycolate concentration on the occurrence of AKI or mortality in patients with ethylene glycol exposure (prognostic study); 2) identify surrogate markers that correlate best with glycolate concentrations (surrogate study). METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed using Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, conference proceedings and reference lists. Human studies reporting measured glycolate concentrations were eligible. Glycolate concentrations were related to categorical clinical outcomes (acute kidney injury, mortality), and correlated with continuous surrogate biochemical measurements (anion gap, base excess, bicarbonate concentration and pH). Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed to calculate the positive predictive values and the negative predictive values of the threshold glycolate concentrations that predict acute kidney injury and mortality. Further, glycolate concentrations corresponding to 100% negative predictive value for mortality and 95% negative predictive value for acute kidney injury were determined. RESULTS: Of 1,531 articles identified, 655 were potentially eligible and 32 were included, reflecting 137 cases from 133 patients for the prognostic study and 154 cases from 150 patients for the surrogate study. The median glycolate concentration was 11.2 mmol/L (85.1 mg/dL, range 0-38.0 mmol/L, 0-288.8 mg/dL), 93% of patients were treated with antidotes, 80% received extracorporeal treatments, 49% developed acute kidney injury and 13% died. The glycolate concentration best predicting acute kidney injury was 12.9 mmol/L (98.0 mg/dL, sensitivity 78.5%, specificity 88.1%, positive predictive value 86.4%, negative predictive value 80.9%). The glycolate concentration threshold for a 95% negative predictive value for acute kidney injury was 6.6 mmol/L (50.2 mg/dL, sensitivity 96.9%, specificity 62.7%). The glycolate concentration best predicting mortality was 19.6 mmol/L (149.0 mg/dL, sensitivity 61.1%, specificity 81.4%, positive predictive value 33.3%, negative predictive value 93.2%). The glycolate concentration threshold for a 100% negative predictive value for mortality was 8.3 mmol/L (63.1 mg/dL, sensitivity 100.0%, specificity 35.6%). The glycolate concentration correlated best with the anion gap (R2 = 0.73), followed by bicarbonate (R2 = 0.57), pH (R2 = 0.50) and then base excess (R2 = 0.25), while there was no correlation between the glycolate and ethylene glycol concentration (R2 = 0.00). These data can assist clinicians in planning treatments such as extracorporeal treatments and prognostication. Potentially, they may also provide some reassurance regarding when extracorporeal treatments can be delayed while awaiting the results of further testing in patients in whom ethylene glycol poisoning is suspected but not yet confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrates that the glycolate concentration predicts mortality (unlikely if <8 mmol/L [61 mg/dL]). The anion gap is a reasonable surrogate measurement for glycolate concentration in the context of ethylene glycol poisoning. The findings are mainly based on published retrospective data which have various limitations. Further prospective validation studies are of interest.

