Toxicology

SAN DIEGO – Forensic toxicologist Donna Papsun spends her days with drugs, but she doesn’t see patients or try to make anyone better. Still, her work is crucial to every medical professional who needs to know which new illicit drugs their patients have been taking.

In Willow Grove, Pa., a suburb of Philadelphia, Ms. Papsun and her colleagues at NMS Labs develop screening tests for designer drugs that have just appeared on the black market or crossed the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) radar.

Question: How long does it typically take to create a test for a new strain of illicit drug?
 

Answer: This can take anywhere from 3 to 9 months, and potentially longer, and it depends on many factors. Once a new drug has hit the market, we check to see if there is certified reference material available. If there is, then we can start to develop a test. Development includes identifying a successful chemical extraction technique – isolating the drug in question from biological matrix such as blood or urine – as well as a platform that reliably detects the drug without falsely reporting positives.

After development, the test has to go through a process called validation, which is a series of experiments to prove that the developed method works rigorously, day after day, and provides the same results. This is very important in forensic toxicology, because our results may be involved in criminal and civil litigation and must stand up to the rigors of court.
 

Q: What are some examples of the types of drugs that you’ve had to develop tests for?

A: Just in the past year, we have developed tests for new designer opioids (including carfentanil, furanylfentanyl, acrylfentanyl, and U-47700), designer benzodiazepines (including etizolam, diclazepam, flubromazolam, and flubromazepam) and new designer stimulants (including n-ethyl pentylone and dibutylone).

We have a synthetic cannabinoid test that was developed for the first time back in 2010. That test has been redeveloped several times since then, because we constantly have to update the test to keep up with the rapid changes in market availability of substances.
 

Q: What are some of the challenges that you face in terms of getting samples of human fluids that you can test for the drugs?

A: Most of the samples we see are from either death investigation cases or driving-under-the-influence cases. Samples from intoxications at hospitals are important, because those data help [us] understand the concentrations of drugs at which people can survive. But often, if the patients survive, their biological specimens are not forwarded for specialized toxicology testing. Most hospital systems do not have the analytical capabilities to detect designer drugs, and most lack the resources to seek out the causal agent for an intoxication or apparent overdose.

Q: At the APA meeting, you talked about the risk that you’ll hear about a strain from the DEA, develop a test and find out it’s obsolete because the drug isn’t used anymore. Does that happen very often?

A: Yes. The problem with designer drugs is that there are so many, so you can spend a lot of time, money, and other resources dedicated to developing and validating a test for a drug that may or may not even be popular.

As a business, you have to make decisions regarding prioritization: Do we build a test for a drug that has only been reported once, or do we focus our efforts on a substance that has been reported dozens of times?

We certainly have spent time and resources developing a test that became obsolete, or never reported a positive case. For example, we developed a test for desomorphine, and we have never chemically confirmed desomorphine in a biological specimen. It definitely is hit or miss, but we spend a lot of time and research a lot of different avenues to make educated decisions regarding the substances we develop tests for.

SAN DIEGO – Forensic toxicologist Donna Papsun spends her days with drugs, but she doesn’t see patients or try to make anyone better. Still, her work is crucial to every medical professional who needs to know which new illicit drugs their patients have been taking.

In Willow Grove, Pa., a suburb of Philadelphia, Ms. Papsun and her colleagues at NMS Labs develop screening tests for designer drugs that have just appeared on the black market or crossed the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) radar.

Question: How long does it typically take to create a test for a new strain of illicit drug?
 

Answer: This can take anywhere from 3 to 9 months, and potentially longer, and it depends on many factors. Once a new drug has hit the market, we check to see if there is certified reference material available. If there is, then we can start to develop a test. Development includes identifying a successful chemical extraction technique – isolating the drug in question from biological matrix such as blood or urine – as well as a platform that reliably detects the drug without falsely reporting positives.

After development, the test has to go through a process called validation, which is a series of experiments to prove that the developed method works rigorously, day after day, and provides the same results. This is very important in forensic toxicology, because our results may be involved in criminal and civil litigation and must stand up to the rigors of court.
 

Q: What are some examples of the types of drugs that you’ve had to develop tests for?

A: Just in the past year, we have developed tests for new designer opioids (including carfentanil, furanylfentanyl, acrylfentanyl, and U-47700), designer benzodiazepines (including etizolam, diclazepam, flubromazolam, and flubromazepam) and new designer stimulants (including n-ethyl pentylone and dibutylone).

We have a synthetic cannabinoid test that was developed for the first time back in 2010. That test has been redeveloped several times since then, because we constantly have to update the test to keep up with the rapid changes in market availability of substances.
 

Q: What are some of the challenges that you face in terms of getting samples of human fluids that you can test for the drugs?

A: Most of the samples we see are from either death investigation cases or driving-under-the-influence cases. Samples from intoxications at hospitals are important, because those data help [us] understand the concentrations of drugs at which people can survive. But often, if the patients survive, their biological specimens are not forwarded for specialized toxicology testing. Most hospital systems do not have the analytical capabilities to detect designer drugs, and most lack the resources to seek out the causal agent for an intoxication or apparent overdose.

Q: At the APA meeting, you talked about the risk that you’ll hear about a strain from the DEA, develop a test and find out it’s obsolete because the drug isn’t used anymore. Does that happen very often?

A: Yes. The problem with designer drugs is that there are so many, so you can spend a lot of time, money, and other resources dedicated to developing and validating a test for a drug that may or may not even be popular.

As a business, you have to make decisions regarding prioritization: Do we build a test for a drug that has only been reported once, or do we focus our efforts on a substance that has been reported dozens of times?

We certainly have spent time and resources developing a test that became obsolete, or never reported a positive case. For example, we developed a test for desomorphine, and we have never chemically confirmed desomorphine in a biological specimen. It definitely is hit or miss, but we spend a lot of time and research a lot of different avenues to make educated decisions regarding the substances we develop tests for.

SAN DIEGO – Forensic toxicologist Donna Papsun spends her days with drugs, but she doesn’t see patients or try to make anyone better. Still, her work is crucial to every medical professional who needs to know which new illicit drugs their patients have been taking.

In Willow Grove, Pa., a suburb of Philadelphia, Ms. Papsun and her colleagues at NMS Labs develop screening tests for designer drugs that have just appeared on the black market or crossed the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) radar.

Question: How long does it typically take to create a test for a new strain of illicit drug?
 

Answer: This can take anywhere from 3 to 9 months, and potentially longer, and it depends on many factors. Once a new drug has hit the market, we check to see if there is certified reference material available. If there is, then we can start to develop a test. Development includes identifying a successful chemical extraction technique – isolating the drug in question from biological matrix such as blood or urine – as well as a platform that reliably detects the drug without falsely reporting positives.

After development, the test has to go through a process called validation, which is a series of experiments to prove that the developed method works rigorously, day after day, and provides the same results. This is very important in forensic toxicology, because our results may be involved in criminal and civil litigation and must stand up to the rigors of court.
 

Q: What are some examples of the types of drugs that you’ve had to develop tests for?

A: Just in the past year, we have developed tests for new designer opioids (including carfentanil, furanylfentanyl, acrylfentanyl, and U-47700), designer benzodiazepines (including etizolam, diclazepam, flubromazolam, and flubromazepam) and new designer stimulants (including n-ethyl pentylone and dibutylone).

We have a synthetic cannabinoid test that was developed for the first time back in 2010. That test has been redeveloped several times since then, because we constantly have to update the test to keep up with the rapid changes in market availability of substances.
 

Q: What are some of the challenges that you face in terms of getting samples of human fluids that you can test for the drugs?

A: Most of the samples we see are from either death investigation cases or driving-under-the-influence cases. Samples from intoxications at hospitals are important, because those data help [us] understand the concentrations of drugs at which people can survive. But often, if the patients survive, their biological specimens are not forwarded for specialized toxicology testing. Most hospital systems do not have the analytical capabilities to detect designer drugs, and most lack the resources to seek out the causal agent for an intoxication or apparent overdose.

Q: At the APA meeting, you talked about the risk that you’ll hear about a strain from the DEA, develop a test and find out it’s obsolete because the drug isn’t used anymore. Does that happen very often?

A: Yes. The problem with designer drugs is that there are so many, so you can spend a lot of time, money, and other resources dedicated to developing and validating a test for a drug that may or may not even be popular.

As a business, you have to make decisions regarding prioritization: Do we build a test for a drug that has only been reported once, or do we focus our efforts on a substance that has been reported dozens of times?

We certainly have spent time and resources developing a test that became obsolete, or never reported a positive case. For example, we developed a test for desomorphine, and we have never chemically confirmed desomorphine in a biological specimen. It definitely is hit or miss, but we spend a lot of time and research a lot of different avenues to make educated decisions regarding the substances we develop tests for.

Case

An Asian man in his third decade, with a medical history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia, and who had recently been involved in a motor vehicle collision (MVC), presented to the ED with a chief complaint of severe bilateral upper and lower extremity weakness. The patient noted that the weakness had begun the previous evening and became progressively worse throughout the night, to the point that he was unable to move any of his extremities on the morning of presentation.

Upon arrival at the ED, the patient was awake, alert, and oriented to self, time, and place; he also spoke in full sentences without distress. He denied fever, chills, difficulty breathing, or preceding viral illness. The patient stated that he was not taking any medications and denied a history of alcohol, tobacco, or drug abuse.

Initial vital signs at presentation were: blood pressure, 141/50 mm Hg; heart rate, 90 beats/min; respiratory rate, 16 breaths/min; and temperature, 97.4°F. Oxygen saturation was 100% on room air. On physical examination, the patient was in no acute distress and had a normal mental status. His pupils were normally reactive and his other cranial nerves were normal. Muscle strength in the upper and lower extremities was 1/5 with 1+ reflexes bilaterally, and there was no sensory deficit. The patient was placed on continuous cardiac monitoring with pulse oximetry.

What is the differential diagnosis for acute extremity weakness or paralysis?

The differential diagnosis for acute symmetrical extremity weakness or paralysis is broad and includes conditions of neurological, inflammatory, and toxic/metabolic etiologies.¹ Neurological diagnoses to consider include acute stroke, specifically of the anterior cerebral or middle cerebral artery territories; Guillain-Barré syndrome; myasthenia gravis; spinal cord compression; and tick paralysis. Acute ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke most frequently presents with unilateral upper or lower extremity weakness accompanied by garbled speech and sensory deficits. Patients who have suffered a brainstem or cerebellar stroke commonly present with alterations of consciousness, visual changes, and ataxia. Posterior circulation strokes are also characterized by crossed neurological deficits, such as motor deficits on one side of the body and sensory deficits on the other.

Spinal Cord Pathology. Signs and symptoms of spinal cord compression or inflammation vary widely depending on the level affected. Motor and sensory findings of spinal cord pathology include muscle weakness, spasticity, hyper- or hyporeflexia, and a discrete level below which sensation is absent or reduced.

Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Patients who have Guillain-Barré syndrome (a disease of the myelin sheaths of the peripheral nerves) often present with complaints of numbness or paresthesias in the extremities.² The condition is characterized by progressive symmetric muscle weakness accompanied by absent or depressed deep tendon reflexes and is typically associated with a recent exposure to an infectious agent such as a viral upper respiratory infection, bacterial infection, or vaccine.

Myasthenia Gravis. Myasthenia gravis is a disease of the neuromuscular junction. It presents with weakness in any muscle group, and the muscles are easily fatigued by repetitive use.

Toxic Exposures. Toxins, such as botulinum, ixovotoxin, nicotine, succinylcholine, and tetrodotoxin, are prominent, though less common, causes of muscular weakness or paralysis. Botulinum toxin acts at the neuromuscular junction. Patients with botulism typically present with a gastrointestinal prodrome of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea followed by cranial nerve dysfunction and descending muscle weakness.³

Tetrodotoxin, nicotine, and curare-like paralytics act at the motor end plate of the neuromuscular junction to produce neuromuscular blockade with subsequent muscular weakness or paralysis. Similarly, ixovotoxin, the toxin responsible for tick paralysis, causes ascending flaccid paralysis by decreasing the release of acetylcholine at the neuromuscular junction.³

Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders. Conditions such as hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, and periodic paralysis can also present with neurological complaints such as generalized weakness and paresthesias. Of note, it is important to differentiate true neuromuscular weakness from weakness secondary to limited effort.

Case Continuation

Because of the patient’s history of an MVC, cervical cord compression was considered concerning enough to require exclusion through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the cervical spine. However, upon arrival at the MRI suite, the patient became severely tachypneic and tachycardic, and was unable to tolerate lying flat. He was intubated for impending respiratory failure. Laboratory results from blood drawn prior to transport to MRI were reported immediately after the resuscitation and were notable for the following: potassium, <1.5 mEq/L; bicarbonate, 20 mEq/L; creatine kinase, 889 U/L; ethanol, not detected.

What is hypokalemic periodic paralysis?

Hypokalemic periodic paralysis (HypoKPP) is a syndrome of episodic muscle weakness with concomitant hypokalemia. Familial forms of HypoKPP have been attributed to mutations in genes coding for either calcium or sodium channels.

The nonfamilial form of HypoKPP is attributed to hyperthyroidism and is most often seen in Asian men in the second and third decades of life. The disorder is characterized by acute onset hypokalemia and extremity paralysis with simultaneous hyperthyroid state. It is believed that hypokalemia occurs as a result of intracellular shift of potassium from thyroid-induced hormone sensitization of the Na⁺/K⁺-ATPase rather than a depletion of total body potassium. Acute episodes of paralysis are triggered by high-carbohydrate meals, alcohol consumption, emotional stress, and infection. Paralysis can last from 3 to 96 hours and is accompanied by decreased or absent deep tendon reflexes with normal sensation and mental status.

In the nonfamilial form of HypoKPP, signs of thyrotoxicosis are often present and include tachycardia, moist skin, and hyperthermia, but it may be difficult to specifically recognize this etiology given the patient’s grave clinical condition.⁴ Similar to many significant metabolic and electrolyte disturbances, complications of HypoKPP include dysrhythmia, respiratory failure, and sometimes death.⁵

How should HypoKPP be managed in the ED?

Management of HypoKPP begins with careful assessment of the patient’s airway, breathing, and circulation. Once the patient is stabilized, management of consequential effects of hypokalemia, such as respiratory distress and muscular paralysis, should focus on correcting the electrolyte and endocrine derangements.

Propranolol. If the patient exhibits signs of thyrotoxicosis, initial treatment includes propranolol, a nonselective beta-blocker, which both prevents the intracellular shift of potassium and assists in correcting the underlying hyperthyroid and hypermetabolic state. Although there is no standard propranolol dosing protocol for HypoKPP, some authors suggest that an aggressive dose of 2 mg intravenously (IV) every 10 minutes can shorten the patient’s episode of paralysis to 6 hours.⁶

Potassium Chloride. Administration of potassium chloride to raise the serum potassium to life-sustaining concentrations should be done cautiously through IV infusion of standard doses.⁷ In correcting hypokalemia with potassium, care should be taken to avoid overcorrection, which may subsequently result in rebound hyperkalemia as the total body potassium redistributes. Lower doses of potassium (ie, <50 mEq per dose), are preferred to achieve adequate repletion while avoiding rebound hyperkalemia.⁸

Case Conclusion

The results of thyroid studies that had been added on to the original set of laboratory studies revealed profound hyperthyroidism, with an essentially absent concentration of thyroid-stimulating hormone.

Case

An Asian man in his third decade, with a medical history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia, and who had recently been involved in a motor vehicle collision (MVC), presented to the ED with a chief complaint of severe bilateral upper and lower extremity weakness. The patient noted that the weakness had begun the previous evening and became progressively worse throughout the night, to the point that he was unable to move any of his extremities on the morning of presentation.

Upon arrival at the ED, the patient was awake, alert, and oriented to self, time, and place; he also spoke in full sentences without distress. He denied fever, chills, difficulty breathing, or preceding viral illness. The patient stated that he was not taking any medications and denied a history of alcohol, tobacco, or drug abuse.

Initial vital signs at presentation were: blood pressure, 141/50 mm Hg; heart rate, 90 beats/min; respiratory rate, 16 breaths/min; and temperature, 97.4°F. Oxygen saturation was 100% on room air. On physical examination, the patient was in no acute distress and had a normal mental status. His pupils were normally reactive and his other cranial nerves were normal. Muscle strength in the upper and lower extremities was 1/5 with 1+ reflexes bilaterally, and there was no sensory deficit. The patient was placed on continuous cardiac monitoring with pulse oximetry.

What is the differential diagnosis for acute extremity weakness or paralysis?

The differential diagnosis for acute symmetrical extremity weakness or paralysis is broad and includes conditions of neurological, inflammatory, and toxic/metabolic etiologies.¹ Neurological diagnoses to consider include acute stroke, specifically of the anterior cerebral or middle cerebral artery territories; Guillain-Barré syndrome; myasthenia gravis; spinal cord compression; and tick paralysis. Acute ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke most frequently presents with unilateral upper or lower extremity weakness accompanied by garbled speech and sensory deficits. Patients who have suffered a brainstem or cerebellar stroke commonly present with alterations of consciousness, visual changes, and ataxia. Posterior circulation strokes are also characterized by crossed neurological deficits, such as motor deficits on one side of the body and sensory deficits on the other.

