Buckley N A, Whyte I M, O'Connell D L, Dawson A H
Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Australia.
J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1999;37(6):759-67. doi: 10.1081/clt-100102453.
BACKGROUND: The optimal route and duration of administration for N-acetyl-cysteine in the management of acetaminophen (paracetamol) poisoning are controversial. It has been stated on the basis of a selected post-hoc analysis that oral N-acetylcysteine is superior to intravenous N-acetylcysteine in presentations later than 15 hours. AIM OF STUDY: To investigate the efficacy of intravenous or oral N-acetylcysteine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed a series of acetaminophen poisonings treated with a protocol including activated charcoal and intravenous N-acetylcysteine. The outcomes assessed included use of N-acetylcysteine, adverse effects of intravenous N-acetylcysteine, and the occurrence of hepatotoxicity (transaminase > 1000 U/L). We incorporated these results in a meta-analysis of previously reported series of acetaminophen poisonings to compare the outcomes from intravenous and oral N-acetylcysteine use. RESULTS: Of 981 patients admitted over 10 years, 4% (40) presented later than 24 hours and 10% (100) had concentrations of acetaminophen that indicated a probable or high risk of hepatotoxicity. The 30 patients who developed hepatotoxicity presented later, took larger amounts, had higher concentrations, and received N-acetylcysteine later than those who did not. No patients received a liver transplant but 2 patients died (one after referral to a transplant unit and one just before). Adverse reactions to intravenous N-acetylcysteine occurred in 6% (12/205) of patients but none prevented completion of the treatment. In the meta-analysis, those with probable or high risk concentrations had similar outcomes with intravenous (pooled n = 341) and oral N-acetylcysteine (pooled n = 1462) administration. Rates of hepatotoxicity for those treated within 10 hours (3 and 6%), late (10-24 hours: 30 and 26%), and overall (0-24 hours: 16 and 19%) were all similar. The proportion of patients classified as presenting later than 10 hours is much greater in the oral N-acetylcysteine studies (64%) than in many of the intravenous N-acetylcysteine studies (38%, 44%, and 63%). CONCLUSIONS: The differences claimed between oral and intravenous N-acetylcysteine regimes are probably artifactual and relate to inappropriate subgroup analysis. A shorter hospital stay, patient and doctor convenience, and the concerns over the reduction in bioavailability of oral N-acetylcysteine by charcoal and vomiting make intravenous N-acetylcysteine preferable for most patients with acetaminophen poisoning.
背景:对乙酰氨基酚(扑热息痛)中毒治疗中N - 乙酰半胱氨酸的最佳给药途径和持续时间存在争议。基于一项选定的事后分析表明,在中毒15小时后就诊时,口服N - 乙酰半胱氨酸优于静脉注射N - 乙酰半胱氨酸。 研究目的:探讨静脉注射或口服N - 乙酰半胱氨酸的疗效。 患者与方法:我们分析了一系列按照包含活性炭和静脉注射N - 乙酰半胱氨酸方案治疗的对乙酰氨基酚中毒病例。评估的结果包括N - 乙酰半胱氨酸的使用情况、静脉注射N - 乙酰半胱氨酸的不良反应以及肝毒性的发生情况(转氨酶>1000 U/L)。我们将这些结果纳入对先前报道的对乙酰氨基酚中毒系列病例的荟萃分析中,以比较静脉注射和口服N - 乙酰半胱氨酸的治疗结果。 结果:在10年期间收治的981例患者中,4%(40例)在中毒24小时后就诊,10%(100例)的对乙酰氨基酚浓度表明可能存在或高度有肝毒性风险。发生肝毒性的30例患者就诊时间更晚、服药量更大、血药浓度更高,且比未发生肝毒性的患者接受N - 乙酰半胱氨酸治疗的时间更晚。没有患者接受肝移植,但有2例患者死亡(1例转诊至移植单位后死亡,1例在转诊前死亡)。6%(12/205)的患者出现了静脉注射N - 乙酰半胱氨酸的不良反应,但均未导致治疗中断。在荟萃分析中,对乙酰氨基酚浓度可能存在或高度有风险的患者,静脉注射(汇总n = 341)和口服N - 乙酰半胱氨酸(汇总n = 1462)的治疗结果相似。在10小时内接受治疗的患者肝毒性发生率(3%和6%)、延迟治疗患者(10 - 24小时:30%和26%)以及总体患者(0 - 24小时:16%和19%)均相似。在口服N - 乙酰半胱氨酸的研究中,被归类为中毒10小时后就诊的患者比例(64%)远高于许多静脉注射N - 乙酰半胱氨酸的研究(38%、44%和63%)。 结论:口服和静脉注射N - 乙酰半胱氨酸治疗方案之间声称的差异可能是人为造成的,与不恰当的亚组分析有关。住院时间较短、对患者和医生而言更方便,以及对活性炭和呕吐导致口服N - 乙酰半胱氨酸生物利用度降低的担忧,使得静脉注射N - 乙酰半胱氨酸对大多数对乙酰氨基酚中毒患者更为可取。
Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2014-4-8
Clin Ther. 2015-9
J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1999
Ann Emerg Med. 2000-4
Crit Care Med. 1998-1
Front Pharmacol. 2022-8-10
Front Cell Dev Biol. 2022-2-2
Toxicol Res (Camb). 2019-4-29
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-2-23
BMJ Clin Evid. 2015-10-19
J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2015