Search

Onychomycosis is a fungal nail infection caused primarily by dermatophytes. Several other nail disorders, including psoriasis, can simulate onychomycosis. Accurate diagnosis is therefore vital for the ongoing treatment and management of onychomycosis and to avoid misdiagnosis and treatment delay, which can be both lengthy and costly. Often, a combination of histologic and laboratory techniques is used to obtain an accurate diagnosis. The potential diagnostic challenges associated with the differential diagnosis of onychomycosis caused by dermatophytes and the most common techniques used to confirm the diagnosis are discussed., (© 2017 The International Society of Dermatology.)

A recent analysis of the American Association of Poison Control Centers database, showed that poisonings from toxins not usually considered amenable to extracorporeal purification ("non-classic toxins" such as ethanol and tricyclic antidepressants) continue to be reported. This publication investigates factors that may explain these findings. Our results suggest that: 1) the relatively high absolute number of ECTR performed for non-classic toxins may simply reflect the large number of exposures to these toxins, 2) poisoning from another toxin may have been the reason for ECTR initiation in some exposures to non-classic toxins, 3) poisoning from non-classic toxins may receive ECTR for purposes other than toxin removal, and 4) the decisional threshold to initiate ECTR may be lower for non-classic toxins because of heightened toxicity., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) such as hemodialysis (HD), enhance the elimination of a small number of toxins. Changes in overdose trends, prescribing practices, antidotes, and dialysis techniques may alter the indications and rates of ECTR use over time. This study analyzed trends in ECTR for poisonings in four countries. A retrospective study of national poison center databases from the United States, Denmark, United Kingdom, and five regional databases within Canada was performed. All cases of patients receiving an ECTR were included. ECTR cases were totalled annually and reported as annual rates per 100,000 exposures with stratification per types of ECTR and toxins. The data collection varied by countries. United States, 1985-2014; United Kingdom, 2011-2013; Denmark, 2005-2014, and regions of Canada as follows: Alberta, 1991-2015; Saskatchewan, 2001-2015; Nova Scotia-PEI, 2006-2015; Quebec, 2008-2014; Ontario-Manitoba, 2009-2015; British Columbia, 2012-2015. During the study period, the total number of ECTRs and rates per 100,000 exposures, respectively, were: United States, 40,258 and 65.7; United Kingdom, 343 and 232.6; Denmark, 616 and 305.5; Canada, 2709 and 177.5; case rates increased over time for the United States, Denmark, and Canada, but decreased in the United Kingdom. Across the United States and Denmark, HD was the preferred modality used. Toxins for which ECTR was most often used were: United States, ethylene glycol; Canada, methanol; United Kingdom, ethylene glycol; Denmark, salicylates. A high number of ECTRs were performed for atypical toxins such as acetaminophen and benzodiazepines. These data demonstrate a growing use of HD for poisoning with significant regional variations in the overall rates and indications., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Hemoperfusion is an extracorporeal treatment based on adsorption, historically reserved for the treatment of acute poisonings. Its use was popularized in the 1970s after several in vitro and animal experiments had demonstrated its efficacy, and was even preferred over hemodialysis in the management of overdosed patients. With the advent of new and more efficient dialytic modalities, hemoperfusion is now less frequently performed in the Western world. However, hemoperfusion still remains popular in developing countries. The present article reviews the technique of hemoperfusion, the factors influencing poison clearance through adsorption and its current applications., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The Extracorporeal Treatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup was formed to provide recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTR) in poisoning. Here, the workgroup presents its results for tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). After an extensive literature search, using a predefined methodology, the subgroup responsible for this poison reviewed the articles, extracted the data, summarized findings, and proposed structured voting statements following a predetermined format. A two-round modified Delphi method was chosen to reach a consensus on voting statements and RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to quantify disagreement. Blinded votes were compiled, returned, and discussed in person at a meeting. A second vote determined the final recommendations. Seventy-seven articles met inclusion criteria. Only case reports, case series, and one poor-quality observational study were identified yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Data on 108 patients, including 12 fatalities, were abstracted. The workgroup concluded that TCAs are not dialyzable and made the following recommendation: ECTR is not recommended in severe TCA poisoning (1D). The workgroup considers that poisoned patients with TCAs are not likely to have a clinical benefit from extracorporeal removal and recommends it NOT to be used in TCA poisoning., (© 2014 The Authors. Seminars in Dialysis published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Poisoning is a significant public health problem. In severe cases, extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) may be required to prevent or reverse major toxicity. Available ECTRs include intermittent hemodialysis, sustained low-efficiency dialysis, intermittent hemofiltration and hemodiafiltration, continuous renal replacement therapy, hemoperfusion, therapeutic plasma exchange, exchange transfusion, peritoneal dialysis, albumin dialysis, cerebrospinal fluid exchange, and extracorporeal life support. The aim of this article was to provide an overview of the technical aspects, as well as the potential indications and limitations of the different ECTRs used for poisoned patients., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The use of an extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) in a poisoned patient may be life-saving in a limited number of scenarios. The decision-processes surrounding the use of ECTR in poisoning is complex: most nephrologists are not trained to assess a poisoned patient while clinical toxicologists rarely prescribe ECTRs. Deciding on which ECTR is most appropriate for a poison requires a good understanding of the poison's physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties. Further, a detailed understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the different ECTRs can be useful to select the most appropriate ECTR for a given clinical situation. This manuscript provides a stepwise approach to assess the usefulness of ECTRs in poisoning., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