Spinal Cord Pathology. Signs and symptoms of spinal cord compression or inflammation vary widely depending on the level affected. Motor and sensory findings of spinal cord pathology include muscle weakness, spasticity, hyper- or hyporeflexia, and a discrete level below which sensation is absent or reduced.

Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Patients who have Guillain-Barré syndrome (a disease of the myelin sheaths of the peripheral nerves) often present with complaints of numbness or paresthesias in the extremities.² The condition is characterized by progressive symmetric muscle weakness accompanied by absent or depressed deep tendon reflexes and is typically associated with a recent exposure to an infectious agent such as a viral upper respiratory infection, bacterial infection, or vaccine.

Myasthenia Gravis. Myasthenia gravis is a disease of the neuromuscular junction. It presents with weakness in any muscle group, and the muscles are easily fatigued by repetitive use.

Toxic Exposures. Toxins, such as botulinum, ixovotoxin, nicotine, succinylcholine, and tetrodotoxin, are prominent, though less common, causes of muscular weakness or paralysis. Botulinum toxin acts at the neuromuscular junction. Patients with botulism typically present with a gastrointestinal prodrome of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea followed by cranial nerve dysfunction and descending muscle weakness.³

Tetrodotoxin, nicotine, and curare-like paralytics act at the motor end plate of the neuromuscular junction to produce neuromuscular blockade with subsequent muscular weakness or paralysis. Similarly, ixovotoxin, the toxin responsible for tick paralysis, causes ascending flaccid paralysis by decreasing the release of acetylcholine at the neuromuscular junction.³

Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders. Conditions such as hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, and periodic paralysis can also present with neurological complaints such as generalized weakness and paresthesias. Of note, it is important to differentiate true neuromuscular weakness from weakness secondary to limited effort.

Case Continuation

Because of the patient’s history of an MVC, cervical cord compression was considered concerning enough to require exclusion through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the cervical spine. However, upon arrival at the MRI suite, the patient became severely tachypneic and tachycardic, and was unable to tolerate lying flat. He was intubated for impending respiratory failure. Laboratory results from blood drawn prior to transport to MRI were reported immediately after the resuscitation and were notable for the following: potassium, <1.5 mEq/L; bicarbonate, 20 mEq/L; creatine kinase, 889 U/L; ethanol, not detected.

What is hypokalemic periodic paralysis?

Hypokalemic periodic paralysis (HypoKPP) is a syndrome of episodic muscle weakness with concomitant hypokalemia. Familial forms of HypoKPP have been attributed to mutations in genes coding for either calcium or sodium channels.

The nonfamilial form of HypoKPP is attributed to hyperthyroidism and is most often seen in Asian men in the second and third decades of life. The disorder is characterized by acute onset hypokalemia and extremity paralysis with simultaneous hyperthyroid state. It is believed that hypokalemia occurs as a result of intracellular shift of potassium from thyroid-induced hormone sensitization of the Na⁺/K⁺-ATPase rather than a depletion of total body potassium. Acute episodes of paralysis are triggered by high-carbohydrate meals, alcohol consumption, emotional stress, and infection. Paralysis can last from 3 to 96 hours and is accompanied by decreased or absent deep tendon reflexes with normal sensation and mental status.

In the nonfamilial form of HypoKPP, signs of thyrotoxicosis are often present and include tachycardia, moist skin, and hyperthermia, but it may be difficult to specifically recognize this etiology given the patient’s grave clinical condition.⁴ Similar to many significant metabolic and electrolyte disturbances, complications of HypoKPP include dysrhythmia, respiratory failure, and sometimes death.⁵

How should HypoKPP be managed in the ED?

Management of HypoKPP begins with careful assessment of the patient’s airway, breathing, and circulation. Once the patient is stabilized, management of consequential effects of hypokalemia, such as respiratory distress and muscular paralysis, should focus on correcting the electrolyte and endocrine derangements.

Propranolol. If the patient exhibits signs of thyrotoxicosis, initial treatment includes propranolol, a nonselective beta-blocker, which both prevents the intracellular shift of potassium and assists in correcting the underlying hyperthyroid and hypermetabolic state. Although there is no standard propranolol dosing protocol for HypoKPP, some authors suggest that an aggressive dose of 2 mg intravenously (IV) every 10 minutes can shorten the patient’s episode of paralysis to 6 hours.⁶

Potassium Chloride. Administration of potassium chloride to raise the serum potassium to life-sustaining concentrations should be done cautiously through IV infusion of standard doses.⁷ In correcting hypokalemia with potassium, care should be taken to avoid overcorrection, which may subsequently result in rebound hyperkalemia as the total body potassium redistributes. Lower doses of potassium (ie, <50 mEq per dose), are preferred to achieve adequate repletion while avoiding rebound hyperkalemia.⁸

Case Conclusion

The results of thyroid studies that had been added on to the original set of laboratory studies revealed profound hyperthyroidism, with an essentially absent concentration of thyroid-stimulating hormone.

Case

An Asian man in his third decade, with a medical history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia, and who had recently been involved in a motor vehicle collision (MVC), presented to the ED with a chief complaint of severe bilateral upper and lower extremity weakness. The patient noted that the weakness had begun the previous evening and became progressively worse throughout the night, to the point that he was unable to move any of his extremities on the morning of presentation.

Upon arrival at the ED, the patient was awake, alert, and oriented to self, time, and place; he also spoke in full sentences without distress. He denied fever, chills, difficulty breathing, or preceding viral illness. The patient stated that he was not taking any medications and denied a history of alcohol, tobacco, or drug abuse.

Initial vital signs at presentation were: blood pressure, 141/50 mm Hg; heart rate, 90 beats/min; respiratory rate, 16 breaths/min; and temperature, 97.4°F. Oxygen saturation was 100% on room air. On physical examination, the patient was in no acute distress and had a normal mental status. His pupils were normally reactive and his other cranial nerves were normal. Muscle strength in the upper and lower extremities was 1/5 with 1+ reflexes bilaterally, and there was no sensory deficit. The patient was placed on continuous cardiac monitoring with pulse oximetry.

What is the differential diagnosis for acute extremity weakness or paralysis?

The differential diagnosis for acute symmetrical extremity weakness or paralysis is broad and includes conditions of neurological, inflammatory, and toxic/metabolic etiologies.¹ Neurological diagnoses to consider include acute stroke, specifically of the anterior cerebral or middle cerebral artery territories; Guillain-Barré syndrome; myasthenia gravis; spinal cord compression; and tick paralysis. Acute ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke most frequently presents with unilateral upper or lower extremity weakness accompanied by garbled speech and sensory deficits. Patients who have suffered a brainstem or cerebellar stroke commonly present with alterations of consciousness, visual changes, and ataxia. Posterior circulation strokes are also characterized by crossed neurological deficits, such as motor deficits on one side of the body and sensory deficits on the other.

Spinal Cord Pathology. Signs and symptoms of spinal cord compression or inflammation vary widely depending on the level affected. Motor and sensory findings of spinal cord pathology include muscle weakness, spasticity, hyper- or hyporeflexia, and a discrete level below which sensation is absent or reduced.

Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Patients who have Guillain-Barré syndrome (a disease of the myelin sheaths of the peripheral nerves) often present with complaints of numbness or paresthesias in the extremities.² The condition is characterized by progressive symmetric muscle weakness accompanied by absent or depressed deep tendon reflexes and is typically associated with a recent exposure to an infectious agent such as a viral upper respiratory infection, bacterial infection, or vaccine.

Myasthenia Gravis. Myasthenia gravis is a disease of the neuromuscular junction. It presents with weakness in any muscle group, and the muscles are easily fatigued by repetitive use.

Toxic Exposures. Toxins, such as botulinum, ixovotoxin, nicotine, succinylcholine, and tetrodotoxin, are prominent, though less common, causes of muscular weakness or paralysis. Botulinum toxin acts at the neuromuscular junction. Patients with botulism typically present with a gastrointestinal prodrome of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea followed by cranial nerve dysfunction and descending muscle weakness.³

Tetrodotoxin, nicotine, and curare-like paralytics act at the motor end plate of the neuromuscular junction to produce neuromuscular blockade with subsequent muscular weakness or paralysis. Similarly, ixovotoxin, the toxin responsible for tick paralysis, causes ascending flaccid paralysis by decreasing the release of acetylcholine at the neuromuscular junction.³

Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders. Conditions such as hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, and periodic paralysis can also present with neurological complaints such as generalized weakness and paresthesias. Of note, it is important to differentiate true neuromuscular weakness from weakness secondary to limited effort.

Case Continuation

Because of the patient’s history of an MVC, cervical cord compression was considered concerning enough to require exclusion through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the cervical spine. However, upon arrival at the MRI suite, the patient became severely tachypneic and tachycardic, and was unable to tolerate lying flat. He was intubated for impending respiratory failure. Laboratory results from blood drawn prior to transport to MRI were reported immediately after the resuscitation and were notable for the following: potassium, <1.5 mEq/L; bicarbonate, 20 mEq/L; creatine kinase, 889 U/L; ethanol, not detected.

What is hypokalemic periodic paralysis?

Hypokalemic periodic paralysis (HypoKPP) is a syndrome of episodic muscle weakness with concomitant hypokalemia. Familial forms of HypoKPP have been attributed to mutations in genes coding for either calcium or sodium channels.

The nonfamilial form of HypoKPP is attributed to hyperthyroidism and is most often seen in Asian men in the second and third decades of life. The disorder is characterized by acute onset hypokalemia and extremity paralysis with simultaneous hyperthyroid state. It is believed that hypokalemia occurs as a result of intracellular shift of potassium from thyroid-induced hormone sensitization of the Na⁺/K⁺-ATPase rather than a depletion of total body potassium. Acute episodes of paralysis are triggered by high-carbohydrate meals, alcohol consumption, emotional stress, and infection. Paralysis can last from 3 to 96 hours and is accompanied by decreased or absent deep tendon reflexes with normal sensation and mental status.

In the nonfamilial form of HypoKPP, signs of thyrotoxicosis are often present and include tachycardia, moist skin, and hyperthermia, but it may be difficult to specifically recognize this etiology given the patient’s grave clinical condition.⁴ Similar to many significant metabolic and electrolyte disturbances, complications of HypoKPP include dysrhythmia, respiratory failure, and sometimes death.⁵

How should HypoKPP be managed in the ED?

Management of HypoKPP begins with careful assessment of the patient’s airway, breathing, and circulation. Once the patient is stabilized, management of consequential effects of hypokalemia, such as respiratory distress and muscular paralysis, should focus on correcting the electrolyte and endocrine derangements.

Propranolol. If the patient exhibits signs of thyrotoxicosis, initial treatment includes propranolol, a nonselective beta-blocker, which both prevents the intracellular shift of potassium and assists in correcting the underlying hyperthyroid and hypermetabolic state. Although there is no standard propranolol dosing protocol for HypoKPP, some authors suggest that an aggressive dose of 2 mg intravenously (IV) every 10 minutes can shorten the patient’s episode of paralysis to 6 hours.⁶

Potassium Chloride. Administration of potassium chloride to raise the serum potassium to life-sustaining concentrations should be done cautiously through IV infusion of standard doses.⁷ In correcting hypokalemia with potassium, care should be taken to avoid overcorrection, which may subsequently result in rebound hyperkalemia as the total body potassium redistributes. Lower doses of potassium (ie, <50 mEq per dose), are preferred to achieve adequate repletion while avoiding rebound hyperkalemia.⁸

Case Conclusion

The results of thyroid studies that had been added on to the original set of laboratory studies revealed profound hyperthyroidism, with an essentially absent concentration of thyroid-stimulating hormone.

Case

A 49-year-old man with a history of hypertension, for which he was taking aspirin, carvedilol, hydralazine, and nifedipine, presented to the ED with complaints of left-sided weakness that started 3 hours before he came to the ED. Initial vital signs were: blood pressure, 158/90 mm Hg; heart rate, 74 beats/min; respiratory rate, 18 breaths/min; and temperature, 98°F. Oxygen saturation was 100% on room air, and a finger-stick glucose test was 106 mg/dL.

Physical examination revealed slowed speech with mild dysarthria, mild left facial droop, 2/5 strength in all muscle groups in the left upper and lower extremities, and decreased sensation to light touch on the left side. The patient also had left-sided sensory neglect and an abnormal gait, and dragged his left foot on the floor when walking. The rest of his examination was normal.

The stroke team was activated, and the patient was immediately transferred to the ED radiology department for imaging studies. A noncontrast head computed tomography (CT) was negative for any acute intracranial hemorrhage or cerebral edema. A CT angiogram (CTA) also was performed, which revealed atherosclerosis but no arterial occlusion. Based on these findings and the existing protocol, the patient received an intravenous (IV) bolus of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA). Approximately 17 minutes after tPA administration, the patient developed left-sided upper and lower lip swelling. There was no voice change, tongue swelling, or uvular deviation.

What is the differential diagnosis of swelling of the lip?

The differential diagnoses for lip swelling includes trauma, allergic reaction, and angioedema (hereditary, or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor [ACEI]-induced). The patient in this case denied any trauma to the lip, and no bleeding was noted from the lip; however, his entire left lip (upper and lower) was swollen. He was not taking any ACEIs or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs). He also denied a family history of angioedema or any prior similar episodes. The patient further denied exposure to any new medications, foods, or other substances and had no respiratory distress, urticaria, or other findings consistent with an allergy.

What are the common adverse effects of tPA?

The only US Food and Drug-approved pharmacological treatment for ischemic stroke is tPA (also known as IV rtPA). Tissue plasminogen activator hydrolyzes plasminogen to plasmin, which exerts a fibrinolytic effect. Based on the ability of tPA to lyse thrombus, it is also a standard therapy for hemodynamically unstable patients with confirmed pulmonary embolism, as well as for patients with myocardial infarction in whom percutaneous intervention is contraindicated or unavailable. Despite the beneficial effects of tPA, significant adverse effects are associated with the drug. For example, thrombolysis may result in conversion of an ischemic stroke into a hemorrhagic event, resulting in generalized bleeding from mucosal surfaces.

The increase in plasmin may play a role in the development of angioedema by activating the kinin pathway, leading to the formation of the vasodilator bradykinin (Figure). Plasmin also activates the complement system and leads to the production of anaphylatoxins C₃a, C₄a, and C₅a, which also cause mast cell degranulation and histamine release.¹

When does post-tPA angioedema occur?

In the few published case reports available, tPA-induced angioedema was shown to typically occur in the stroke distribution (which was attributed to the left-sided swelling in this patient).² Following tPA administration, the onset of angioedema reportedly varies from as early as 10 to 15 minutes from initiation until about 1 hour postinfusion. The short half-life of tPA (approximately 7 minutes)² limits the outer- time window for the initial development of angioedema, but progression can continue well beyond this timeframe.

What is the treatment for tPA-induced angioedema?

The first priority of acute management of angioedema is discontinuation of the inciting substance, if possible—in this case, the tPA infusion.³ Assessment and maintenance of a patent airway are of utmost concern. Patients with posterior oropharyngeal effects or who are progressing should be admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) for observation.^4-6

Endotracheal Intubation. Providers should have a low threshold for endotracheal intubation, which should ideally be performed in any patient at risk for airway compromise.⁴ Due to the extensive airway swelling that can occur in the setting of angioedema, airway intervention should optimally be performed by an available clinician with the most skill and experience in this area. It is wise to be prepared to utilize advanced airway techniques, if available, including fiberoptic laryngoscopy or potentially cricothyrotomy.

Histamine Agonists. Standard therapy for patients who develop angioedema should include histamine antagonists, such as diphenhydramine (H₁ antagonist) and famotidine (H₂ antagonist) along with corticosteroids. Although these therapies are unlikely to be helpful in the treatment of tPA-induced angioedema, the difficulty in excluding allergic angioedema and the low risk of adverse effects associated with these medications support their use.

Fresh Frozen Plasma. Fresh frozen plasma (FFP) should be considered for patients who have a history of hereditary angioedema. Fresh frozen plasma contains enzymes that degrade bradykinin. Although FFP has been used successfully in the treatment of ACEI-induced angioedema, its use (or benefit) in tPA-related cases is not clear.

Icatibant. A selective bradykinin B₂-receptor antagonist, icatibant has been used to treat patients with ACEI-induced angioedema because of its effects on bradykinin receptors. Comparison of the efficacy of icatibant to the prevailing treatment strategy of diphenhydramine, famotidine, and methylprednisolone found a shorter time to symptom relief with icatibant.⁷ However, icatibant is extremely expensive ($23,000/30 mg). As previously mentioned, based on its similar mechanism of action, lower cost, and safety profile, FFP can be given (off label) in this situation.

Case Conclusion

The patient was given diphenhydramine, famotidine, and methylprednisolone, but did not show any improvement. His upper/lower lip swelling continued to worsen, and 30 minutes after the onset of angioedema, he was unable to open his mouth more than 1 cm.

Multiple attempts to perform awake fiberoptic intubation failed due to inadequate sedation; however, intubation was successfully performed following light sedation. The patient self-extubated in the ICU on hospital day 3, and the angioedema had progressively decreased. Angioedema and weakness completely resolved by hospital day 4, and he was discharged home on hospital day 7.

