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.

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.

Retrospective evaluation of management guidelines for extracorporeal treatment of metformin poisoning

Introduction: The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) Workgroup defined criteria for extracorporeal toxin removal in patients with metformin poisoning. The primary objective of this study was to determine the benefit of extracorporeal toxin removal in patients meeting EXTRIP criteria. The secondary objective was to determine the performance characteristics of the EXTRIP criteria.Methods: This was a single-center retrospective analysis of metformin poisoned patients. Inclusion criteria were: suspicion of metformin poisoning with at least one of the following present: lactate concentration >5 mmol/L; pH < 7.35; or impaired kidney function. Patient data were extracted by reviewers who were unaware of the study hypothesis. Cases were analyzed based on EXTRIP criteria, whether extracorporeal toxin removal was performed, and survival. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value were calculated with respect to the EXTRIP criteria and survival.Results: Of 201 patients studied, 145 patients met recommended EXTRIP criteria (EXTRIP positive) and 56 patients did not (EXTRIP negative). Among patients who met recommended EXTRIP criteria, 96 received extracorporeal toxin removal and 49 did not. There was no difference in survival between these groups: 75.0% versus 73.5%, respectively (P >0.05). All 56 patients who did not meet EXTRIP criteria, survived (negative predictive value = 100%).Discussion: The study did not demonstrate a survival benefit for extracorporeal toxin removal in those meeting EXTRIP criteria.Conclusion: In this retrospective analysis, the recommended EXTRIP criteria had a negative predictive value for death of 100%. Further study is needed to evaluate the benefit of extracorporeal toxin removal in patients meeting EXTRIP criteria for metformin poisoning.

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.

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 GABA_A receptor agonists (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence).

Haemodialysis for lithium poisoning: Translating EXTRIP recommendations into practical guidelines

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.

Assessment of Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning criteria for the decision of extracorporeal toxin removal in lithium poisoning

AIMS

To assess recommendations provided by the EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup on extracorporeal toxin removal (ECTR) in lithium poisoning.

METHODS

Retrospective assessment in a 128 lithium-poisoned patient cohort previously used to identify ECTR initiation criteria that could improve outcome (Paris criteria). ECTR requirement using EXTRIP criteria was compared to the actual practice or if Paris criteria were used. The potential impact on outcome if these different criteria were used was investigated.

RESULTS

Using the recommended (Rec-EXTRIP) or recommended + suggested (All-EXTRIP) EXTRIP criteria, ECTR would have been indicated in more patients than was actually done (P < .001), or if Paris criteria were used (P < .01). The non-actually ECTR-treated patients fulfilling Rec-EXTRIP or All-EXTRIP criteria had shorter intensive care unit stay (P < .05) and no significant increase in fatalities and neurological impairment on discharge in comparison to the actually ECTR-treated patients. ECTR requirements using EXTRIP vs Paris criteria were not concordant (P < .001). In the non-actually ECTR-treated patients, 31/106 and 55/106 patients fulfilled Rec-EXTRIP or All-EXTRIP but not Paris criteria, respectively. Those patients had longer stay (P < .01) but no worse neurological impairment on discharge than the patients not fulfilling any of these criteria (50/106 and 26/106, respectively). In the non-actually ECTR-treated patients, 7/106 fulfilled Paris but not Rec-EXTRIP criteria. Those patients had longer stay (P < .05) and worse neurological impairment on discharge (P < .01) than the 50/106 patients not fulfilling any of these criteria.

CONCLUSION

In this cohort of lithium poisonings, EXTRIP criteria may lead to more ECTR than actually performed or if the Paris criteria were used, with no demonstrated improvement in outcome.