ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2012
Paracetamol toxicity: What would be the implications of a change in UK treatment guidelines?
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Liver transplant associated with paracetamol overdose: results from the seven-country SALT study.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2015Article
- Effect of the UK's revised paracetamol poisoning management guidelines on admissions, adverse reactions and costs of treatment.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2014Article
- Impact of amending the acetylcysteine marketing authorisation on treatment of paracetamol overdose.ISRN toxicology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatment of single-time-point ingestion acute paracetamol (acetaminophen) poisoning with N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is guided by plotting a timed plasma paracetamol concentration on established nomograms. Guidelines in the UK differ from those in the U.S. and Australasia by having two treatment lines on the nomogram. Patients deemed to be at 'normal' risk of hepatotoxicity are treated using the treatment line starting at 200 mg/L at 4 h post-ingestion; those at higher risk are treated using the 'high risk' treatment line starting at 100 mg/L at 4 h post-ingestion.
aimTo examine the effect on treatment numbers if UK guidelines were to adopt a single treatment line nomogram or lower, risk-stratified treatment lines.
methodsWe undertook a retrospective analysis of a series of acute single-time-point paracetamol poisonings presenting to our inner city emergency department. Treatment numbers and effect on treatment costs were modelled for three alternative scenarios: a 150 line-a combined single treatment line starting at a 4 h concentration of 150 mg/L, a 100 line-a combined single treatment line starting at a 4 h concentration of 100 mg/L, and a 150/75 line-a double treatment line at the lower concentrations of 150 mg/L for normal risk and 75 mg/L for high risk patients.
resultsA total of 1,214 cases were identified. Under current UK guidance, 133 (11.0%) high risk cases and 98 (8.1%) normal risk cases needed treatment (total 231, 19.0%). A 150 line would result in 87 (7.2%) high risk cases and 155 (12.8%) normal risk cases needing treatment (total 242, 19.9%). A 100 line would result in 133 (11.0%) high risk and 251 (20.7%) normal risk cases needing treatment (total 384, 31.6%). A 150/75 line would result in 153 (12.6%) high risk and 155 (12.8%) normal risk cases needing treatment (total 308, 25.4%).
conclusionsBoth a 100 line and a 150/75 line would result in a large increase in the number of patients being treated and an associated increase in the costs of treatment. A single 150 mg/L treatment line would simplify treatment algorithms and lead to a similar number of patients being treated with NAC overall. A potential concern however is whether any of the high risk cases that would no longer be treated might develop significant hepatotoxicity. After consideration of the evidence for dual treatment lines, we feel that these risks are small and that it is worth reconsidering a change of treatment recommendations to a single 150 line.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22527349What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.