There are currently limited data on the trends in case reporting of poisoned patients undergoing enhanced elimination with an extracorporeal treatment (ECTR). The present manuscript specifically reviews the longitudinal trends of reports according to technique, poison, and country of publication. To identify case reports of ECTR use in the management of poisoning, multiple databases were searched. There were no limitations on language and year of publication. All case reports describing individual patients undergoing ECTR with the intent of enhancing the elimination of a poison were included in the analysis. Since 1913, 2908 reports were identified. There were an increasing number of published reports with time except for a slight decrease during the 1990s. Hemodialysis was by far the most commonly used ECTR in poisoning, followed by hemoperfusion. The number of reported peritoneal dialyses decreased steadily since 1980s. Methanol, ethylene glycol, lithium, and salicylates remained among the most commonly reported poisons in every decade. The large majority of publications originated from either Europe or North America, and more specifically from the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, and China. Despite the emerging apparition of new techniques, hemodialysis remains to this day the favoured ECTR in the treatment of poisoned patients., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

A literature review performed by the EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup highlighted deficiencies in the existing literature, especially the reporting of case studies. Although general reporting guidelines exist for case studies, there are none in the specific field of extracorporeal treatments in toxicology. Our goal was to construct and propose a checklist that systematically outlines the minimum essential items to be reported in a case study of poisoned patients undergoing extracorporeal treatments. Through a modified two-round Delphi technique, panelists (mostly chosen from the EXTRIP workgroup) were asked to vote on the pertinence of a set of items to identify those considered minimally essential for reporting complete and accurate case reports. Furthermore, independent raters validated the clarity of each selected items between each round of voting. All case reports containing data on extracorporeal treatments in poisoning published in Medline in 2011 were reviewed during the external validation rounds. Twenty-one panelists (20 from the EXTRIP workgroup and an invited expert on pharmacology reporting guidelines) participated in the modified Delphi technique. This group included journal editors and experts in nephrology, clinical toxicology, critical care medicine, emergency medicine, and clinical pharmacology. Three independent raters participated in the validation rounds. Panelists voted on a total of 144 items in the first round and 137 items in the second round, with response rates of 96.3% and 98.3%, respectively. Twenty case reports were evaluated at each validation round and the independent raters' response rate was 99.6% and 98.8% per validation round. The final checklist consists of 114 items considered essential for case study reporting. This methodology of alternate voting and external validation rounds was useful in developing the first reporting guideline for case studies in the field of extracorporeal treatments in poisoning. We believe that this guideline will improve the completeness and transparency of published case reports and that the systematic aggregation of information from case reports may provide early signals of effectiveness and/or harm, thereby improving healthcare decision-making., (© 2014 The Authors. Seminars in Dialysis Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Morbidity and mortality from toxic alcohols like ethylene glycol and methanol remain prevalent worldwide. The introduction of fomepizole, a potent blocker of alcohol dehydrogenase, has modified current practice over the last 15 years. The aim of the study was to describe the characteristics of toxic alcohol poisoning reported to US poison centers, the trends in the incidence of antidote use and hemodialysis treatment, as well as the related mortality. A retrospective study of all electronic entries from the AAPCC National Poison Data System database, from the years 2000 to 2013 was reviewed. When considering all exposures, the great majority of patients had a benign outcome. Major effects (e.g., life threatening) occurred in 2.1% and 4.9% of methanol and ethylene glycol cases, respectively. Mortality rates were similar for both toxic alcohols, approximately 0.6%. When only considering ingestions reported to healthcare facilities, a major effect was reported in 9.5% and 20.5%, and the mortality rate was 2.9% and 2.4% for methanol and ethylene glycol exposures, respectively, and remained constant over time. The use of fomepizole increased statistically over the study period while that of ethanol decreased, until it became proportionally negligible by 2012-2013. The use of hemodialysis significantly decreased in "Early" ethylene glycol exposures during the study period. Similar to other reports, it appears that the use of fomepizole has largely supplanted ethanol as the antidote of choice in toxic alcohol exposures and may decrease the requirements for hemodialysis in patients poisoned with ethylene glycol who have no acidosis and normal kidney function., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