Treating ethylene glycol poisoning with alcohol dehydrogenase inhibition, but without extracorporeal treatments: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Ethylene glycol is metabolized to toxic metabolites that cause acute kidney injury, metabolic acidemia, and death. The treatment of patients with ethylene glycol poisoning includes competitively inhibiting alcohol dehydrogenase with ethanol or fomepizole to prevent the formation of toxic metabolites, and extracorporeal treatments such as hemodialysis to remove ethylene glycol and its metabolites. In the absence of significant metabolic acidemia or kidney injury, it is hypothesized that extracorporeal treatments may be obviated without adverse outcomes to the patient if alcohol dehydrogenase inhibitors are used. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to: (1) identify indicators predicting ADH inhibitor failure in patients with ethylene glycol poisoning treated with either ethanol or fomepizole for whom extracorporeal treatment was not performed (aside from rescue therapy, see below) (prognostic study), and (2) validate if the anion gap, shown in a previous study to be the best surrogate for the glycolate concentration, is associated with acute kidney injury and mortality (anion gap study). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify all reported patients with ethylene glycol poisoning treated without extracorporeal treatments but with either fomepizole (fomepizole monotherapy) or ethanol (ethanol monotherapy). Analyses were performed using both one case per patient and all cases (if multiple events were reported for a single patient). Data were compiled regarding poisoning, biochemistry, and outcomes. Treatment failure was defined as mortality, worsening of acid-base status, extracorporeal treatments used as rescue, or a worsening of kidney or neurological function after alcohol dehydrogenase inhibition was initiated. Also, we performed an analysis of previously described anion gap thresholds to determine if they were associated with outcomes such as acute kidney injury and mortality. RESULTS: Of 115 publications identified, 96 contained case-level data. A total of 180 cases were identified with ethanol monotherapy, and 231 with fomepizole monotherapy. Therapy failure was noted mostly when marked acidemia and/or acute kidney injury were present prior to therapy, although there were cases of failed ethanol monotherapy with minimal acidemia (suggesting that ethanol dosing and/or monitoring may not have been optimal). Ethylene glycol dose and ethylene glycol concentration were predictive of monotherapy failure for ethanol, but not for fomepizole. In the anion gap study (207 cases), death and progression of acute kidney injury were almost nonexistent when the anion gap was less than 24 mmol/L and mostly observed when the anion gap was greater than 28 mmol/L. CONCLUSION: This review suggests that in patients with minimal metabolic acidemia (anion gap <28 mmol/L), fomepizole monotherapy without extracorporeal treatments is safe and effective regardless of the ethylene glycol concentration. Treatment failures were observed with ethanol monotherapy which may relate to transient subtherapeutic ethanol concentrations or very high ethylene glycol concentrations. The results are limited by the retrospective nature of the case reports and series reviewed in this study and require prospective validation.

Extracorporeal Treatment for Gabapentin and Pregabalin Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations From the EXTRIP Workgroup.

Toxicity from gabapentin and pregabalin overdose is commonly encountered. Treatment is supportive, and the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) is controversial. The EXTRIP workgroup conducted systematic reviews of the literature and summarized findings following published methods. Thirty-three articles (30 patient reports and 3 pharmacokinetic studies) met the inclusion criteria. High gabapentinoid extracorporeal clearance (>150mL/min) and short elimination half-life (<5 hours) were reported with hemodialysis. The workgroup assessed gabapentin and pregabalin as "dialyzable" for patients with decreased kidney function (quality of the evidence grade as A and B, respectively). Limited clinical data were available (24 patients with gabapentin toxicity and 7 with pregabalin toxicity received ECTR). Severe toxicity, mortality, and sequelae were rare in cases receiving ECTR and in historical controls receiving standard care alone. No clear clinical benefit from ECTR could be identified although major knowledge gaps were acknowledged, as well as costs and harms of ECTR. The EXTRIP workgroup suggests against performing ECTR in addition to standard care rather than standard care alone (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence) for gabapentinoid poisoning in patients with normal kidney function. If decreased kidney function and coma requiring mechanical ventilation are present, the workgroup suggests performing ECTR in addition to standard care (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence).

Recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup on extracorporeal treatment for baclofen poisoning.

Baclofen toxicity results from intentional self-poisoning (acute baclofen poisoning) or accumulation of therapeutic dose in the setting of impaired kidney function. Standard care includes baclofen discontinuation, respiratory support and seizure treatment. Use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) is controversial. To clarify this, a comprehensive review of the literature on the effect of ECTRs in baclofen toxicity was performed and recommendations following EXTRIP methods were formulated based on 43 studies (1 comparative cohort, 1 aggregate results cohort, 1 pharmacokinetic modeling, and 40 patient reports or series). Toxicokinetic data were available for 20 patients. Baclofen's dialyzability is limited by a high endogenous clearance and a short half-life in patients with normal kidney function. The workgroup assessed baclofen as "Moderately dialyzable" by intermittent hemodialysis for patients with normal kidney function (quality of evidence C) and "Dialyzable" for patients with impaired kidney function (quality of evidence C). Clinical data were available for 25 patients with acute baclofen poisoning and 46 patients with toxicity from therapeutic baclofen in kidney impairment. No deaths or sequelae were reported. Mortality in historical controls was rare. No benefit of ECTR was identified in patients with acute baclofen poisoning. Indirect evidence suggests a benefit of ECTR in reducing the duration of toxic encephalopathy from therapeutic baclofen in kidney impairment. These potential benefits were balanced against added costs and harms related to the insertion of a catheter, the procedure itself, and the potential of baclofen withdrawal. Thus, the EXTRIP workgroup suggests against performing ECTR in addition to standard care for acute baclofen poisoning and suggests performing ECTR in toxicity from therapeutic baclofen in kidney impairment, especially in the presence of coma requiring mechanical ventilation.

