A clinical and pharmacoeconomic justification for intravenous acetylcysteine: a US perspective.

Colleen M Culley, Edward P Krenzelok
{"title":"A clinical and pharmacoeconomic justification for intravenous acetylcysteine: a US perspective.","authors":"Colleen M Culley,&nbsp;Edward P Krenzelok","doi":"10.2165/00139709-200524020-00007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Paracetamol (acetaminophen) poisoning remains the most common exposure reported to US poison information centres and the leading cause of poisoning-related fatalities, despite the availability of an effective antidote, acetylcysteine. Oral acetylcysteine solution has been approved for the management of acetaminophen poisoning in the US for four decades. Until the recent approval of intravenous acetylcysteine in the US, it was necessary to compound the oral solution for intravenous administration. The effectiveness and tolerability of oral and intravenous acetylcysteine for the prevention of hepatotoxicity induced by paracetamol poisoning are well established in the literature. Intravenous acetylcysteine may be preferred over oral administration based on improved tolerability, ease of administration and the shortened course of therapy (20 hours intravenous vs 72 hours oral). The two intravenous acetylcysteine regimens documented in the literature, 48 hours and 20 hours, have similar efficacy when started within 8-10 hours of ingestion. Although there are no legal concerns with continuing the routine compounding of the oral solution to an intravenous product, new standards for pharmacy compounding of sterile preparations set forth by the US Pharmacopoeia highlight that the risk of compounding products for intravenous use must be assessed carefully. Changing the route of administration of a sterile oral solution to an intravenous preparation, when a commercial sterile and pyrogen-free product is available, may not be advisable. The best cost-containment strategies must be used for introduction of the more costly sterile, pyrogen-free intravenous acetylcysteine formulation by hospitals and healthcare systems. The intravenous acetylcysteine product is more cost effective when given for 20 hours than other treatment protocols based on the costs of acetylcysteine and hospitalisation. If used per protocol, the 20-hour intravenous acetylcysteine regimen may decrease hospital length of stay, thereby, offsetting the increased drug cost. Data conflict on the efficacy and administration of intravenous acetylcysteine for off-label uses, such as radiographic contrast media-induced nephropathy prevention and reperfusion in orthotopic liver transplantation. The costs for the intravenous formulation for these indications is significantly higher than use of the oral formulation for oral administration in radiographic contrast media-induced nephropathy prevention and compounded for intravenous use in orthotopic liver transplantation. The oral solution should be retained by healthcare systems for oral and inhalation applications, such as respiratory conditions, oral administration for radiographic contrast media nephropathy prevention, or the use of the 72-hour oral protocol to treat paracetamol poisoning, when the intravenous preparation cannot be used.</p>","PeriodicalId":87031,"journal":{"name":"Toxicological reviews","volume":"24 2","pages":"131-43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2165/00139709-200524020-00007","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Toxicological reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2165/00139709-200524020-00007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) poisoning remains the most common exposure reported to US poison information centres and the leading cause of poisoning-related fatalities, despite the availability of an effective antidote, acetylcysteine. Oral acetylcysteine solution has been approved for the management of acetaminophen poisoning in the US for four decades. Until the recent approval of intravenous acetylcysteine in the US, it was necessary to compound the oral solution for intravenous administration. The effectiveness and tolerability of oral and intravenous acetylcysteine for the prevention of hepatotoxicity induced by paracetamol poisoning are well established in the literature. Intravenous acetylcysteine may be preferred over oral administration based on improved tolerability, ease of administration and the shortened course of therapy (20 hours intravenous vs 72 hours oral). The two intravenous acetylcysteine regimens documented in the literature, 48 hours and 20 hours, have similar efficacy when started within 8-10 hours of ingestion. Although there are no legal concerns with continuing the routine compounding of the oral solution to an intravenous product, new standards for pharmacy compounding of sterile preparations set forth by the US Pharmacopoeia highlight that the risk of compounding products for intravenous use must be assessed carefully. Changing the route of administration of a sterile oral solution to an intravenous preparation, when a commercial sterile and pyrogen-free product is available, may not be advisable. The best cost-containment strategies must be used for introduction of the more costly sterile, pyrogen-free intravenous acetylcysteine formulation by hospitals and healthcare systems. The intravenous acetylcysteine product is more cost effective when given for 20 hours than other treatment protocols based on the costs of acetylcysteine and hospitalisation. If used per protocol, the 20-hour intravenous acetylcysteine regimen may decrease hospital length of stay, thereby, offsetting the increased drug cost. Data conflict on the efficacy and administration of intravenous acetylcysteine for off-label uses, such as radiographic contrast media-induced nephropathy prevention and reperfusion in orthotopic liver transplantation. The costs for the intravenous formulation for these indications is significantly higher than use of the oral formulation for oral administration in radiographic contrast media-induced nephropathy prevention and compounded for intravenous use in orthotopic liver transplantation. The oral solution should be retained by healthcare systems for oral and inhalation applications, such as respiratory conditions, oral administration for radiographic contrast media nephropathy prevention, or the use of the 72-hour oral protocol to treat paracetamol poisoning, when the intravenous preparation cannot be used.

静脉注射乙酰半胱氨酸的临床和药物经济学依据:美国视角。
尽管乙酰半胱氨酸是一种有效的解毒剂,但扑热息痛(对乙酰氨基酚)中毒仍然是向美国毒物信息中心报告的最常见暴露,也是中毒相关死亡的主要原因。口服乙酰半胱氨酸溶液在美国被批准用于治疗对乙酰氨基酚中毒已有40年的历史。在美国最近批准静脉注射乙酰半胱氨酸之前,有必要将口服溶液复合用于静脉注射。口服和静脉注射乙酰半胱氨酸预防扑热息痛中毒引起的肝毒性的有效性和耐受性在文献中得到了很好的证实。静脉注射乙酰半胱氨酸可能优于口服给药,这是基于耐受性提高、易于给药和缩短疗程(静脉注射20小时vs口服72小时)。文献记载的两种静脉注射乙酰半胱氨酸方案,48小时和20小时,在摄入后8-10小时内开始时具有相似的疗效。尽管在静脉注射产品中继续常规配制口服溶液没有法律问题,但美国药典规定的无菌制剂的药学配制新标准强调,必须仔细评估静脉注射使用的配制产品的风险。当商业无菌和无热原产品可用时,将无菌口服溶液的给药途径改为静脉制剂可能是不可取的。医院和卫生保健系统必须采用最佳成本控制策略,以引进更昂贵的无菌、无热原静脉注射乙酰半胱氨酸制剂。基于乙酰半胱氨酸和住院费用,静脉注射乙酰半胱氨酸产品20小时比其他治疗方案更具成本效益。如果每个方案都使用,20小时静脉注射乙酰半胱氨酸方案可以减少住院时间,从而抵消增加的药物成本。关于静脉注射乙酰半胱氨酸用于超说明书用途的疗效和给药的数据冲突,例如放射造影剂引起的肾病预防和原位肝移植的再灌注。用于这些适应症的静脉制剂的费用明显高于用于预防造影剂引起的肾病的口服制剂和用于原位肝移植的静脉制剂。卫生保健系统应保留口服液,用于口服和吸入应用,例如呼吸系统疾病,口服造影剂预防放射造影剂肾病,或使用72小时口服方案治疗扑热息痛中毒,当静脉制剂不能使用时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信