Case

A 49-year-old man with a history of hypertension, for which he was taking aspirin, carvedilol, hydralazine, and nifedipine, presented to the ED with complaints of left-sided weakness that started 3 hours before he came to the ED. Initial vital signs were: blood pressure, 158/90 mm Hg; heart rate, 74 beats/min; respiratory rate, 18 breaths/min; and temperature, 98°F. Oxygen saturation was 100% on room air, and a finger-stick glucose test was 106 mg/dL.

Physical examination revealed slowed speech with mild dysarthria, mild left facial droop, 2/5 strength in all muscle groups in the left upper and lower extremities, and decreased sensation to light touch on the left side. The patient also had left-sided sensory neglect and an abnormal gait, and dragged his left foot on the floor when walking. The rest of his examination was normal.

The stroke team was activated, and the patient was immediately transferred to the ED radiology department for imaging studies. A noncontrast head computed tomography (CT) was negative for any acute intracranial hemorrhage or cerebral edema. A CT angiogram (CTA) also was performed, which revealed atherosclerosis but no arterial occlusion. Based on these findings and the existing protocol, the patient received an intravenous (IV) bolus of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA). Approximately 17 minutes after tPA administration, the patient developed left-sided upper and lower lip swelling. There was no voice change, tongue swelling, or uvular deviation.

What is the differential diagnosis of swelling of the lip?

The differential diagnoses for lip swelling includes trauma, allergic reaction, and angioedema (hereditary, or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor [ACEI]-induced). The patient in this case denied any trauma to the lip, and no bleeding was noted from the lip; however, his entire left lip (upper and lower) was swollen. He was not taking any ACEIs or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs). He also denied a family history of angioedema or any prior similar episodes. The patient further denied exposure to any new medications, foods, or other substances and had no respiratory distress, urticaria, or other findings consistent with an allergy.

What are the common adverse effects of tPA?

The only US Food and Drug-approved pharmacological treatment for ischemic stroke is tPA (also known as IV rtPA). Tissue plasminogen activator hydrolyzes plasminogen to plasmin, which exerts a fibrinolytic effect. Based on the ability of tPA to lyse thrombus, it is also a standard therapy for hemodynamically unstable patients with confirmed pulmonary embolism, as well as for patients with myocardial infarction in whom percutaneous intervention is contraindicated or unavailable. Despite the beneficial effects of tPA, significant adverse effects are associated with the drug. For example, thrombolysis may result in conversion of an ischemic stroke into a hemorrhagic event, resulting in generalized bleeding from mucosal surfaces.

The increase in plasmin may play a role in the development of angioedema by activating the kinin pathway, leading to the formation of the vasodilator bradykinin (Figure). Plasmin also activates the complement system and leads to the production of anaphylatoxins C₃a, C₄a, and C₅a, which also cause mast cell degranulation and histamine release.¹

When does post-tPA angioedema occur?

In the few published case reports available, tPA-induced angioedema was shown to typically occur in the stroke distribution (which was attributed to the left-sided swelling in this patient).² Following tPA administration, the onset of angioedema reportedly varies from as early as 10 to 15 minutes from initiation until about 1 hour postinfusion. The short half-life of tPA (approximately 7 minutes)² limits the outer- time window for the initial development of angioedema, but progression can continue well beyond this timeframe.

What is the treatment for tPA-induced angioedema?

The first priority of acute management of angioedema is discontinuation of the inciting substance, if possible—in this case, the tPA infusion.³ Assessment and maintenance of a patent airway are of utmost concern. Patients with posterior oropharyngeal effects or who are progressing should be admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) for observation.^4-6

Endotracheal Intubation. Providers should have a low threshold for endotracheal intubation, which should ideally be performed in any patient at risk for airway compromise.⁴ Due to the extensive airway swelling that can occur in the setting of angioedema, airway intervention should optimally be performed by an available clinician with the most skill and experience in this area. It is wise to be prepared to utilize advanced airway techniques, if available, including fiberoptic laryngoscopy or potentially cricothyrotomy.

Histamine Agonists. Standard therapy for patients who develop angioedema should include histamine antagonists, such as diphenhydramine (H₁ antagonist) and famotidine (H₂ antagonist) along with corticosteroids. Although these therapies are unlikely to be helpful in the treatment of tPA-induced angioedema, the difficulty in excluding allergic angioedema and the low risk of adverse effects associated with these medications support their use.

Fresh Frozen Plasma. Fresh frozen plasma (FFP) should be considered for patients who have a history of hereditary angioedema. Fresh frozen plasma contains enzymes that degrade bradykinin. Although FFP has been used successfully in the treatment of ACEI-induced angioedema, its use (or benefit) in tPA-related cases is not clear.

Icatibant. A selective bradykinin B₂-receptor antagonist, icatibant has been used to treat patients with ACEI-induced angioedema because of its effects on bradykinin receptors. Comparison of the efficacy of icatibant to the prevailing treatment strategy of diphenhydramine, famotidine, and methylprednisolone found a shorter time to symptom relief with icatibant.⁷ However, icatibant is extremely expensive ($23,000/30 mg). As previously mentioned, based on its similar mechanism of action, lower cost, and safety profile, FFP can be given (off label) in this situation.

Case Conclusion

The patient was given diphenhydramine, famotidine, and methylprednisolone, but did not show any improvement. His upper/lower lip swelling continued to worsen, and 30 minutes after the onset of angioedema, he was unable to open his mouth more than 1 cm.

Multiple attempts to perform awake fiberoptic intubation failed due to inadequate sedation; however, intubation was successfully performed following light sedation. The patient self-extubated in the ICU on hospital day 3, and the angioedema had progressively decreased. Angioedema and weakness completely resolved by hospital day 4, and he was discharged home on hospital day 7.

Case

A 49-year-old man with a history of hypertension, for which he was taking aspirin, carvedilol, hydralazine, and nifedipine, presented to the ED with complaints of left-sided weakness that started 3 hours before he came to the ED. Initial vital signs were: blood pressure, 158/90 mm Hg; heart rate, 74 beats/min; respiratory rate, 18 breaths/min; and temperature, 98°F. Oxygen saturation was 100% on room air, and a finger-stick glucose test was 106 mg/dL.

Physical examination revealed slowed speech with mild dysarthria, mild left facial droop, 2/5 strength in all muscle groups in the left upper and lower extremities, and decreased sensation to light touch on the left side. The patient also had left-sided sensory neglect and an abnormal gait, and dragged his left foot on the floor when walking. The rest of his examination was normal.

The stroke team was activated, and the patient was immediately transferred to the ED radiology department for imaging studies. A noncontrast head computed tomography (CT) was negative for any acute intracranial hemorrhage or cerebral edema. A CT angiogram (CTA) also was performed, which revealed atherosclerosis but no arterial occlusion. Based on these findings and the existing protocol, the patient received an intravenous (IV) bolus of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA). Approximately 17 minutes after tPA administration, the patient developed left-sided upper and lower lip swelling. There was no voice change, tongue swelling, or uvular deviation.

What is the differential diagnosis of swelling of the lip?

The differential diagnoses for lip swelling includes trauma, allergic reaction, and angioedema (hereditary, or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor [ACEI]-induced). The patient in this case denied any trauma to the lip, and no bleeding was noted from the lip; however, his entire left lip (upper and lower) was swollen. He was not taking any ACEIs or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs). He also denied a family history of angioedema or any prior similar episodes. The patient further denied exposure to any new medications, foods, or other substances and had no respiratory distress, urticaria, or other findings consistent with an allergy.

What are the common adverse effects of tPA?

The only US Food and Drug-approved pharmacological treatment for ischemic stroke is tPA (also known as IV rtPA). Tissue plasminogen activator hydrolyzes plasminogen to plasmin, which exerts a fibrinolytic effect. Based on the ability of tPA to lyse thrombus, it is also a standard therapy for hemodynamically unstable patients with confirmed pulmonary embolism, as well as for patients with myocardial infarction in whom percutaneous intervention is contraindicated or unavailable. Despite the beneficial effects of tPA, significant adverse effects are associated with the drug. For example, thrombolysis may result in conversion of an ischemic stroke into a hemorrhagic event, resulting in generalized bleeding from mucosal surfaces.

The increase in plasmin may play a role in the development of angioedema by activating the kinin pathway, leading to the formation of the vasodilator bradykinin (Figure). Plasmin also activates the complement system and leads to the production of anaphylatoxins C₃a, C₄a, and C₅a, which also cause mast cell degranulation and histamine release.¹

When does post-tPA angioedema occur?

In the few published case reports available, tPA-induced angioedema was shown to typically occur in the stroke distribution (which was attributed to the left-sided swelling in this patient).² Following tPA administration, the onset of angioedema reportedly varies from as early as 10 to 15 minutes from initiation until about 1 hour postinfusion. The short half-life of tPA (approximately 7 minutes)² limits the outer- time window for the initial development of angioedema, but progression can continue well beyond this timeframe.

What is the treatment for tPA-induced angioedema?

The first priority of acute management of angioedema is discontinuation of the inciting substance, if possible—in this case, the tPA infusion.³ Assessment and maintenance of a patent airway are of utmost concern. Patients with posterior oropharyngeal effects or who are progressing should be admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) for observation.^4-6

Endotracheal Intubation. Providers should have a low threshold for endotracheal intubation, which should ideally be performed in any patient at risk for airway compromise.⁴ Due to the extensive airway swelling that can occur in the setting of angioedema, airway intervention should optimally be performed by an available clinician with the most skill and experience in this area. It is wise to be prepared to utilize advanced airway techniques, if available, including fiberoptic laryngoscopy or potentially cricothyrotomy.

Histamine Agonists. Standard therapy for patients who develop angioedema should include histamine antagonists, such as diphenhydramine (H₁ antagonist) and famotidine (H₂ antagonist) along with corticosteroids. Although these therapies are unlikely to be helpful in the treatment of tPA-induced angioedema, the difficulty in excluding allergic angioedema and the low risk of adverse effects associated with these medications support their use.

Fresh Frozen Plasma. Fresh frozen plasma (FFP) should be considered for patients who have a history of hereditary angioedema. Fresh frozen plasma contains enzymes that degrade bradykinin. Although FFP has been used successfully in the treatment of ACEI-induced angioedema, its use (or benefit) in tPA-related cases is not clear.

Icatibant. A selective bradykinin B₂-receptor antagonist, icatibant has been used to treat patients with ACEI-induced angioedema because of its effects on bradykinin receptors. Comparison of the efficacy of icatibant to the prevailing treatment strategy of diphenhydramine, famotidine, and methylprednisolone found a shorter time to symptom relief with icatibant.⁷ However, icatibant is extremely expensive ($23,000/30 mg). As previously mentioned, based on its similar mechanism of action, lower cost, and safety profile, FFP can be given (off label) in this situation.

Case Conclusion

The patient was given diphenhydramine, famotidine, and methylprednisolone, but did not show any improvement. His upper/lower lip swelling continued to worsen, and 30 minutes after the onset of angioedema, he was unable to open his mouth more than 1 cm.

Multiple attempts to perform awake fiberoptic intubation failed due to inadequate sedation; however, intubation was successfully performed following light sedation. The patient self-extubated in the ICU on hospital day 3, and the angioedema had progressively decreased. Angioedema and weakness completely resolved by hospital day 4, and he was discharged home on hospital day 7.

Editor’s Note: This article has been adapted from an article originally published in Federal Practitioner (Tavakoli HR, et al. Kratom: a new product in an expanding substance abuse market. Fed Prac. 2016;33[11]:132-136. http://www.fedprac.com).

According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the last decade saw an alarming rise in the use of recreational substances.¹ There was an escalation not only in the use of the more well-known street drugs (cannabis, stimulants, opioids, and hallucinogens), but also an exponential increase in the abuse of novel psychoactive substances. Although most emergency physicians (EPs) are at least relatively familiar with some of these designer drugs—often synthesized analogues of common street drugs—region-specific herbal products with psychoactive properties are now entering the market worldwide. Certainly, the cause of this increased use is multifactorial: Ease of access to these drugs and ambiguous legality are believed to be among the largest contributors. Infrastructure established through globalization promotes easy drug transportation and distribution across borders, and widespread Internet use makes knowledge of and accessibility to such substances exceedingly simple.^2,3

In particular, widespread online access has permanently altered the acquisition of knowledge in all realms—including drug use. Although Erowid Center remains one of the oldest and best-known of this type of Web site and bills itself as providing “harm reduction,” others have cropped up online and disseminate information about many forms of potentially psychoactive substances. Despite the purported raison d’être of these Web sites, recent studies have demonstrated these sites’ efficacy in promoting drug use under the guise of safety, particularly among adolescents and young adults. Among these is a qualitative study by Boyer et al⁴ of 12 drug users admitted to a pediatric psychiatry unit. Through extensive questioning about the patients’ digital habits, the researchers demonstrated that the majority of subjects used these Web sites and, as a result, either increased their drug use or learned about (and tried) new substances.

One drug that has benefited from globalization and the Internet is kratom (Mitragyna speciosa korth). This formerly regionally confined herbal psychoactive substance is native to Southeast Asia, where it has been used (and abused) for centuries as a mild stimulant, to prevent opioid withdrawal, and for recreational purposes. In recent years, kratom has been marketed as a psychotropic drug and has become increasingly popular in the United States and in the United Kingdom.^2,5,6 In the United States, this poses a problem for EPs who often are unaware of this plant’s existence, much less its abuse potential or health effects.² Also known as ketum, kakuam, thang, thom, or biak, kratom is marketed in stores and online as a cheap, safe alternative to opioids.

Although considered a “substance of concern” without any approved medical use by the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), kratom is not a regulated or controlled substance in the United States.³ In late 2016, out of concern for public safety, the DEA placed a temporary ban on kratom. The Agency’s move was followed by a substantial negative reaction from kratom supporters and was quickly rescinded. As of April 2017, the DEA did not have a timetable for banning or scheduling the drug, though some states have banned it.

To that end, users consider kratom a legal high, and it is easily purchased online. A 2010 study in the United Kingdom examined Web sites where kratom and many other quasilegal substances (including Salvia divinorum and legal precursors to LSD) could be purchased for an average of £10 (about $13 US currency).⁵ This study’s authors also noted a significant lack of product information on these marketplaces. As these products are not overseen by any regulatory body, the risk of overdose or adulteration is extremely high.^2,3,6-8 In fact, Krypton, a kratom product sold online, was found to be adulterated with O-desmethyltramadol—the active metabolite of the synthetic opiate tramadol—and implicated in at least nine deaths.⁷

This article presents a case of kratom abuse. It describes a brief history of the substance, its pharmacological characteristics, the clinical presentation of kratom abuse, and the treatment of kratom-related illness and evaluation of potential toxic sequelae. In light of the rapid proliferation of kratom in the United States, a basic working knowledge of the drug is quickly becoming a must for EPs.

Case Presentation

At his employer’s request, a 33-year-old man presented to his family physician for a worsening of his uncontrolled back pain from a herniated lumbar disk resulting from a motor vehicle collision 3 months before. At his physician’s office he stated, “I don’t care if I live or die, I’m tired of the pain,” and “I’m going to go off on somebody if I can’t get this pain under control.” He also endorsed having auditory hallucinations for several years and a history of violence and homicide. The problem arose precipitously after he became concerned that he was abusing his opioid medication, and it was discontinued. The patient was transferred to the local ED and admitted to the psychiatric service for his suicidal ideations and risk of harming self and others.

On admission to the psychiatric service, the patient complained of body aches, chills, rhinorrhea, and significantly worsened irritability from his baseline, consistent with opioid withdrawal. Initial point-of-care (POC) admission drug testing had been negative as had expanded urine tests looking for synthetic opioids, cannabinoids, and cathinones. The patient reported no opioid use but was unable to explain his current symptom patterns, which were worsening his chronic pain and hampering any attempt to build rapport. On hospital day 3, the patient’s opioid withdrawal resolved, and psychiatric treatment was able to progress fully. On hospital day 4, the inpatient treatment team received a message from the patient’s primary care manager stating that a friend of the patient had found a bottle of herbal pills in the patient’s car. This was later revealed to be a kratom formulation that he had purchased online.

Background

Kratom is the colloquial name of a tree that is native to Thailand, Malaysia, and other countries in Southeast Asia. These trees, which can grow to 50 feet high and 15 feet wide, have long been the source of herbal remedies in Southeast Asia.^2,3 The leaves of these trees contain psychoactive substances that have a variety of effects when consumed. At low doses, kratom causes a stimulant effect (akin to the leaves of the coca plant in South America); laborers and farmers often use it to help boost their energy. At higher doses, kratom causes an opioid-like effect, which at mega doses produces an intense euphoric state and has led to a steady growth in abuse worldwide. Although the government of Thailand banned the planting of Mitragyna speciosa as early as 1943, its continued proliferation in Southeast Asia and throughout the world has not ceased.^2,3,6

In the United Kingdom, kratom is currently the second most common drug that is considered a legal high, only behind salvia (Salvia divinorum), a hallucinogenic herb that is better known as a result of its use by young celebrities over the past decade.^5,8

Kratom can be taken in a variety of ways: Crushed leaves often are placed in gel caps and swallowed; it can be drunk as a tea, juice, or boiled syrup; and it can be smoked or insufflated.^2,3,5,6

Pharmacology and Clinical Presentation

More than 20 psychoactive compounds have been isolated from kratom. Although a discussion of all these compounds is beyond the scope of this review, the two major compounds are mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine.