A role for nephrologists in the management of a poisoned patient involves evaluating the indications for, and methods of, enhancing the elimination of a poison. Nephrologists are familiar with the various extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) used in the management of impaired kidney function, and their respective advantages and disadvantages. However, these same skills and knowledge may not always be considered, or applicable, when prescribing ECTR for the treatment of a poisoned patient. Maximizing solute elimination is a key aim of such treatments, perhaps more so than in the treatment of uremia, because ECTR has the potential to reverse clinical toxicity and shorten the duration of poisoning. This manuscript reviews the various principles that govern poison elimination by ECTR (diffusion, convection, adsorption, and centrifugation) and how components of the ECTR can be adjusted to maximize clearance. Data supporting these recommendations will be presented, whenever available., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: In many instances, a cutaneous fungal infection may exist concomitantly with bacterial involvement. In this study we compared the in vitro activity of three antifungal agents against the dermatophytes, yeasts and bacteria recovered most commonly from cutaneous mycoses and bacterial infections., Methods: Using a microdilution method adapted from the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS), we determined the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of ciclopirox olamine, econazole nitrate and butenafine HCl against a panel of dermatophyte fungi and yeasts (n = 39) and bacterial isolates (n = 45)., Results: All three antifungals demonstrated comparable activity against the dermatophytes tested, with a MIC range of 0.03-0.25 micro g/ml for ciclopirox, < 0.001-0.25 micro g/ml for econazole and 0.03-0.25 micro g/ml for butenafine. For yeasts, ciclopirox showed activity against all isolates, with an MIC range of 0.001-0.25 micro g/ml, whereas econazole had a broader range of 0.125-> 0.5 micro g/ml. Butenafine displayed limited activity against the yeast Candida albicans and no activity against Malassezia furfur. For the antibacterial activity studies, ciclopirox demonstrated activity against all isolates tested with a range of 0.06-2 micro g/ml, while econazole showed activity against Gram-positive bacteria only, with a MIC range of 0.004-0.25 micro g/ml. Butenafine HCl had a limited activity against bacterial isolates tested, showing activity against beta-hemolytic Streptococcus Group A and Corynebacterium only. Neither econazole nitrate nor butenafine HCl demonstrated activity against any of the Gram-negative strains evaluated in this study., Conclusions: The data suggest that ciclopirox olamine has the broadest in vitro activity, in comparison to econazole and butenafine HCl, against bacteria, yeasts and bacteria. These findings may have implications in the use of these antimycotics in the treatment of mixed cutaneous infections where bacteria or yeasts are present in addition to dermatophytes.