Extracorporeal treatment for poisoning to beta-adrenergic antagonists: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup.

BACKGROUND: ß-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. METHODS: We conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, and summarized findings following published EXTRIP methods. RESULTS: A 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. CONCLUSIONS: BAAs 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.

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 calcium channel blocker poisoning: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup.

BACKGROUND: Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are commonly used to treat conditions such as arterial hypertension and supraventricular dysrhythmias. Poisoning from these drugs can lead to severe morbidity and mortality. We aimed to determine the utility of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in the management of CCB poisoning. METHODS: We conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, summarized findings, and formulated recommendations following published EXTRIP methods. RESULTS: A total of 83 publications (6 in vitro and 1 animal experiments, 55 case reports or case series, 19 pharmacokinetic studies, 1 cohort study and 1 systematic review) met inclusion criteria regarding the effect of ECTR. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic data were available on 210 patients (including 32 for amlodipine, 20 for diltiazem, and 52 for verapamil). Regardless of the ECTR used, amlodipine, bepridil, diltiazem, felodipine, isradipine, mibefradil, nifedipine, nisoldipine, and verapamil were considered not dialyzable, with variable levels of evidence, while no dialyzability grading was possible for nicardipine and nitrendipine. Data were available for clinical analysis on 78 CCB poisoned patients (including 32 patients for amlodipine, 16 for diltiazem, and 23 for verapamil). Standard care (including high dose insulin euglycemic therapy) was not systematically administered. Clinical data did not suggest an improvement in outcomes with ECTR. Consequently, the EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using ECTR in addition to standard care for patients severely poisoned with either amlodipine, diltiazem or verapamil (strong recommendations, very low quality of the evidence (1D)). There were insufficient clinical data to draft recommendation for other CCBs, although the workgroup acknowledged the low dialyzability from, and lack of biological plausibility for, ECTR. CONCLUSIONS: Both dialyzability and clinical data do not support a clinical benefit from ECTRs for CCB poisoning. The EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using extracorporeal methods to enhance the elimination of amlodipine, diltiazem, and verapamil in patients with severe poisoning.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: We conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, and summarized findings following published EXTRIP methods. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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 treatments in poisonings from four non-traditionally dialysed toxins (acetaminophen, digoxin, opioids and tricyclic antidepressants): A combined single-centre and national study.

The use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) for poisonings with four non-traditionally dialysed toxins (NTDTs) is increasing in the United States. This study evaluated whether ECTRs are prescribed for toxin removal or the treatment of other medical illnesses or complications. We performed a 2-Phase retrospective analysis evaluating the main indication for ECTRs in patients with poisoning from a NTDT (defined for this study as acetaminophen, opioids, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) or digoxin) and ECTR. The first phase assessed all cases from a single site (New York City Poison Control Center) between the years 2000 and 2016, and the second phase surveyed all United States Poison Control Centers (PCCs). In Phase 1, demographics, toxin ingested and main indication for ECTR were extracted. In Phase 2, a query to the National Poison Data System using the a pragmatic subset of inclusion criteria from Phase 1 restricted to single toxin ingestions over a narrower time frame (2014-2016) provided the cases for study. A structured online questionnaire was sent to all United States PCCs to request their database review regarding the indication for ECTR for their cases. In Phase 1, 92 cases met inclusion criteria. In Phase 2, 519 cases were screened and 425 met inclusion criteria. In Phase 1 91/92 (98.9%) and Phase 2 411/425 (96.7%), of extracorporeal treatments were used to treat underlying medical conditions or poisoning-related complications rather than accelerate toxin removal. The increasing number of ECTRs reported in patients who ingested one of the four NTDTs thus appears to be for medical indications rather than attempts at toxin removal, a distinction that is important.