Mitragynine

Mitragynine, the most abundant psychoactive compound found in kratom, is an indole alkaloid (Figure 1). Extraction and analysis of this compound has demonstrated numerous effects on multiple receptors, including mu-, delta-, and kappa-opioid receptors, leading to its opioid-like effects, including analgesia and euphoria. Also similar to common opioids, withdrawal symptomatology can present after only 5 days of daily use. There is limited evidence that mitragynine can activate postsynaptic alpha-2 adrenergic receptors, which may act synergistically with the mu-agonist with regard to its analgesic effect.^2,5

7-Hydroxymitragynine

7-hydroxymitragynine, despite being far less concentrated in kratom preparations, is about 13 times more potent than morphine and 46 times more potent than mitragynine. It is thought that its hydroxyl side chain added to C7 (Figure 2) adds to its lipophilicity and ability to cross the blood-brain barrier at a far more rapid rate than that of mitragynine.²

Mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine remain the best-studied psychoactive components of kratom at this time. Other compounds that have been isolated, such as speciociliatine, paynantheine, and speciogynine, may play a role in kratom’s analgesic and psychoactive effects. Animal studies have demonstrated antimuscarinic properties in these compounds, but the properties do not seem to have any demonstrable effect at the opioid receptors.²

Intoxication and Withdrawal

Due to its increasing worldwide popularity, it is now imperative for EPs to be aware of the presentation of patients with kratom abuse as well as the management of withdrawal in light of its dependence potential. However, large-scale studies have not been performed, and much of the evidence comes not from the medical literature but from Web sites such as Erowid or SageWisdom.^2,5-9 To that end, such information will be discussed along with the limited research and expert consensuses available in peer-reviewed medical literature.

Kratom seems to have dose-dependent effects. At low doses (1-5 g of raw crushed leaves), kratom abusers often report a mild energizing effect, thought to be secondary to the stimulant properties of kratom’s multiple alkaloids. Users have reported mild euphoria and highs similar to those of the abuse of methylphenidate or modafinil.^2,9,10 Also similar to abuse of those substances, users have reported anxiety, irritability, and aggressiveness as a result of the stimulant-like effects.

At moderate-to-high doses (5-15 g of raw crushed leaves), it is believed that the mu-opiate receptor agonism overtakes the stimulant effects, leading to the euphoria, relaxation, and analgesia seen with conventional opioid use and abuse.^2,10 In light of the drug’s substantial binding and agonism of all opioid receptors, constipation and itching also are seen.² As such, if an individual is intoxicated, he or she should be managed with supportive and symptomatic care and continuous monitoring of heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation.^2,10 Kratom intoxication can precipitate psychotic episodes similar to those caused by opiate intoxication, so monitoring for agitation or psychotic behaviors is also indicated.^9,10

The medical management of a patient with an acute kratom overdose (typically requiring ingestion of >15 g of crushed leaves) begins with addressing airway support, breathing, and circulation along with continuous vital sign monitoring and laboratory testing, including POC glucose testing, complete blood count, electrolytes, lactate, venous blood gas, and measurable drug levels (ethanol, acetaminophen, tricyclic antidepressants, as indicated).¹¹ If it is determined that kratom was the intoxicant, the greatest concern of death is similar to that of opioid overdose: respiratory depression. Although there are no large-scale human studies demonstrating efficacy, multiple authors suggest the use of naloxone in kratom-related hypoventilation.^9,10

The development of dependence on kratom and its subsequent withdrawal phenomena are thought to be similar to that of opioids, in light of its strong mu agonism.^2,5,9,10 Indeed, kratom has a long history of being used by opioid-dependent patients as an attempt to quit drug abuse or stave off debilitating withdrawal symptoms when they are unable to acquire their substance of choice.^2,5-10 As such, withdrawal and the treatment thereof will also mimic that of opioid withdrawal.

The kratom-dependent individual will often present with rhinorrhea, lacrimation, dry mouth, hostility, aggression, and emotional lability similar to the case study described earlier.^2,9,10 Kratom withdrawal, much like intoxication, also may precipitate or worsen psychotic symptoms, and monitoring is necessary throughout the detoxification process.^2,5,10 Withdrawal management should proceed along ambulatory clinic or hospital opioid withdrawal protocols that include step-down administration of opioids or with nonopioid medications for symptomatic relief, including muscle relaxants, alpha-2 agonists, and antidiarrheal agents.^5,9,10

Kratom Toxicity

A review of the available medical literature has demonstrated a number of toxic effects with kratom abuse, either as the sole agent or in concert with prescribed medications, recreational coingestants, or as a result of manufacturer’s adulteration with other chemicals or drugs. Of particular interest to EPs are manic or psychotic episode precipitation, seizure, hypothyroidism, intrahepatic cholestatic injury, and even sudden cardiac death.^2,3,5-10 In addition to the basic history, physical, and laboratory examination, the workup of patients identified as kratom users should include the following:

• Fastidious medication reconciliation with drug-interaction check;
• Exhaustive substance abuse history;
• Identification of the brand name and source of kratom purchased, to determine whether there are advertised coingestants or reports of adulteration;
• Electrocardiogram;
• Thyroid function testing;
• Hepatic function testing; and
• Comprehensive neurological and mental status examinations.

In chronic users of kratom, a number of effects have been seen whose etiologies have not yet been determined. These effects include depression, anxiety, tremulousness, weight loss, and psychosis.^3-7 Additionally, a study by Kittirattanapaiboon et al¹² correlated drug use by those with concurrent mental health disorders (in particular, kratom, which was used in 59% of the ≥14,000 individuals included in the study sample) with statistically significant higher suicide risk.

Detection

Because kratom is a relatively new compound in the United States, medical and forensic laboratories are only now implementing kratom detection protocols. Many laboratories now use high-performance liquid chromatography to analyze for mitragynine, 7-hydroxymitragynine, and two metabolites of mitragynine in urine.⁷ Le et al¹³ were able to detect mitragynine in the urine in levels as low as 1 ng/mL, which is clinically useful as mitragynine has a half-life determined in animal studies to be 3.85 hours. Similar detection limits for mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine are used only at the Naval Medical Center Portsmouth in Virginia; however, kratom was not detected in the case study patient’s urine because a urine test was not done until hospital day 5.

Case Conclusion

When gently confronted about the kratom found in his car, the case study patient admitted that he had purchased kratom online after he was “cut off” from prescription opioids for his pain. He admitted that although it was beneficial for his pain, he did notice worsening in his aggression toward his spouse and coworkers. This progressed to an exacerbation of his psychotic symptoms of hallucinations and persecutory delusions. These symptoms remained well hidden—but were present for years prior to his presentation at the hospital. The patient was discharged from the inpatient psychiatric unit on hospital day 16 with a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, depressive type in addition to opioid-use disorder. The patient agreed to seek a pain management specialist and discontinue kratom use.

Conclusion

Kratom is an emerging drug of abuse in the Western world. Although significant research is being conducted on its possible medical uses, little is known about kratom beyond the “trip reports” of kratom users posted online. Because of its technically legal status in the United States and multiple other Western countries, kratom is easily accessible. Emergency physicians need to be aware of kratom, and during their evaluations, question appropriate patients about kratom and other legal highs.

Editor’s Note: This article has been adapted from an article originally published in Federal Practitioner (Tavakoli HR, et al. Kratom: a new product in an expanding substance abuse market. Fed Prac. 2016;33[11]:132-136. http://www.fedprac.com).

According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the last decade saw an alarming rise in the use of recreational substances.¹ There was an escalation not only in the use of the more well-known street drugs (cannabis, stimulants, opioids, and hallucinogens), but also an exponential increase in the abuse of novel psychoactive substances. Although most emergency physicians (EPs) are at least relatively familiar with some of these designer drugs—often synthesized analogues of common street drugs—region-specific herbal products with psychoactive properties are now entering the market worldwide. Certainly, the cause of this increased use is multifactorial: Ease of access to these drugs and ambiguous legality are believed to be among the largest contributors. Infrastructure established through globalization promotes easy drug transportation and distribution across borders, and widespread Internet use makes knowledge of and accessibility to such substances exceedingly simple.^2,3

In particular, widespread online access has permanently altered the acquisition of knowledge in all realms—including drug use. Although Erowid Center remains one of the oldest and best-known of this type of Web site and bills itself as providing “harm reduction,” others have cropped up online and disseminate information about many forms of potentially psychoactive substances. Despite the purported raison d’être of these Web sites, recent studies have demonstrated these sites’ efficacy in promoting drug use under the guise of safety, particularly among adolescents and young adults. Among these is a qualitative study by Boyer et al⁴ of 12 drug users admitted to a pediatric psychiatry unit. Through extensive questioning about the patients’ digital habits, the researchers demonstrated that the majority of subjects used these Web sites and, as a result, either increased their drug use or learned about (and tried) new substances.

One drug that has benefited from globalization and the Internet is kratom (Mitragyna speciosa korth). This formerly regionally confined herbal psychoactive substance is native to Southeast Asia, where it has been used (and abused) for centuries as a mild stimulant, to prevent opioid withdrawal, and for recreational purposes. In recent years, kratom has been marketed as a psychotropic drug and has become increasingly popular in the United States and in the United Kingdom.^2,5,6 In the United States, this poses a problem for EPs who often are unaware of this plant’s existence, much less its abuse potential or health effects.² Also known as ketum, kakuam, thang, thom, or biak, kratom is marketed in stores and online as a cheap, safe alternative to opioids.

Although considered a “substance of concern” without any approved medical use by the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), kratom is not a regulated or controlled substance in the United States.³ In late 2016, out of concern for public safety, the DEA placed a temporary ban on kratom. The Agency’s move was followed by a substantial negative reaction from kratom supporters and was quickly rescinded. As of April 2017, the DEA did not have a timetable for banning or scheduling the drug, though some states have banned it.

To that end, users consider kratom a legal high, and it is easily purchased online. A 2010 study in the United Kingdom examined Web sites where kratom and many other quasilegal substances (including Salvia divinorum and legal precursors to LSD) could be purchased for an average of £10 (about $13 US currency).⁵ This study’s authors also noted a significant lack of product information on these marketplaces. As these products are not overseen by any regulatory body, the risk of overdose or adulteration is extremely high.^2,3,6-8 In fact, Krypton, a kratom product sold online, was found to be adulterated with O-desmethyltramadol—the active metabolite of the synthetic opiate tramadol—and implicated in at least nine deaths.⁷

This article presents a case of kratom abuse. It describes a brief history of the substance, its pharmacological characteristics, the clinical presentation of kratom abuse, and the treatment of kratom-related illness and evaluation of potential toxic sequelae. In light of the rapid proliferation of kratom in the United States, a basic working knowledge of the drug is quickly becoming a must for EPs.

Case Presentation

At his employer’s request, a 33-year-old man presented to his family physician for a worsening of his uncontrolled back pain from a herniated lumbar disk resulting from a motor vehicle collision 3 months before. At his physician’s office he stated, “I don’t care if I live or die, I’m tired of the pain,” and “I’m going to go off on somebody if I can’t get this pain under control.” He also endorsed having auditory hallucinations for several years and a history of violence and homicide. The problem arose precipitously after he became concerned that he was abusing his opioid medication, and it was discontinued. The patient was transferred to the local ED and admitted to the psychiatric service for his suicidal ideations and risk of harming self and others.

On admission to the psychiatric service, the patient complained of body aches, chills, rhinorrhea, and significantly worsened irritability from his baseline, consistent with opioid withdrawal. Initial point-of-care (POC) admission drug testing had been negative as had expanded urine tests looking for synthetic opioids, cannabinoids, and cathinones. The patient reported no opioid use but was unable to explain his current symptom patterns, which were worsening his chronic pain and hampering any attempt to build rapport. On hospital day 3, the patient’s opioid withdrawal resolved, and psychiatric treatment was able to progress fully. On hospital day 4, the inpatient treatment team received a message from the patient’s primary care manager stating that a friend of the patient had found a bottle of herbal pills in the patient’s car. This was later revealed to be a kratom formulation that he had purchased online.

Background

Kratom is the colloquial name of a tree that is native to Thailand, Malaysia, and other countries in Southeast Asia. These trees, which can grow to 50 feet high and 15 feet wide, have long been the source of herbal remedies in Southeast Asia.^2,3 The leaves of these trees contain psychoactive substances that have a variety of effects when consumed. At low doses, kratom causes a stimulant effect (akin to the leaves of the coca plant in South America); laborers and farmers often use it to help boost their energy. At higher doses, kratom causes an opioid-like effect, which at mega doses produces an intense euphoric state and has led to a steady growth in abuse worldwide. Although the government of Thailand banned the planting of Mitragyna speciosa as early as 1943, its continued proliferation in Southeast Asia and throughout the world has not ceased.^2,3,6

In the United Kingdom, kratom is currently the second most common drug that is considered a legal high, only behind salvia (Salvia divinorum), a hallucinogenic herb that is better known as a result of its use by young celebrities over the past decade.^5,8

Kratom can be taken in a variety of ways: Crushed leaves often are placed in gel caps and swallowed; it can be drunk as a tea, juice, or boiled syrup; and it can be smoked or insufflated.^2,3,5,6

Pharmacology and Clinical Presentation

More than 20 psychoactive compounds have been isolated from kratom. Although a discussion of all these compounds is beyond the scope of this review, the two major compounds are mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine.

Mitragynine

Mitragynine, the most abundant psychoactive compound found in kratom, is an indole alkaloid (Figure 1). Extraction and analysis of this compound has demonstrated numerous effects on multiple receptors, including mu-, delta-, and kappa-opioid receptors, leading to its opioid-like effects, including analgesia and euphoria. Also similar to common opioids, withdrawal symptomatology can present after only 5 days of daily use. There is limited evidence that mitragynine can activate postsynaptic alpha-2 adrenergic receptors, which may act synergistically with the mu-agonist with regard to its analgesic effect.^2,5

7-Hydroxymitragynine

7-hydroxymitragynine, despite being far less concentrated in kratom preparations, is about 13 times more potent than morphine and 46 times more potent than mitragynine. It is thought that its hydroxyl side chain added to C7 (Figure 2) adds to its lipophilicity and ability to cross the blood-brain barrier at a far more rapid rate than that of mitragynine.²

Mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine remain the best-studied psychoactive components of kratom at this time. Other compounds that have been isolated, such as speciociliatine, paynantheine, and speciogynine, may play a role in kratom’s analgesic and psychoactive effects. Animal studies have demonstrated antimuscarinic properties in these compounds, but the properties do not seem to have any demonstrable effect at the opioid receptors.²

Intoxication and Withdrawal

Due to its increasing worldwide popularity, it is now imperative for EPs to be aware of the presentation of patients with kratom abuse as well as the management of withdrawal in light of its dependence potential. However, large-scale studies have not been performed, and much of the evidence comes not from the medical literature but from Web sites such as Erowid or SageWisdom.^2,5-9 To that end, such information will be discussed along with the limited research and expert consensuses available in peer-reviewed medical literature.

Kratom seems to have dose-dependent effects. At low doses (1-5 g of raw crushed leaves), kratom abusers often report a mild energizing effect, thought to be secondary to the stimulant properties of kratom’s multiple alkaloids. Users have reported mild euphoria and highs similar to those of the abuse of methylphenidate or modafinil.^2,9,10 Also similar to abuse of those substances, users have reported anxiety, irritability, and aggressiveness as a result of the stimulant-like effects.

At moderate-to-high doses (5-15 g of raw crushed leaves), it is believed that the mu-opiate receptor agonism overtakes the stimulant effects, leading to the euphoria, relaxation, and analgesia seen with conventional opioid use and abuse.^2,10 In light of the drug’s substantial binding and agonism of all opioid receptors, constipation and itching also are seen.² As such, if an individual is intoxicated, he or she should be managed with supportive and symptomatic care and continuous monitoring of heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation.^2,10 Kratom intoxication can precipitate psychotic episodes similar to those caused by opiate intoxication, so monitoring for agitation or psychotic behaviors is also indicated.^9,10

The medical management of a patient with an acute kratom overdose (typically requiring ingestion of >15 g of crushed leaves) begins with addressing airway support, breathing, and circulation along with continuous vital sign monitoring and laboratory testing, including POC glucose testing, complete blood count, electrolytes, lactate, venous blood gas, and measurable drug levels (ethanol, acetaminophen, tricyclic antidepressants, as indicated).¹¹ If it is determined that kratom was the intoxicant, the greatest concern of death is similar to that of opioid overdose: respiratory depression. Although there are no large-scale human studies demonstrating efficacy, multiple authors suggest the use of naloxone in kratom-related hypoventilation.^9,10

The development of dependence on kratom and its subsequent withdrawal phenomena are thought to be similar to that of opioids, in light of its strong mu agonism.^2,5,9,10 Indeed, kratom has a long history of being used by opioid-dependent patients as an attempt to quit drug abuse or stave off debilitating withdrawal symptoms when they are unable to acquire their substance of choice.^2,5-10 As such, withdrawal and the treatment thereof will also mimic that of opioid withdrawal.

