A randomized trial comparing physostigmine vs lorazepam for treatment of antimuscarinic (anticholinergic) toxidrome.


Journal

Clinical toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.)
ISSN: 1556-9519
Titre abrégé: Clin Toxicol (Phila)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101241654

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Aug 2021
Historique:
pubmed: 10 12 2020
medline: 25 9 2021
entrez: 9 12 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Toxicity from antimuscarinic agents precipitates a constellation of signs and symptoms; two of the most significant are agitation and delirium. Benzodiazepines are commonly used for treatment; physostigmine is also effective but is underutilized due to concerns for safety and short duration of action. The objective of this study was to compare lorazepam to physostigmine for the treatment of antimuscarinic delirium and agitation. This was a blinded, randomized clinical trial in patients presenting for antimuscarinic toxidrome. Inclusion criteria were: ≥10-<18 years old, at least one central and two peripheral antimuscarinic symptoms, delirium and moderate agitation. Subjects were randomized to either (1) lorazepam bolus (0.05 mg/kg) followed by a 4-h normal saline infusion, or (2) physostigmine 0.02 mg/kg bolus followed by a 4-h physostigmine infusion (0.02 mg/kg/h). Primary outcomes were the control of delirium and agitation after bolus and during the infusion. Ten (53%) subjects were enrolled in the lorazepam arm, 9 (47%) in the physostigmine arm. Diphenhydramine was the most common agent ingested (16, 84%). Fewer patients receiving physostigmine had delirium after the initial bolus (44% vs 100%, Physostigmine was superior to lorazepam in controlling antimuscarinic delirium and agitation after bolus dosing, and control of delirium after a 4-h infusion. There were no serious adverse events in either treatment arm. Physostigmine bolus and infusion should be considered in adolescent patients with significant delirium and agitation from antimuscarinic agents.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Toxicity from antimuscarinic agents precipitates a constellation of signs and symptoms; two of the most significant are agitation and delirium. Benzodiazepines are commonly used for treatment; physostigmine is also effective but is underutilized due to concerns for safety and short duration of action. The objective of this study was to compare lorazepam to physostigmine for the treatment of antimuscarinic delirium and agitation.
METHODS METHODS
This was a blinded, randomized clinical trial in patients presenting for antimuscarinic toxidrome. Inclusion criteria were: ≥10-<18 years old, at least one central and two peripheral antimuscarinic symptoms, delirium and moderate agitation. Subjects were randomized to either (1) lorazepam bolus (0.05 mg/kg) followed by a 4-h normal saline infusion, or (2) physostigmine 0.02 mg/kg bolus followed by a 4-h physostigmine infusion (0.02 mg/kg/h). Primary outcomes were the control of delirium and agitation after bolus and during the infusion.
RESULTS RESULTS
Ten (53%) subjects were enrolled in the lorazepam arm, 9 (47%) in the physostigmine arm. Diphenhydramine was the most common agent ingested (16, 84%). Fewer patients receiving physostigmine had delirium after the initial bolus (44% vs 100%,
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Physostigmine was superior to lorazepam in controlling antimuscarinic delirium and agitation after bolus dosing, and control of delirium after a 4-h infusion. There were no serious adverse events in either treatment arm. Physostigmine bolus and infusion should be considered in adolescent patients with significant delirium and agitation from antimuscarinic agents.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33295809
doi: 10.1080/15563650.2020.1854281
doi:

Substances chimiques

Anti-Anxiety Agents 0
Muscarinic Antagonists 0
Diphenhydramine 8GTS82S83M
Physostigmine 9U1VM840SP
Lorazepam O26FZP769L

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

698-704

Auteurs

George Sam Wang (GS)

Section of Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.

Keith Baker (K)

Departments of Emergency Medicine and Medical Toxicology, St. Luke's University Health Network, Bethlehem, PA, USA.

Patrick Ng (P)

En route Care Research Center, Lackland AFB, San Antonio, TX, USA.

Gregory C Janis (GC)

MedTox Laboratories, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Saint Paul, MN, USA.

Jan Leonard (J)

Section of Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.

Rakesh D Mistry (RD)

Section of Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.

Kennon Heard (K)

Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora, CO, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH