Administration errors of compounded semaglutide reported to a poison control center-Case series.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to increase pharmacists' and regulatory agencies' awareness of emerging issues regarding current practices of semaglutide use in the community that has led to increased reports of administration errors and adverse drug events to our regional poison control center. CASE SUMMARY: We report 3 cases of adverse drug events after incorrect administration of semaglutide for weight loss obtained from compounding pharmacies and an aesthetic spa. Two patients self-administered 10-fold dosing errors. All patients experienced notable symptoms of nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain with most symptoms lasting for days. Other symptoms of headache, anorexia, weakness, and fatigue were reported in one patient. One patient sought evaluation at a health care facility and responded well to an antiemetic and intravenous fluids. One patient who received their medication from a compounding pharmacy reported receiving a vial with syringes for self-administration; no pharmacist counseling was provided on proper drug administration. One patient reported dosing in milliliters and units rather than in milligrams. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These 3 semaglutide cases highlight the potential for patient harm given current practices. Vials of compounded semaglutide do not use safety features provided by prefilled manufactured pens and allow for large overdoses (e.g., 10-fold dosing errors). Use of syringes not intended for semaglutide contributes to the variability of dosing units (milliliters, units, milligrams), contributing to patient confusion. To address such issues, we encourage increased vigilance in labeling, dispensing, and counseling practices to ensure patients are confident in administering their medication regardless of the formulation. We additionally encourage boards of pharmacy and other regulatory agencies to promote proper use and dispensing of compounded semaglutide. Such vigilance and promotion could decrease the risk of more severe adverse drug events and avoidable hospital utilization that may arise from dosing errors.

Unintentional Pediatric Poisoning Exposures in an Emergency Department: A Comparison of Poison Control Center Referrals and Caregiver Self-Referred Visits.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to describe the demographics and clinical characteristics of patients referred to a pediatric emergency department (ED) for unintentional poisoning exposures by a poison control center (PCC) compared with patients/caregivers who self-refer. METHODS: The electronic data warehouse at a pediatric hospital was queried from October 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015, for unintentional poisoning-related ED visits and subsequent inpatient admissions. Eligible patients aged 18 years and younger were identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes for pharmaceuticals, non-pharmaceuticalchemicals, fumes/vapors, foreign bodies, adverse food reactions, food poisoning, and bites/stings. Referral classification (PCC referral vs self-refer) was determined by PCC and hospital medical records.Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the patient demographics and ED visits by referral classification and age group. Simple and multiple logistic regression models examined the individual and combined impact of demographic and clinical characteristics on self-referral. RESULTS: Of the 705 patients identified, 84.4% presented as caregiver/self-referred compared with PCC-referred. As compared with those who self-referred, a higher percentage of patients who contacted the PCC before ED presentation were white (93.9% [89.4-98.2%] vs 83.8% [80.7-86.7%]) and had commercial insurance (62.7% [51.5-69.5%] vs 53.0% [48.9-57.0%]). Pharmaceutical (71.9%) and chemical (14.0%) exposures were the most common exposure types for PCC-referred patients whereas foreign bodies (54.3%) were the most common for self-referred patients. The largest predictors of self-referral were age, insurance, and exposure type. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients presenting at 1 pediatric ED, disparities with PCC utilization exist among age groups, racial identification, and poison exposure type. Educational outreach interventions are needed to ensure optimal use of the PCC services by patients, caregivers, and health care professionals.

Poison-related visits in a pediatric emergency department: A retrospective analysis of patients who bypass poison control centers.

INTRODUCTION: Poison control centers (PCC) are an effective means to prevent unnecessary emergency department (ED) visits associated with poisoning exposures. However, not all patients with poison exposures utilize the PCC. The purpose of this study was to identify unintentional pediatric poisoning exposures presenting to a large US children's hospital that could have been managed onsite (i.e., at home) if consultation with a PCC had occurred prior to the ED visit. METHODS: Using ED encounters from a tertiary children's hospital, unintentional pharmaceutical, chemical, or fume exposures occurring between October 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015 were identified from ICD-9-CM billing codes. Two specialists in poison information reviewed the medical records of the identified patients who had no contact with the PCC and determined whether these encounters were preventable through PCC triage. Descriptive statistics examined the differences between the encounters. Data were analyzed in R v3.2.4 (Vienna, Austria) and SAS v9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). RESULTS: In the total study population (n = 231), 98 (42.4%) were PCC triaged and 133 (57.6%) were caregiver self-referred to the ED. For those who self-referred, 62 (46.6%) patients would have been recommended to be managed onsite instead of presenting at the ED for medical care. Analgesics and household cleaning products were the most common pharmaceutical and chemical exposures, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of ED visits for pediatric patients with unintentional poisoning exposures could have been avoided by contacting a PCC. Educational and self-efficacy-based interventions are needed to expand the public's use of PCC services.

A Retrospective Study of Clinical Effects of Powdered Caffeine Exposures Reported to Three US Poison Control Centers.

INTRODUCTION: Anhydrous caffeine, often sold on the Internet as a powdered caffeine product, is sold as "pure caffeine" to be used as an additive to beverages and has also been used as an ingredient in energy supplement products. METHODS: This is a retrospective multiple-poison center chart review of calls regarding powdered caffeine to poison centers covering Oregon, Alaska, Guam, Washington, and Utah between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2015. RESULTS: There were 40 calls to three poison centers over 30 months for powdered caffeine exposure. The majority of patients were over age 19 (52.5 %; 21/40) and male (70 %; 28/40). Sixty percent (24/40) of the patients were symptomatic but only 10 % (4/40) required admission; 52.5 % (21/40) of the patient calls were for inadvertent overdose of powdered caffeine; one patient overdosed in a self-harm attempt. DISCUSSION: Powdered caffeine calls to three poison centers during a 30-month study period were rare, and severe caffeine toxicity due to exposure was found in few patients. The majority of symptoms were reported after an inadvertent powdered caffeine overdose. CONCLUSIONS: An analysis of calls to three poison centers for powdered caffeine found that exposures were uncommon, but did result in toxicity, and highlighted that the lack of clear dosing instructions on product packaging may place patients at risk of inadvertent overdose.