The kratom-dependent individual will often present with rhinorrhea, lacrimation, dry mouth, hostility, aggression, and emotional lability similar to the case study described earlier.^2,9,10 Kratom withdrawal, much like intoxication, also may precipitate or worsen psychotic symptoms, and monitoring is necessary throughout the detoxification process.^2,5,10 Withdrawal management should proceed along ambulatory clinic or hospital opioid withdrawal protocols that include step-down administration of opioids or with nonopioid medications for symptomatic relief, including muscle relaxants, alpha-2 agonists, and antidiarrheal agents.^5,9,10

Kratom Toxicity

A review of the available medical literature has demonstrated a number of toxic effects with kratom abuse, either as the sole agent or in concert with prescribed medications, recreational coingestants, or as a result of manufacturer’s adulteration with other chemicals or drugs. Of particular interest to EPs are manic or psychotic episode precipitation, seizure, hypothyroidism, intrahepatic cholestatic injury, and even sudden cardiac death.^2,3,5-10 In addition to the basic history, physical, and laboratory examination, the workup of patients identified as kratom users should include the following:

• Fastidious medication reconciliation with drug-interaction check;
• Exhaustive substance abuse history;
• Identification of the brand name and source of kratom purchased, to determine whether there are advertised coingestants or reports of adulteration;
• Electrocardiogram;
• Thyroid function testing;
• Hepatic function testing; and
• Comprehensive neurological and mental status examinations.

In chronic users of kratom, a number of effects have been seen whose etiologies have not yet been determined. These effects include depression, anxiety, tremulousness, weight loss, and psychosis.^3-7 Additionally, a study by Kittirattanapaiboon et al¹² correlated drug use by those with concurrent mental health disorders (in particular, kratom, which was used in 59% of the ≥14,000 individuals included in the study sample) with statistically significant higher suicide risk.

Detection

Because kratom is a relatively new compound in the United States, medical and forensic laboratories are only now implementing kratom detection protocols. Many laboratories now use high-performance liquid chromatography to analyze for mitragynine, 7-hydroxymitragynine, and two metabolites of mitragynine in urine.⁷ Le et al¹³ were able to detect mitragynine in the urine in levels as low as 1 ng/mL, which is clinically useful as mitragynine has a half-life determined in animal studies to be 3.85 hours. Similar detection limits for mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine are used only at the Naval Medical Center Portsmouth in Virginia; however, kratom was not detected in the case study patient’s urine because a urine test was not done until hospital day 5.

Case Conclusion

When gently confronted about the kratom found in his car, the case study patient admitted that he had purchased kratom online after he was “cut off” from prescription opioids for his pain. He admitted that although it was beneficial for his pain, he did notice worsening in his aggression toward his spouse and coworkers. This progressed to an exacerbation of his psychotic symptoms of hallucinations and persecutory delusions. These symptoms remained well hidden—but were present for years prior to his presentation at the hospital. The patient was discharged from the inpatient psychiatric unit on hospital day 16 with a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, depressive type in addition to opioid-use disorder. The patient agreed to seek a pain management specialist and discontinue kratom use.

Conclusion

Kratom is an emerging drug of abuse in the Western world. Although significant research is being conducted on its possible medical uses, little is known about kratom beyond the “trip reports” of kratom users posted online. Because of its technically legal status in the United States and multiple other Western countries, kratom is easily accessible. Emergency physicians need to be aware of kratom, and during their evaluations, question appropriate patients about kratom and other legal highs.

Editor’s Note: This article has been adapted from an article originally published in Federal Practitioner (Tavakoli HR, et al. Kratom: a new product in an expanding substance abuse market. Fed Prac. 2016;33[11]:132-136. http://www.fedprac.com).

According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the last decade saw an alarming rise in the use of recreational substances.¹ There was an escalation not only in the use of the more well-known street drugs (cannabis, stimulants, opioids, and hallucinogens), but also an exponential increase in the abuse of novel psychoactive substances. Although most emergency physicians (EPs) are at least relatively familiar with some of these designer drugs—often synthesized analogues of common street drugs—region-specific herbal products with psychoactive properties are now entering the market worldwide. Certainly, the cause of this increased use is multifactorial: Ease of access to these drugs and ambiguous legality are believed to be among the largest contributors. Infrastructure established through globalization promotes easy drug transportation and distribution across borders, and widespread Internet use makes knowledge of and accessibility to such substances exceedingly simple.^2,3

In particular, widespread online access has permanently altered the acquisition of knowledge in all realms—including drug use. Although Erowid Center remains one of the oldest and best-known of this type of Web site and bills itself as providing “harm reduction,” others have cropped up online and disseminate information about many forms of potentially psychoactive substances. Despite the purported raison d’être of these Web sites, recent studies have demonstrated these sites’ efficacy in promoting drug use under the guise of safety, particularly among adolescents and young adults. Among these is a qualitative study by Boyer et al⁴ of 12 drug users admitted to a pediatric psychiatry unit. Through extensive questioning about the patients’ digital habits, the researchers demonstrated that the majority of subjects used these Web sites and, as a result, either increased their drug use or learned about (and tried) new substances.

One drug that has benefited from globalization and the Internet is kratom (Mitragyna speciosa korth). This formerly regionally confined herbal psychoactive substance is native to Southeast Asia, where it has been used (and abused) for centuries as a mild stimulant, to prevent opioid withdrawal, and for recreational purposes. In recent years, kratom has been marketed as a psychotropic drug and has become increasingly popular in the United States and in the United Kingdom.^2,5,6 In the United States, this poses a problem for EPs who often are unaware of this plant’s existence, much less its abuse potential or health effects.² Also known as ketum, kakuam, thang, thom, or biak, kratom is marketed in stores and online as a cheap, safe alternative to opioids.

Although considered a “substance of concern” without any approved medical use by the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), kratom is not a regulated or controlled substance in the United States.³ In late 2016, out of concern for public safety, the DEA placed a temporary ban on kratom. The Agency’s move was followed by a substantial negative reaction from kratom supporters and was quickly rescinded. As of April 2017, the DEA did not have a timetable for banning or scheduling the drug, though some states have banned it.

To that end, users consider kratom a legal high, and it is easily purchased online. A 2010 study in the United Kingdom examined Web sites where kratom and many other quasilegal substances (including Salvia divinorum and legal precursors to LSD) could be purchased for an average of £10 (about $13 US currency).⁵ This study’s authors also noted a significant lack of product information on these marketplaces. As these products are not overseen by any regulatory body, the risk of overdose or adulteration is extremely high.^2,3,6-8 In fact, Krypton, a kratom product sold online, was found to be adulterated with O-desmethyltramadol—the active metabolite of the synthetic opiate tramadol—and implicated in at least nine deaths.⁷

This article presents a case of kratom abuse. It describes a brief history of the substance, its pharmacological characteristics, the clinical presentation of kratom abuse, and the treatment of kratom-related illness and evaluation of potential toxic sequelae. In light of the rapid proliferation of kratom in the United States, a basic working knowledge of the drug is quickly becoming a must for EPs.

Case Presentation

At his employer’s request, a 33-year-old man presented to his family physician for a worsening of his uncontrolled back pain from a herniated lumbar disk resulting from a motor vehicle collision 3 months before. At his physician’s office he stated, “I don’t care if I live or die, I’m tired of the pain,” and “I’m going to go off on somebody if I can’t get this pain under control.” He also endorsed having auditory hallucinations for several years and a history of violence and homicide. The problem arose precipitously after he became concerned that he was abusing his opioid medication, and it was discontinued. The patient was transferred to the local ED and admitted to the psychiatric service for his suicidal ideations and risk of harming self and others.

On admission to the psychiatric service, the patient complained of body aches, chills, rhinorrhea, and significantly worsened irritability from his baseline, consistent with opioid withdrawal. Initial point-of-care (POC) admission drug testing had been negative as had expanded urine tests looking for synthetic opioids, cannabinoids, and cathinones. The patient reported no opioid use but was unable to explain his current symptom patterns, which were worsening his chronic pain and hampering any attempt to build rapport. On hospital day 3, the patient’s opioid withdrawal resolved, and psychiatric treatment was able to progress fully. On hospital day 4, the inpatient treatment team received a message from the patient’s primary care manager stating that a friend of the patient had found a bottle of herbal pills in the patient’s car. This was later revealed to be a kratom formulation that he had purchased online.

Background

Kratom is the colloquial name of a tree that is native to Thailand, Malaysia, and other countries in Southeast Asia. These trees, which can grow to 50 feet high and 15 feet wide, have long been the source of herbal remedies in Southeast Asia.^2,3 The leaves of these trees contain psychoactive substances that have a variety of effects when consumed. At low doses, kratom causes a stimulant effect (akin to the leaves of the coca plant in South America); laborers and farmers often use it to help boost their energy. At higher doses, kratom causes an opioid-like effect, which at mega doses produces an intense euphoric state and has led to a steady growth in abuse worldwide. Although the government of Thailand banned the planting of Mitragyna speciosa as early as 1943, its continued proliferation in Southeast Asia and throughout the world has not ceased.^2,3,6

In the United Kingdom, kratom is currently the second most common drug that is considered a legal high, only behind salvia (Salvia divinorum), a hallucinogenic herb that is better known as a result of its use by young celebrities over the past decade.^5,8

Kratom can be taken in a variety of ways: Crushed leaves often are placed in gel caps and swallowed; it can be drunk as a tea, juice, or boiled syrup; and it can be smoked or insufflated.^2,3,5,6

Pharmacology and Clinical Presentation

More than 20 psychoactive compounds have been isolated from kratom. Although a discussion of all these compounds is beyond the scope of this review, the two major compounds are mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine.

Mitragynine

Mitragynine, the most abundant psychoactive compound found in kratom, is an indole alkaloid (Figure 1). Extraction and analysis of this compound has demonstrated numerous effects on multiple receptors, including mu-, delta-, and kappa-opioid receptors, leading to its opioid-like effects, including analgesia and euphoria. Also similar to common opioids, withdrawal symptomatology can present after only 5 days of daily use. There is limited evidence that mitragynine can activate postsynaptic alpha-2 adrenergic receptors, which may act synergistically with the mu-agonist with regard to its analgesic effect.^2,5

7-Hydroxymitragynine

7-hydroxymitragynine, despite being far less concentrated in kratom preparations, is about 13 times more potent than morphine and 46 times more potent than mitragynine. It is thought that its hydroxyl side chain added to C7 (Figure 2) adds to its lipophilicity and ability to cross the blood-brain barrier at a far more rapid rate than that of mitragynine.²

Mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine remain the best-studied psychoactive components of kratom at this time. Other compounds that have been isolated, such as speciociliatine, paynantheine, and speciogynine, may play a role in kratom’s analgesic and psychoactive effects. Animal studies have demonstrated antimuscarinic properties in these compounds, but the properties do not seem to have any demonstrable effect at the opioid receptors.²

Intoxication and Withdrawal

Due to its increasing worldwide popularity, it is now imperative for EPs to be aware of the presentation of patients with kratom abuse as well as the management of withdrawal in light of its dependence potential. However, large-scale studies have not been performed, and much of the evidence comes not from the medical literature but from Web sites such as Erowid or SageWisdom.^2,5-9 To that end, such information will be discussed along with the limited research and expert consensuses available in peer-reviewed medical literature.

Kratom seems to have dose-dependent effects. At low doses (1-5 g of raw crushed leaves), kratom abusers often report a mild energizing effect, thought to be secondary to the stimulant properties of kratom’s multiple alkaloids. Users have reported mild euphoria and highs similar to those of the abuse of methylphenidate or modafinil.^2,9,10 Also similar to abuse of those substances, users have reported anxiety, irritability, and aggressiveness as a result of the stimulant-like effects.

At moderate-to-high doses (5-15 g of raw crushed leaves), it is believed that the mu-opiate receptor agonism overtakes the stimulant effects, leading to the euphoria, relaxation, and analgesia seen with conventional opioid use and abuse.^2,10 In light of the drug’s substantial binding and agonism of all opioid receptors, constipation and itching also are seen.² As such, if an individual is intoxicated, he or she should be managed with supportive and symptomatic care and continuous monitoring of heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation.^2,10 Kratom intoxication can precipitate psychotic episodes similar to those caused by opiate intoxication, so monitoring for agitation or psychotic behaviors is also indicated.^9,10

The medical management of a patient with an acute kratom overdose (typically requiring ingestion of >15 g of crushed leaves) begins with addressing airway support, breathing, and circulation along with continuous vital sign monitoring and laboratory testing, including POC glucose testing, complete blood count, electrolytes, lactate, venous blood gas, and measurable drug levels (ethanol, acetaminophen, tricyclic antidepressants, as indicated).¹¹ If it is determined that kratom was the intoxicant, the greatest concern of death is similar to that of opioid overdose: respiratory depression. Although there are no large-scale human studies demonstrating efficacy, multiple authors suggest the use of naloxone in kratom-related hypoventilation.^9,10

The development of dependence on kratom and its subsequent withdrawal phenomena are thought to be similar to that of opioids, in light of its strong mu agonism.^2,5,9,10 Indeed, kratom has a long history of being used by opioid-dependent patients as an attempt to quit drug abuse or stave off debilitating withdrawal symptoms when they are unable to acquire their substance of choice.^2,5-10 As such, withdrawal and the treatment thereof will also mimic that of opioid withdrawal.

The kratom-dependent individual will often present with rhinorrhea, lacrimation, dry mouth, hostility, aggression, and emotional lability similar to the case study described earlier.^2,9,10 Kratom withdrawal, much like intoxication, also may precipitate or worsen psychotic symptoms, and monitoring is necessary throughout the detoxification process.^2,5,10 Withdrawal management should proceed along ambulatory clinic or hospital opioid withdrawal protocols that include step-down administration of opioids or with nonopioid medications for symptomatic relief, including muscle relaxants, alpha-2 agonists, and antidiarrheal agents.^5,9,10

Kratom Toxicity

A review of the available medical literature has demonstrated a number of toxic effects with kratom abuse, either as the sole agent or in concert with prescribed medications, recreational coingestants, or as a result of manufacturer’s adulteration with other chemicals or drugs. Of particular interest to EPs are manic or psychotic episode precipitation, seizure, hypothyroidism, intrahepatic cholestatic injury, and even sudden cardiac death.^2,3,5-10 In addition to the basic history, physical, and laboratory examination, the workup of patients identified as kratom users should include the following:

• Fastidious medication reconciliation with drug-interaction check;
• Exhaustive substance abuse history;
• Identification of the brand name and source of kratom purchased, to determine whether there are advertised coingestants or reports of adulteration;
• Electrocardiogram;
• Thyroid function testing;
• Hepatic function testing; and
• Comprehensive neurological and mental status examinations.

In chronic users of kratom, a number of effects have been seen whose etiologies have not yet been determined. These effects include depression, anxiety, tremulousness, weight loss, and psychosis.^3-7 Additionally, a study by Kittirattanapaiboon et al¹² correlated drug use by those with concurrent mental health disorders (in particular, kratom, which was used in 59% of the ≥14,000 individuals included in the study sample) with statistically significant higher suicide risk.

Detection

Because kratom is a relatively new compound in the United States, medical and forensic laboratories are only now implementing kratom detection protocols. Many laboratories now use high-performance liquid chromatography to analyze for mitragynine, 7-hydroxymitragynine, and two metabolites of mitragynine in urine.⁷ Le et al¹³ were able to detect mitragynine in the urine in levels as low as 1 ng/mL, which is clinically useful as mitragynine has a half-life determined in animal studies to be 3.85 hours. Similar detection limits for mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine are used only at the Naval Medical Center Portsmouth in Virginia; however, kratom was not detected in the case study patient’s urine because a urine test was not done until hospital day 5.

Case Conclusion

When gently confronted about the kratom found in his car, the case study patient admitted that he had purchased kratom online after he was “cut off” from prescription opioids for his pain. He admitted that although it was beneficial for his pain, he did notice worsening in his aggression toward his spouse and coworkers. This progressed to an exacerbation of his psychotic symptoms of hallucinations and persecutory delusions. These symptoms remained well hidden—but were present for years prior to his presentation at the hospital. The patient was discharged from the inpatient psychiatric unit on hospital day 16 with a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, depressive type in addition to opioid-use disorder. The patient agreed to seek a pain management specialist and discontinue kratom use.

Conclusion

Kratom is an emerging drug of abuse in the Western world. Although significant research is being conducted on its possible medical uses, little is known about kratom beyond the “trip reports” of kratom users posted online. Because of its technically legal status in the United States and multiple other Western countries, kratom is easily accessible. Emergency physicians need to be aware of kratom, and during their evaluations, question appropriate patients about kratom and other legal highs.

Editor’s Note: This article has been adapted from an article originally published in Federal Practitioner (Clement C, Stock C. Who overdoses at a VA emergency department? Fed Prac. 2016;33[11]:14-19. http://www.fedprac.com).

Overdose deaths remain epidemic throughout the United States. The rates of unintentional overdose deaths, increasing by 137% between 2000 and 2014, have been driven by a 4-fold increase in prescription opioid overdoses during that period.^1-3

Veterans died of accidental overdose at a rate of 19.85 deaths/100,000 people compared with a rate of 10.49 deaths in the general population, based on 2005 data.⁴ There is wide state-by-state variation, with the lowest age-adjusted opioid overdose death rate of 1.9 deaths/100,000 person-years among veterans in Mississippi and the highest rate in Utah of 33.9 deaths/100,000 person-years, using 2001 to 2009 data.⁵ These data can be compared with a crude general population overdose death rate of 10.6 deaths per 100,000 person-years in Mississippi and 18.4 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the general Utah population during that same period.⁶

Overdose deaths in the United States occur most often in persons aged 25 to 54 years.⁷ Older age has been associated with iatrogenic opioid overdose in hospitalized patients.⁸ Pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and psychiatric disorders, including past or present substance use, have been associated with an increased risk of opioid overdose.⁹ However, veterans with substance use disorders are less likely to be prescribed opioids than are nonveterans with substance use disorders.¹⁰ Also, concomitant use of sedating medications, such as benzodiazepines (BZDs), can increase mortality from opioid overdose.¹¹ Patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain conditions often take BZDs for various reasons.¹² Veterans seem more likely to receive opioids to treat chronic pain but at lower average daily doses than doses prescribed to nonveterans.¹⁰

Emergency management of life-threatening opioid overdose includes prompt administration of naloxone.¹³ Naloxone is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for complete or partial reversal of opioid-induced clinical effects, most critically respiratory depression.^14,15 Naloxone administration in the ED may serve as a surrogate for an overdose event. During the study period, naloxone take-home kits were not available in the Veterans Affairs (VA) setting.

A 2010 ED study described demographic information and comorbidities in opioid overdose, but the study did not include veterans.¹⁶ The clinical characteristics of veterans treated for opioid overdose have not been published. Because identifying characteristics of veterans who overdose may help tailor overdose-prevention efforts, the objective of this study is to describe clinical characteristics of veterans treated for opioid overdose.

Methods

A retrospective chart review and archived data study was approved by the University of Utah and VA Institutional Review Boards, and conducted at the George E. Wahlen Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Salt Lake City, Utah. This chart review included veterans who were admitted to the ED and treated with naloxone between January 1, 2009 and January 1, 2013. 

The authors used the Pharmacy Benefits Management Data Manager to extract data from the VA Data Warehouse and verified the data by open chart review (Table). The following data were collected: ED visit date (overdose date); demographic information, including age, gender, and race; evidence of next of kin or other contact at the same address as the veteran; diagnoses based on International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) codes, including sleep apnea, obesity, cardiac disease, pulmonary disease, mental health diagnoses (ICD-9 codes 290-302 [wild card characters (*) included many subdiagnoses]), cancer, and substance use disorders and/or dependencies (SUDD); tobacco use; VA-issued prescription opioid and BZD availability, including dose, fill dates, quantities dispensed, and day supplies; specialty of opioid prescriber; urine-drug screening (UDS) results; and outcome of the overdose. 

No standardized research criteria identify overdose in medical chart review.¹⁷ For each identified patient, the authors reviewed provider and nursing notes charted during an ED visit that included naloxone administration. The event was included as an opioid overdose when notes indicated that the veteran was unresponsive and given naloxone, which resulted in increased respirations or increased responsiveness. Cases were excluded if the reason for naloxone administration was anything other than opioid overdose.

Medical, mental health, and SUDD diagnoses were included only if the veteran had more than three patient-care encounters (PCE) with ICD-9 codes for a specific diagnosis entered by providers. A PCE used in the electronic medical record (EMR) helps collect, manage, and display outpatient encounter data, including providers, procedure codes, and diagnostic codes. Tobacco use was extracted from health factors documented during primary care visit screenings. (Health factors help capture data entered in note templates in the EMR and can be used to query trends.) A diagnosis of obesity was based on a calculated body mass index of at or greater than 30 kg/m² on the day of the ED visit date or the most recently charted height and weight. The type of SUDD was stratified into opioids (ICD-9 codes 304.0*), sedatives (ICD-9 codes 304.1*), alcohol (ICD-9 codes 303.*), and other (ICD-9 codes 304.2-305.9).

The dosage of opioids and BZDs available to a veteran was determined by using methods similar to those described by Gomes et al¹⁸: the dose of opioids and BZDs available based on prescriptions dispensed during the 120 days prior to the ED visit date and the dose available on the day of the ED visit date if prescription instructions were being followed. Prescription opioids and BZDs were converted to daily morphineequivalent dose (MED) and daily lorazepam equivalent dose (LED), using established methods.^19,20

Veterans were stratified into four groups based on prescribed medication availability: opioids only, BZDs only, opioids and BZDs, and neither opioids nor BZDs. The specialty of the opioid prescribers was categorized as primary care, pain specialist, surgeon, emergency specialist, or hospitalist (discharge prescription). Veteran EMRs contain a list of medications obtained outside the VA facility, referred to as non-VA prescriptions. These medications were not included in the analysis because accuracy could not be verified.

A study author reviewed the results of any UDS performed up to 120 days before the ED visit date to determine whether the result reflected the currently prescribed prescription medications. If the UDS was positive for the prescribed opioids and/or BZDs and for any nonprescribed drug, including alcohol, the UDS was classified as not reflective. If the prescribed BZD was alprazolam, clonazepam, or lorazepam, a BZD-positive UDS was not required for the UDS to be considered reflective because of the sensitivity of the UDS BZD immunoassay used at the George E. Wahlen VAMC clinical laboratory.²¹

Outcomes of the overdose were categorized as discharged, hospitalized, or deceased. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel. Group comparisons were performed using Pearson chi-square or Student t test.

Results

The ED at the George E. Wahlen VAMC averages 64 visits per day, almost 94,000 visits within the study period. One hundred seventy ED visits between January 1, 2009 and January 1, 2013, involved naloxone administration. Ninety-two visits met the inclusion criteria of opioid overdose, representing about 0.002% of all ED visits at this facility (Figure 1). Six veterans had multiple ED visits within the study period, including four veterans who were in the opioid-only group.

The majority of veterans in this study were non-Hispanic white (n = 83, 90%), male (n = 88, 96%), with a mean age of 63 years. Less than 40% listed a next of kin or contact person living at their address.

Based on prescriptions available within 120 days before the overdose, 67 veterans (73%) possessed opioid and/or BZD prescriptions. In this group, the MED available on the day of the ED visit ranged from 7.5 mg to 830 mg. The MED was less than or equal to 200 mg in 71.6% and less than or equal to 50 mg in 34.3% of these cases. Veterans prescribed both opioids and BZDs had higher MED (average, 259 mg) available within 120 days of the ED visit than did those prescribed opioids only (average, 118 mg) (P = .015; standard deviation [SD], 132.9). The LED ranged from 1 mg to 12 mg for veterans with available BZDs.

Based on prescriptions available on the day of opioid overdose, 53 veterans (58%) had opioid prescriptions. The ranges of MED and LED available on the day of overdose were the same as the 120-day availability period. The average MED was 183 mg in veterans prescribed both opioids and BZDs and 126 mg in those prescribed opioids only (P = .283; SD, 168.65; Figure 2). The time between the last opioid fill date and the overdose visit date averaged 20 days (range, 0 to 28 days) in veterans prescribed opioids.

Discussion

This retrospective review identified 92 veterans who were treated with naloxone in the ED for opioid overdose during a 4-year period at the George E. Wahlen VAMC. Seventy-eight cases were excluded because the reason entered in charts for naloxone administration was itching, constipation, altered mental status, or unclear documentation.

Veterans in this study were, on average, older than the overdose fatalities in the United States. Opioid-overdose deaths in all US states and in Utah alone occur most frequently in non-Hispanic white men aged between 35 and 54 years.^7,22,23 In the 2010 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample of 136,000 opioid overdoses, of which 98% survived, most were aged 18 to 54 years.¹⁶ The older age in this study most likely reflects the age range of veterans served in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA); however, as more young veterans enter the VHA, the age range of overdose victims may more closely resemble the age ranges found in previous studies. Post hoc analysis showed eight veterans (9%) with probable intentional opioid overdose based on chart review, whereas the incidence of intentional prescription drug overdose in the United States is 17.1%.²⁴

In Utah, almost 93% of fatal overdoses occur at a residential location.²² Less than half of the veterans in this study had a contact or next of kin listed as living at the same address. Although veterans may not have identified someone living with them, in many cases, it is likely another person witnessed the overdose. Relying on EMRs to identify who should receive prevention education in addition to the veteran, may result in missed opportunities to include another person likely to witness an overdose.²⁵ Prescribers should make a conscious effort to ask veterans to identify someone who may be able to assist with rescue efforts in the event of an overdose.

Diagnoses associated with increased risk of opioid-overdose death include sleep apnea, morbid obesity, pulmonary disease or CVD, and/or a history of psychiatric disorders and SUDD.^8,9,16 In a large sample of older veterans, only 64% had at least one medical or psychiatric diagnosis.²⁶ Less than half of the 18,000 VA primary care patients in five VA centers had any psychiatric condition, and less than 65% had CVD, pulmonary disease, or cancer.²⁷ All veterans in this study had medical and psychiatric comorbidity.

In contrast, a large ED sample described by Yokell et al¹⁶ found chronic mental conditions in 33.9%, circulatory disorders in 29.1%, and respiratory conditions in 25.6% of their sample. Bohnert et al⁹ found a significantly elevated hazard ratio (HR) for any psychiatric disorder in a sample of nearly 4,500 veterans. There was variation in the HR when individual psychiatric diagnoses were broken out, with bipolar disorder having the largest HR and schizophrenia having the lowest but still elevated HR.⁹ In this study, individual diagnoses were not broken out because the smaller sample size could diminish the clinical significance of any apparent differences.

Edlund et al¹⁰ found that less than 8% of veterans treated with opioids for chronic noncancer pain had nonopioid SUDD. Bohnert et al⁹ found an HR of 21.95 for overdose death among those with opioid-use disorders. The sample in this study had a much higher incidence of nonopioid SUDD compared with that of the study by Edlund et al,¹⁰ but none of the veterans in this study had a documented history of opioid-use disorder. The absence of opioid-use disorders in this sample is unexpected and points to a need for providers to screen for opioid-use disorder whenever opioids are prescribed or renewed. If prevention practices were directed only to those with opioid SUDDs, none of the veterans in this study would have been included in those efforts. Non-SUDD providers should address the risks of opioid overdose in veterans with sleep apnea, morbid obesity, pulmonary disease or CVD, and/or a history of psychiatric disorders.

Gomes et al¹⁸ found that greater than 100 mg MED available on the day of overdose doubled the risk of opioid-related mortality. The VA/Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline for Management of Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain identifies 200 mg MED as a threshold to define high-dose opioid therapy.²⁸ Fulton-Kehoe et al²⁹ found that 28% of overdose victims were prescribed less than 50 mg MED. In this study, the average dose available to veterans was greater than 100 mg MED; however, one-third of all study veterans had less than 50 mg MED available. Using a threshold dose of 50 mg MED to target prevention efforts would capture only two-thirds of those who experienced overdose; a 200-mg MED threshold would exclude the majority, based on the average MED in each group in this study. Overdose education should be provided to veterans with access to opioids, regardless of dose.

Use of BZDs with opioids may result in greater central nervous system (CNS) depression, pharmacokinetic interactions, or pharmacodynamic interactions at the µ- opioid receptor.^30-32 About one-third of veterans in this study were prescribed opioids and BZDs concurrently, a combination noted in about 33% of opioid overdose deaths reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.²⁴ Individuals taking methadone combined with BZDs have been found to have severe medical outcomes.³³ If preventive efforts are targeted to those receiving opioids and other CNS depressants, such as BZDs, about half (42%) of the veterans in this study would not receive a potentially life-saving message about preventing overdoses. All veterans with opioids should be educated about the additional risk of overdose posed by drug interactions with other CNS depressants.

The time since the last fill of an opioid prescription ranged from 0 to 28 days. This time frame indicates that some overdoses may have occurred on the day an opioid was filled but most occurred near the end of the expected days’ supply. Because information about adherence or use of the opioid was not studied, it cannot be assumed that medication misuse is the primary reason for the overdose. Providing prevention efforts only at the time of medication dispensing would be insufficient. Clinicians should review local and remote prescription data, including via their states’ prescription drug monitoring program, when discussing the risk of overdose with veterans.

Most veterans had at least one UDS result in the chart. Although half the UDSs obtained reflected prescribed medications, the possibility of aberrant behaviors, which increases the risk of overdose, cannot be ruled out with the methods used in this study.³⁴ Medication management agreements that require UDSs for veterans with chronic pain were not mandatory at the George E. Wahlen VAMC during the study period, and those used did not mandate discontinuation of opioid therapy if suspected aberrant behaviors were present.

A Utah study based on interviews of overdose victims’ next of kin found that 76% were concerned about victims’ aberrant behaviors, such as medication misuse, prior to the death.²² In contrast, a study of commercial and Medicaid recipients estimated medication misuse rates in at or less than 30% of the sample.³⁵ Urine-drug screening results not reflective of the prescribed regimens have been found in up to 50% of patients receiving chronic opioid therapy.

The UDS findings in this study were determined by the authors and did not capture clinical decisions or interpretations made after results were available or whether these decisions resulted in overdose-prevention strategies, such as targeted education or changes in prescription availability. Targeting preventive efforts toward veterans only with UDS results suggesting medication misuse would have missed more than half the veterans in this study. Urine-drug screening should be used as a clinical monitoring tool whenever opioids, BZDs, or other substances are used or prescribed.

The VA now has a nationwide program, Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND), promoting overdose education and take-home naloxone distribution for providers and patients to prevent opioid-related overdose deaths. A national SharePoint site has been created within the VA that lists resources to support this effort.

Almost all veterans in this review survived the overdose and were hospitalized following the ED visit. Other investigators also have found that the majority (51% to 98%) of overdose victims reaching the ED survived, but fewer patients (3% to 51%) in those studies were hospitalized.^16,36 It is unknown whether there are differences in risk factors associated with survived or fatal overdoses.

Limitations

Although Utah ranked third for drug-overdose death rates in 2008 and had the highest death rate among veterans from 2001 to 2009, this review captured only overdoses among veterans treated during the study period at the George E. Wahlen VAMC ED.^5,6 The number and characteristics of veterans during this same period who were treated for overdose in other community EDs or urgent care centers throughout Utah is unknown.

The definition of opioid and BZD dose available in this study may not represent actual use of opioids or BZDs because it was based on chart review of prescription dispensing information and UDS procedures at the George E. Wahlen VAMC, and medication misuse cannot be ruled out. This study did not evaluate specific aberrant behaviors.

Conclusion

Current overdose-prevention screening efforts primarily identify patients on high-dose opioids and those with SUDD. Many veterans in this study were older than the average US victims’ age, did not have SUDD, were prescribed opioid doses not considered high risk by current guidelines, were nearer the end of their medication supply, and had UDS reflective of prescribed medications. This study suggests that any veteran with access to opioids, whether prescribed or not, is at risk for an opioid overdose. Established risk factors may aid in developing overdose-prevention programs, but prevention should not be limited to veterans with prescribed opioids and known risk factors. Clinicians should screen patients for opioid-use disorder whenever opioids are prescribed and continue to screen them throughout therapy. Broader screening for overdose risk is needed to avoid missing important opportunities for overdose prevention.

Acknowledgments

Gale Anderson, VISN 19 PBM Data Manager, performed initial data query for the study.

Editor’s Note: This article has been adapted from an article originally published in Federal Practitioner (Clement C, Stock C. Who overdoses at a VA emergency department? Fed Prac. 2016;33[11]:14-19. http://www.fedprac.com).

Overdose deaths remain epidemic throughout the United States. The rates of unintentional overdose deaths, increasing by 137% between 2000 and 2014, have been driven by a 4-fold increase in prescription opioid overdoses during that period.^1-3

Veterans died of accidental overdose at a rate of 19.85 deaths/100,000 people compared with a rate of 10.49 deaths in the general population, based on 2005 data.⁴ There is wide state-by-state variation, with the lowest age-adjusted opioid overdose death rate of 1.9 deaths/100,000 person-years among veterans in Mississippi and the highest rate in Utah of 33.9 deaths/100,000 person-years, using 2001 to 2009 data.⁵ These data can be compared with a crude general population overdose death rate of 10.6 deaths per 100,000 person-years in Mississippi and 18.4 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the general Utah population during that same period.⁶

Overdose deaths in the United States occur most often in persons aged 25 to 54 years.⁷ Older age has been associated with iatrogenic opioid overdose in hospitalized patients.⁸ Pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and psychiatric disorders, including past or present substance use, have been associated with an increased risk of opioid overdose.⁹ However, veterans with substance use disorders are less likely to be prescribed opioids than are nonveterans with substance use disorders.¹⁰ Also, concomitant use of sedating medications, such as benzodiazepines (BZDs), can increase mortality from opioid overdose.¹¹ Patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain conditions often take BZDs for various reasons.¹² Veterans seem more likely to receive opioids to treat chronic pain but at lower average daily doses than doses prescribed to nonveterans.¹⁰

Emergency management of life-threatening opioid overdose includes prompt administration of naloxone.¹³ Naloxone is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for complete or partial reversal of opioid-induced clinical effects, most critically respiratory depression.^14,15 Naloxone administration in the ED may serve as a surrogate for an overdose event. During the study period, naloxone take-home kits were not available in the Veterans Affairs (VA) setting.

A 2010 ED study described demographic information and comorbidities in opioid overdose, but the study did not include veterans.¹⁶ The clinical characteristics of veterans treated for opioid overdose have not been published. Because identifying characteristics of veterans who overdose may help tailor overdose-prevention efforts, the objective of this study is to describe clinical characteristics of veterans treated for opioid overdose.

Methods

A retrospective chart review and archived data study was approved by the University of Utah and VA Institutional Review Boards, and conducted at the George E. Wahlen Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Salt Lake City, Utah. This chart review included veterans who were admitted to the ED and treated with naloxone between January 1, 2009 and January 1, 2013. 

The authors used the Pharmacy Benefits Management Data Manager to extract data from the VA Data Warehouse and verified the data by open chart review (Table). The following data were collected: ED visit date (overdose date); demographic information, including age, gender, and race; evidence of next of kin or other contact at the same address as the veteran; diagnoses based on International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) codes, including sleep apnea, obesity, cardiac disease, pulmonary disease, mental health diagnoses (ICD-9 codes 290-302 [wild card characters (*) included many subdiagnoses]), cancer, and substance use disorders and/or dependencies (SUDD); tobacco use; VA-issued prescription opioid and BZD availability, including dose, fill dates, quantities dispensed, and day supplies; specialty of opioid prescriber; urine-drug screening (UDS) results; and outcome of the overdose. 

No standardized research criteria identify overdose in medical chart review.¹⁷ For each identified patient, the authors reviewed provider and nursing notes charted during an ED visit that included naloxone administration. The event was included as an opioid overdose when notes indicated that the veteran was unresponsive and given naloxone, which resulted in increased respirations or increased responsiveness. Cases were excluded if the reason for naloxone administration was anything other than opioid overdose.

Medical, mental health, and SUDD diagnoses were included only if the veteran had more than three patient-care encounters (PCE) with ICD-9 codes for a specific diagnosis entered by providers. A PCE used in the electronic medical record (EMR) helps collect, manage, and display outpatient encounter data, including providers, procedure codes, and diagnostic codes. Tobacco use was extracted from health factors documented during primary care visit screenings. (Health factors help capture data entered in note templates in the EMR and can be used to query trends.) A diagnosis of obesity was based on a calculated body mass index of at or greater than 30 kg/m² on the day of the ED visit date or the most recently charted height and weight. The type of SUDD was stratified into opioids (ICD-9 codes 304.0*), sedatives (ICD-9 codes 304.1*), alcohol (ICD-9 codes 303.*), and other (ICD-9 codes 304.2-305.9).

The dosage of opioids and BZDs available to a veteran was determined by using methods similar to those described by Gomes et al¹⁸: the dose of opioids and BZDs available based on prescriptions dispensed during the 120 days prior to the ED visit date and the dose available on the day of the ED visit date if prescription instructions were being followed. Prescription opioids and BZDs were converted to daily morphineequivalent dose (MED) and daily lorazepam equivalent dose (LED), using established methods.^19,20

Veterans were stratified into four groups based on prescribed medication availability: opioids only, BZDs only, opioids and BZDs, and neither opioids nor BZDs. The specialty of the opioid prescribers was categorized as primary care, pain specialist, surgeon, emergency specialist, or hospitalist (discharge prescription). Veteran EMRs contain a list of medications obtained outside the VA facility, referred to as non-VA prescriptions. These medications were not included in the analysis because accuracy could not be verified.

A study author reviewed the results of any UDS performed up to 120 days before the ED visit date to determine whether the result reflected the currently prescribed prescription medications. If the UDS was positive for the prescribed opioids and/or BZDs and for any nonprescribed drug, including alcohol, the UDS was classified as not reflective. If the prescribed BZD was alprazolam, clonazepam, or lorazepam, a BZD-positive UDS was not required for the UDS to be considered reflective because of the sensitivity of the UDS BZD immunoassay used at the George E. Wahlen VAMC clinical laboratory.²¹

Outcomes of the overdose were categorized as discharged, hospitalized, or deceased. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel. Group comparisons were performed using Pearson chi-square or Student t test.

Results

The ED at the George E. Wahlen VAMC averages 64 visits per day, almost 94,000 visits within the study period. One hundred seventy ED visits between January 1, 2009 and January 1, 2013, involved naloxone administration. Ninety-two visits met the inclusion criteria of opioid overdose, representing about 0.002% of all ED visits at this facility (Figure 1). Six veterans had multiple ED visits within the study period, including four veterans who were in the opioid-only group.

The majority of veterans in this study were non-Hispanic white (n = 83, 90%), male (n = 88, 96%), with a mean age of 63 years. Less than 40% listed a next of kin or contact person living at their address.

Based on prescriptions available within 120 days before the overdose, 67 veterans (73%) possessed opioid and/or BZD prescriptions. In this group, the MED available on the day of the ED visit ranged from 7.5 mg to 830 mg. The MED was less than or equal to 200 mg in 71.6% and less than or equal to 50 mg in 34.3% of these cases. Veterans prescribed both opioids and BZDs had higher MED (average, 259 mg) available within 120 days of the ED visit than did those prescribed opioids only (average, 118 mg) (P = .015; standard deviation [SD], 132.9). The LED ranged from 1 mg to 12 mg for veterans with available BZDs.

Based on prescriptions available on the day of opioid overdose, 53 veterans (58%) had opioid prescriptions. The ranges of MED and LED available on the day of overdose were the same as the 120-day availability period. The average MED was 183 mg in veterans prescribed both opioids and BZDs and 126 mg in those prescribed opioids only (P = .283; SD, 168.65; Figure 2). The time between the last opioid fill date and the overdose visit date averaged 20 days (range, 0 to 28 days) in veterans prescribed opioids.

Discussion

This retrospective review identified 92 veterans who were treated with naloxone in the ED for opioid overdose during a 4-year period at the George E. Wahlen VAMC. Seventy-eight cases were excluded because the reason entered in charts for naloxone administration was itching, constipation, altered mental status, or unclear documentation.

Veterans in this study were, on average, older than the overdose fatalities in the United States. Opioid-overdose deaths in all US states and in Utah alone occur most frequently in non-Hispanic white men aged between 35 and 54 years.^7,22,23 In the 2010 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample of 136,000 opioid overdoses, of which 98% survived, most were aged 18 to 54 years.¹⁶ The older age in this study most likely reflects the age range of veterans served in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA); however, as more young veterans enter the VHA, the age range of overdose victims may more closely resemble the age ranges found in previous studies. Post hoc analysis showed eight veterans (9%) with probable intentional opioid overdose based on chart review, whereas the incidence of intentional prescription drug overdose in the United States is 17.1%.²⁴

In Utah, almost 93% of fatal overdoses occur at a residential location.²² Less than half of the veterans in this study had a contact or next of kin listed as living at the same address. Although veterans may not have identified someone living with them, in many cases, it is likely another person witnessed the overdose. Relying on EMRs to identify who should receive prevention education in addition to the veteran, may result in missed opportunities to include another person likely to witness an overdose.²⁵ Prescribers should make a conscious effort to ask veterans to identify someone who may be able to assist with rescue efforts in the event of an overdose.

Diagnoses associated with increased risk of opioid-overdose death include sleep apnea, morbid obesity, pulmonary disease or CVD, and/or a history of psychiatric disorders and SUDD.^8,9,16 In a large sample of older veterans, only 64% had at least one medical or psychiatric diagnosis.²⁶ Less than half of the 18,000 VA primary care patients in five VA centers had any psychiatric condition, and less than 65% had CVD, pulmonary disease, or cancer.²⁷ All veterans in this study had medical and psychiatric comorbidity.

In contrast, a large ED sample described by Yokell et al¹⁶ found chronic mental conditions in 33.9%, circulatory disorders in 29.1%, and respiratory conditions in 25.6% of their sample. Bohnert et al⁹ found a significantly elevated hazard ratio (HR) for any psychiatric disorder in a sample of nearly 4,500 veterans. There was variation in the HR when individual psychiatric diagnoses were broken out, with bipolar disorder having the largest HR and schizophrenia having the lowest but still elevated HR.⁹ In this study, individual diagnoses were not broken out because the smaller sample size could diminish the clinical significance of any apparent differences.

Edlund et al¹⁰ found that less than 8% of veterans treated with opioids for chronic noncancer pain had nonopioid SUDD. Bohnert et al⁹ found an HR of 21.95 for overdose death among those with opioid-use disorders. The sample in this study had a much higher incidence of nonopioid SUDD compared with that of the study by Edlund et al,¹⁰ but none of the veterans in this study had a documented history of opioid-use disorder. The absence of opioid-use disorders in this sample is unexpected and points to a need for providers to screen for opioid-use disorder whenever opioids are prescribed or renewed. If prevention practices were directed only to those with opioid SUDDs, none of the veterans in this study would have been included in those efforts. Non-SUDD providers should address the risks of opioid overdose in veterans with sleep apnea, morbid obesity, pulmonary disease or CVD, and/or a history of psychiatric disorders.

Gomes et al¹⁸ found that greater than 100 mg MED available on the day of overdose doubled the risk of opioid-related mortality. The VA/Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline for Management of Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain identifies 200 mg MED as a threshold to define high-dose opioid therapy.²⁸ Fulton-Kehoe et al²⁹ found that 28% of overdose victims were prescribed less than 50 mg MED. In this study, the average dose available to veterans was greater than 100 mg MED; however, one-third of all study veterans had less than 50 mg MED available. Using a threshold dose of 50 mg MED to target prevention efforts would capture only two-thirds of those who experienced overdose; a 200-mg MED threshold would exclude the majority, based on the average MED in each group in this study. Overdose education should be provided to veterans with access to opioids, regardless of dose.

Use of BZDs with opioids may result in greater central nervous system (CNS) depression, pharmacokinetic interactions, or pharmacodynamic interactions at the µ- opioid receptor.^30-32 About one-third of veterans in this study were prescribed opioids and BZDs concurrently, a combination noted in about 33% of opioid overdose deaths reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.²⁴ Individuals taking methadone combined with BZDs have been found to have severe medical outcomes.³³ If preventive efforts are targeted to those receiving opioids and other CNS depressants, such as BZDs, about half (42%) of the veterans in this study would not receive a potentially life-saving message about preventing overdoses. All veterans with opioids should be educated about the additional risk of overdose posed by drug interactions with other CNS depressants.

The time since the last fill of an opioid prescription ranged from 0 to 28 days. This time frame indicates that some overdoses may have occurred on the day an opioid was filled but most occurred near the end of the expected days’ supply. Because information about adherence or use of the opioid was not studied, it cannot be assumed that medication misuse is the primary reason for the overdose. Providing prevention efforts only at the time of medication dispensing would be insufficient. Clinicians should review local and remote prescription data, including via their states’ prescription drug monitoring program, when discussing the risk of overdose with veterans.

Most veterans had at least one UDS result in the chart. Although half the UDSs obtained reflected prescribed medications, the possibility of aberrant behaviors, which increases the risk of overdose, cannot be ruled out with the methods used in this study.³⁴ Medication management agreements that require UDSs for veterans with chronic pain were not mandatory at the George E. Wahlen VAMC during the study period, and those used did not mandate discontinuation of opioid therapy if suspected aberrant behaviors were present.

A Utah study based on interviews of overdose victims’ next of kin found that 76% were concerned about victims’ aberrant behaviors, such as medication misuse, prior to the death.²² In contrast, a study of commercial and Medicaid recipients estimated medication misuse rates in at or less than 30% of the sample.³⁵ Urine-drug screening results not reflective of the prescribed regimens have been found in up to 50% of patients receiving chronic opioid therapy.

The UDS findings in this study were determined by the authors and did not capture clinical decisions or interpretations made after results were available or whether these decisions resulted in overdose-prevention strategies, such as targeted education or changes in prescription availability. Targeting preventive efforts toward veterans only with UDS results suggesting medication misuse would have missed more than half the veterans in this study. Urine-drug screening should be used as a clinical monitoring tool whenever opioids, BZDs, or other substances are used or prescribed.

The VA now has a nationwide program, Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND), promoting overdose education and take-home naloxone distribution for providers and patients to prevent opioid-related overdose deaths. A national SharePoint site has been created within the VA that lists resources to support this effort.

Almost all veterans in this review survived the overdose and were hospitalized following the ED visit. Other investigators also have found that the majority (51% to 98%) of overdose victims reaching the ED survived, but fewer patients (3% to 51%) in those studies were hospitalized.^16,36 It is unknown whether there are differences in risk factors associated with survived or fatal overdoses.

Limitations

Although Utah ranked third for drug-overdose death rates in 2008 and had the highest death rate among veterans from 2001 to 2009, this review captured only overdoses among veterans treated during the study period at the George E. Wahlen VAMC ED.^5,6 The number and characteristics of veterans during this same period who were treated for overdose in other community EDs or urgent care centers throughout Utah is unknown.

The definition of opioid and BZD dose available in this study may not represent actual use of opioids or BZDs because it was based on chart review of prescription dispensing information and UDS procedures at the George E. Wahlen VAMC, and medication misuse cannot be ruled out. This study did not evaluate specific aberrant behaviors.

Conclusion

Current overdose-prevention screening efforts primarily identify patients on high-dose opioids and those with SUDD. Many veterans in this study were older than the average US victims’ age, did not have SUDD, were prescribed opioid doses not considered high risk by current guidelines, were nearer the end of their medication supply, and had UDS reflective of prescribed medications. This study suggests that any veteran with access to opioids, whether prescribed or not, is at risk for an opioid overdose. Established risk factors may aid in developing overdose-prevention programs, but prevention should not be limited to veterans with prescribed opioids and known risk factors. Clinicians should screen patients for opioid-use disorder whenever opioids are prescribed and continue to screen them throughout therapy. Broader screening for overdose risk is needed to avoid missing important opportunities for overdose prevention.

Acknowledgments

Gale Anderson, VISN 19 PBM Data Manager, performed initial data query for the study.

Editor’s Note: This article has been adapted from an article originally published in Federal Practitioner (Clement C, Stock C. Who overdoses at a VA emergency department? Fed Prac. 2016;33[11]:14-19. http://www.fedprac.com).

Overdose deaths remain epidemic throughout the United States. The rates of unintentional overdose deaths, increasing by 137% between 2000 and 2014, have been driven by a 4-fold increase in prescription opioid overdoses during that period.^1-3

Veterans died of accidental overdose at a rate of 19.85 deaths/100,000 people compared with a rate of 10.49 deaths in the general population, based on 2005 data.⁴ There is wide state-by-state variation, with the lowest age-adjusted opioid overdose death rate of 1.9 deaths/100,000 person-years among veterans in Mississippi and the highest rate in Utah of 33.9 deaths/100,000 person-years, using 2001 to 2009 data.⁵ These data can be compared with a crude general population overdose death rate of 10.6 deaths per 100,000 person-years in Mississippi and 18.4 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the general Utah population during that same period.⁶

Overdose deaths in the United States occur most often in persons aged 25 to 54 years.⁷ Older age has been associated with iatrogenic opioid overdose in hospitalized patients.⁸ Pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and psychiatric disorders, including past or present substance use, have been associated with an increased risk of opioid overdose.⁹ However, veterans with substance use disorders are less likely to be prescribed opioids than are nonveterans with substance use disorders.¹⁰ Also, concomitant use of sedating medications, such as benzodiazepines (BZDs), can increase mortality from opioid overdose.¹¹ Patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain conditions often take BZDs for various reasons.¹² Veterans seem more likely to receive opioids to treat chronic pain but at lower average daily doses than doses prescribed to nonveterans.¹⁰

Emergency management of life-threatening opioid overdose includes prompt administration of naloxone.¹³ Naloxone is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for complete or partial reversal of opioid-induced clinical effects, most critically respiratory depression.^14,15 Naloxone administration in the ED may serve as a surrogate for an overdose event. During the study period, naloxone take-home kits were not available in the Veterans Affairs (VA) setting.

A 2010 ED study described demographic information and comorbidities in opioid overdose, but the study did not include veterans.¹⁶ The clinical characteristics of veterans treated for opioid overdose have not been published. Because identifying characteristics of veterans who overdose may help tailor overdose-prevention efforts, the objective of this study is to describe clinical characteristics of veterans treated for opioid overdose.

Methods

A retrospective chart review and archived data study was approved by the University of Utah and VA Institutional Review Boards, and conducted at the George E. Wahlen Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Salt Lake City, Utah. This chart review included veterans who were admitted to the ED and treated with naloxone between January 1, 2009 and January 1, 2013. 

The authors used the Pharmacy Benefits Management Data Manager to extract data from the VA Data Warehouse and verified the data by open chart review (Table). The following data were collected: ED visit date (overdose date); demographic information, including age, gender, and race; evidence of next of kin or other contact at the same address as the veteran; diagnoses based on International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) codes, including sleep apnea, obesity, cardiac disease, pulmonary disease, mental health diagnoses (ICD-9 codes 290-302 [wild card characters (*) included many subdiagnoses]), cancer, and substance use disorders and/or dependencies (SUDD); tobacco use; VA-issued prescription opioid and BZD availability, including dose, fill dates, quantities dispensed, and day supplies; specialty of opioid prescriber; urine-drug screening (UDS) results; and outcome of the overdose. 

No standardized research criteria identify overdose in medical chart review.¹⁷ For each identified patient, the authors reviewed provider and nursing notes charted during an ED visit that included naloxone administration. The event was included as an opioid overdose when notes indicated that the veteran was unresponsive and given naloxone, which resulted in increased respirations or increased responsiveness. Cases were excluded if the reason for naloxone administration was anything other than opioid overdose.

Medical, mental health, and SUDD diagnoses were included only if the veteran had more than three patient-care encounters (PCE) with ICD-9 codes for a specific diagnosis entered by providers. A PCE used in the electronic medical record (EMR) helps collect, manage, and display outpatient encounter data, including providers, procedure codes, and diagnostic codes. Tobacco use was extracted from health factors documented during primary care visit screenings. (Health factors help capture data entered in note templates in the EMR and can be used to query trends.) A diagnosis of obesity was based on a calculated body mass index of at or greater than 30 kg/m² on the day of the ED visit date or the most recently charted height and weight. The type of SUDD was stratified into opioids (ICD-9 codes 304.0*), sedatives (ICD-9 codes 304.1*), alcohol (ICD-9 codes 303.*), and other (ICD-9 codes 304.2-305.9).

The dosage of opioids and BZDs available to a veteran was determined by using methods similar to those described by Gomes et al¹⁸: the dose of opioids and BZDs available based on prescriptions dispensed during the 120 days prior to the ED visit date and the dose available on the day of the ED visit date if prescription instructions were being followed. Prescription opioids and BZDs were converted to daily morphineequivalent dose (MED) and daily lorazepam equivalent dose (LED), using established methods.^19,20

Veterans were stratified into four groups based on prescribed medication availability: opioids only, BZDs only, opioids and BZDs, and neither opioids nor BZDs. The specialty of the opioid prescribers was categorized as primary care, pain specialist, surgeon, emergency specialist, or hospitalist (discharge prescription). Veteran EMRs contain a list of medications obtained outside the VA facility, referred to as non-VA prescriptions. These medications were not included in the analysis because accuracy could not be verified.

A study author reviewed the results of any UDS performed up to 120 days before the ED visit date to determine whether the result reflected the currently prescribed prescription medications. If the UDS was positive for the prescribed opioids and/or BZDs and for any nonprescribed drug, including alcohol, the UDS was classified as not reflective. If the prescribed BZD was alprazolam, clonazepam, or lorazepam, a BZD-positive UDS was not required for the UDS to be considered reflective because of the sensitivity of the UDS BZD immunoassay used at the George E. Wahlen VAMC clinical laboratory.²¹

Outcomes of the overdose were categorized as discharged, hospitalized, or deceased. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel. Group comparisons were performed using Pearson chi-square or Student t test.

Results

The ED at the George E. Wahlen VAMC averages 64 visits per day, almost 94,000 visits within the study period. One hundred seventy ED visits between January 1, 2009 and January 1, 2013, involved naloxone administration. Ninety-two visits met the inclusion criteria of opioid overdose, representing about 0.002% of all ED visits at this facility (Figure 1). Six veterans had multiple ED visits within the study period, including four veterans who were in the opioid-only group.

The majority of veterans in this study were non-Hispanic white (n = 83, 90%), male (n = 88, 96%), with a mean age of 63 years. Less than 40% listed a next of kin or contact person living at their address.

Based on prescriptions available within 120 days before the overdose, 67 veterans (73%) possessed opioid and/or BZD prescriptions. In this group, the MED available on the day of the ED visit ranged from 7.5 mg to 830 mg. The MED was less than or equal to 200 mg in 71.6% and less than or equal to 50 mg in 34.3% of these cases. Veterans prescribed both opioids and BZDs had higher MED (average, 259 mg) available within 120 days of the ED visit than did those prescribed opioids only (average, 118 mg) (P = .015; standard deviation [SD], 132.9). The LED ranged from 1 mg to 12 mg for veterans with available BZDs.

Based on prescriptions available on the day of opioid overdose, 53 veterans (58%) had opioid prescriptions. The ranges of MED and LED available on the day of overdose were the same as the 120-day availability period. The average MED was 183 mg in veterans prescribed both opioids and BZDs and 126 mg in those prescribed opioids only (P = .283; SD, 168.65; Figure 2). The time between the last opioid fill date and the overdose visit date averaged 20 days (range, 0 to 28 days) in veterans prescribed opioids.

Discussion

This retrospective review identified 92 veterans who were treated with naloxone in the ED for opioid overdose during a 4-year period at the George E. Wahlen VAMC. Seventy-eight cases were excluded because the reason entered in charts for naloxone administration was itching, constipation, altered mental status, or unclear documentation.

Veterans in this study were, on average, older than the overdose fatalities in the United States. Opioid-overdose deaths in all US states and in Utah alone occur most frequently in non-Hispanic white men aged between 35 and 54 years.^7,22,23 In the 2010 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample of 136,000 opioid overdoses, of which 98% survived, most were aged 18 to 54 years.¹⁶ The older age in this study most likely reflects the age range of veterans served in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA); however, as more young veterans enter the VHA, the age range of overdose victims may more closely resemble the age ranges found in previous studies. Post hoc analysis showed eight veterans (9%) with probable intentional opioid overdose based on chart review, whereas the incidence of intentional prescription drug overdose in the United States is 17.1%.²⁴

In Utah, almost 93% of fatal overdoses occur at a residential location.²² Less than half of the veterans in this study had a contact or next of kin listed as living at the same address. Although veterans may not have identified someone living with them, in many cases, it is likely another person witnessed the overdose. Relying on EMRs to identify who should receive prevention education in addition to the veteran, may result in missed opportunities to include another person likely to witness an overdose.²⁵ Prescribers should make a conscious effort to ask veterans to identify someone who may be able to assist with rescue efforts in the event of an overdose.

Diagnoses associated with increased risk of opioid-overdose death include sleep apnea, morbid obesity, pulmonary disease or CVD, and/or a history of psychiatric disorders and SUDD.^8,9,16 In a large sample of older veterans, only 64% had at least one medical or psychiatric diagnosis.²⁶ Less than half of the 18,000 VA primary care patients in five VA centers had any psychiatric condition, and less than 65% had CVD, pulmonary disease, or cancer.²⁷ All veterans in this study had medical and psychiatric comorbidity.

In contrast, a large ED sample described by Yokell et al¹⁶ found chronic mental conditions in 33.9%, circulatory disorders in 29.1%, and respiratory conditions in 25.6% of their sample. Bohnert et al⁹ found a significantly elevated hazard ratio (HR) for any psychiatric disorder in a sample of nearly 4,500 veterans. There was variation in the HR when individual psychiatric diagnoses were broken out, with bipolar disorder having the largest HR and schizophrenia having the lowest but still elevated HR.⁹ In this study, individual diagnoses were not broken out because the smaller sample size could diminish the clinical significance of any apparent differences.

Edlund et al¹⁰ found that less than 8% of veterans treated with opioids for chronic noncancer pain had nonopioid SUDD. Bohnert et al⁹ found an HR of 21.95 for overdose death among those with opioid-use disorders. The sample in this study had a much higher incidence of nonopioid SUDD compared with that of the study by Edlund et al,¹⁰ but none of the veterans in this study had a documented history of opioid-use disorder. The absence of opioid-use disorders in this sample is unexpected and points to a need for providers to screen for opioid-use disorder whenever opioids are prescribed or renewed. If prevention practices were directed only to those with opioid SUDDs, none of the veterans in this study would have been included in those efforts. Non-SUDD providers should address the risks of opioid overdose in veterans with sleep apnea, morbid obesity, pulmonary disease or CVD, and/or a history of psychiatric disorders.

Gomes et al¹⁸ found that greater than 100 mg MED available on the day of overdose doubled the risk of opioid-related mortality. The VA/Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline for Management of Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain identifies 200 mg MED as a threshold to define high-dose opioid therapy.²⁸ Fulton-Kehoe et al²⁹ found that 28% of overdose victims were prescribed less than 50 mg MED. In this study, the average dose available to veterans was greater than 100 mg MED; however, one-third of all study veterans had less than 50 mg MED available. Using a threshold dose of 50 mg MED to target prevention efforts would capture only two-thirds of those who experienced overdose; a 200-mg MED threshold would exclude the majority, based on the average MED in each group in this study. Overdose education should be provided to veterans with access to opioids, regardless of dose.

Use of BZDs with opioids may result in greater central nervous system (CNS) depression, pharmacokinetic interactions, or pharmacodynamic interactions at the µ- opioid receptor.^30-32 About one-third of veterans in this study were prescribed opioids and BZDs concurrently, a combination noted in about 33% of opioid overdose deaths reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.²⁴ Individuals taking methadone combined with BZDs have been found to have severe medical outcomes.³³ If preventive efforts are targeted to those receiving opioids and other CNS depressants, such as BZDs, about half (42%) of the veterans in this study would not receive a potentially life-saving message about preventing overdoses. All veterans with opioids should be educated about the additional risk of overdose posed by drug interactions with other CNS depressants.

The time since the last fill of an opioid prescription ranged from 0 to 28 days. This time frame indicates that some overdoses may have occurred on the day an opioid was filled but most occurred near the end of the expected days’ supply. Because information about adherence or use of the opioid was not studied, it cannot be assumed that medication misuse is the primary reason for the overdose. Providing prevention efforts only at the time of medication dispensing would be insufficient. Clinicians should review local and remote prescription data, including via their states’ prescription drug monitoring program, when discussing the risk of overdose with veterans.

Most veterans had at least one UDS result in the chart. Although half the UDSs obtained reflected prescribed medications, the possibility of aberrant behaviors, which increases the risk of overdose, cannot be ruled out with the methods used in this study.³⁴ Medication management agreements that require UDSs for veterans with chronic pain were not mandatory at the George E. Wahlen VAMC during the study period, and those used did not mandate discontinuation of opioid therapy if suspected aberrant behaviors were present.

A Utah study based on interviews of overdose victims’ next of kin found that 76% were concerned about victims’ aberrant behaviors, such as medication misuse, prior to the death.²² In contrast, a study of commercial and Medicaid recipients estimated medication misuse rates in at or less than 30% of the sample.³⁵ Urine-drug screening results not reflective of the prescribed regimens have been found in up to 50% of patients receiving chronic opioid therapy.

The UDS findings in this study were determined by the authors and did not capture clinical decisions or interpretations made after results were available or whether these decisions resulted in overdose-prevention strategies, such as targeted education or changes in prescription availability. Targeting preventive efforts toward veterans only with UDS results suggesting medication misuse would have missed more than half the veterans in this study. Urine-drug screening should be used as a clinical monitoring tool whenever opioids, BZDs, or other substances are used or prescribed.

The VA now has a nationwide program, Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND), promoting overdose education and take-home naloxone distribution for providers and patients to prevent opioid-related overdose deaths. A national SharePoint site has been created within the VA that lists resources to support this effort.

Almost all veterans in this review survived the overdose and were hospitalized following the ED visit. Other investigators also have found that the majority (51% to 98%) of overdose victims reaching the ED survived, but fewer patients (3% to 51%) in those studies were hospitalized.^16,36 It is unknown whether there are differences in risk factors associated with survived or fatal overdoses.

Limitations

Although Utah ranked third for drug-overdose death rates in 2008 and had the highest death rate among veterans from 2001 to 2009, this review captured only overdoses among veterans treated during the study period at the George E. Wahlen VAMC ED.^5,6 The number and characteristics of veterans during this same period who were treated for overdose in other community EDs or urgent care centers throughout Utah is unknown.

The definition of opioid and BZD dose available in this study may not represent actual use of opioids or BZDs because it was based on chart review of prescription dispensing information and UDS procedures at the George E. Wahlen VAMC, and medication misuse cannot be ruled out. This study did not evaluate specific aberrant behaviors.

Conclusion

Current overdose-prevention screening efforts primarily identify patients on high-dose opioids and those with SUDD. Many veterans in this study were older than the average US victims’ age, did not have SUDD, were prescribed opioid doses not considered high risk by current guidelines, were nearer the end of their medication supply, and had UDS reflective of prescribed medications. This study suggests that any veteran with access to opioids, whether prescribed or not, is at risk for an opioid overdose. Established risk factors may aid in developing overdose-prevention programs, but prevention should not be limited to veterans with prescribed opioids and known risk factors. Clinicians should screen patients for opioid-use disorder whenever opioids are prescribed and continue to screen them throughout therapy. Broader screening for overdose risk is needed to avoid missing important opportunities for overdose prevention.

Acknowledgments

Gale Anderson, VISN 19 PBM Data Manager, performed initial data query for the study.

Case

A 2-year-old boy and his mother were referred to the ED by the child’s pediatrician after a routine venous blood lead level (BLL) taken at the boy’s recent well visit revealed an elevated lead level of 52 mcg/dL (normal range, <5 mcg/dL). The child’s mother reported that although her son had always been a picky eater, he had recently been complaining of abdominal pain.

The patient’s well-child visits had been normal until his recent 2-year checkup, at which time his pediatrician noticed some speech delay. On further history taking, the emergency physician (EP) learned the patient and his mother resided in an older home (built in the 1950s) that was in disrepair. The mother asked the EP if the elevation in the child’s BLL could be due to the drinking water in their town.

What are the most likely sources of environmental lead exposure?

In 2016, the topic of lead poisoning grabbed national attention when a pediatrician in Flint, Michigan detected an abrupt doubling of the number of children with elevated lead levels in her practice.¹ Upon further investigation, it was discovered that these kids had one thing in common: the source of their drinking water. The City of Flint had recently switched the source of its potable water from Lake Huron to the Flint River. The lower quality water, which was not properly treated with an anticorrosive agent such as orthophosphate, led to widespread pipe corrosion and lead contamination. This finding resulted in a cascade of water testing by other municipalities and school systems, many of which identified lead concentrations above the currently accepted drinking water standard of 15 parts per billion (ppb).

Thousands of children each year are identified to have elevated BLLs, based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition of a “level of concern” as more than 5 mcg/dL.² The majority of these exposures stem from environmental exposure to lead paint dust in the home, but drinking water normally contributes as a low-level, constant, “basal” exposure. While lead-contaminated drinking water is not acceptable, it is unlikely to generate many ED visits. However, there are a variety of other lead sources that may prompt children to present to the ED with acute or subacute lead poisoning.

Lead is a heavy metal whose physical properties indicate its common uses. It provides durability and opacity to pigments, which is why it is found in oil paint, house paint used before 1976, and on paint for large outdoor structures, where it is still used. Lead is also found in the pigments used in cosmetics, stained glass, and painted pottery, and as an adulterant in highly colored foodstuffs such as imported turmeric.³

The physicochemical characteristics of lead make it an ideal component of solder. Many plumbing pipes in use today are not lead, but join one another using lead solder at the joints, sites that are vulnerable to corrosion. The heavy molecular weight of lead makes it a useful component of bullets and munitions.

Tetraethyl lead was used as an “anti-knock” agent to smooth out the combustion of heterogenous compounds in automotive fuel before it was removed in the mid-1970s.⁴ Prior to its removal, leaded gasoline was the largest source of air, soil, and groundwater contamination leading to environmental exposures.⁴ At present, the most common source of environmental lead exposure among young children is through peeling paint in deteriorating residential buildings. Hazardous occupational lead exposures arise from work involving munitions, reclamation and salvage, painting, welding, and numerous other settings—particularly sites where industrial hygiene is suboptimal. Lead from these sites can be inadvertently transported home on clothing or shoes, raising the exposure risk for children in the household.⁴

What are the health effects of lead exposure?

Like most heavy metals, lead is toxic to many organ systems in the body. The signs and symptoms of lead poisoning vary depending on the patient’s BLL and age (Table 1).⁵ The most common clinical effect of lead in the adult population is hypertension.⁶ Additional renal effects include a Fanconi-type syndrome with glycosuria and proteinuria. Lead can cause a peripheral neuropathy that is predominantly motor, classically causing foot or wrist drop. Abdominal pain from lead exposure is sometimes termed “lead colic” due to its intermittent and often severe nature. Abnormalities in urate metabolism cause a gouty arthritis referred to as “saturnine gout.” ⁶

The young pediatric central nervous system (CNS) is much more vulnerable to the effects of lead than the adult CNS. Even low-level lead exposure to the developing brain causes deficits in intelligence quotient, attention, impulse control, and other neurocognitive functions that are largely irreversible.⁷

Children with an elevated BLL may also develop constipation, anorexia, pallor, and pica.⁸ The development of geophagia (subtype of pica in which one craves and ingests nonfood clay or soil-like materials), represents a “chicken-or-egg” phenomena as it both causes and results from lead poisoning.

Lead impairs multiple steps of the heme synthesis pathway, causing microcytic anemia with basophilic stippling. Lead-induced anemia exacerbates pica as anemic patients are more likely to eat leaded paint chips and other lead-containing materials such as pottery.⁸ Of note, leaded white paint is reported to have a pleasant taste due to the sweet-tasting lead acetate used as a pigment.

The most dramatic and consequential manifestation of lead poisoning is lead encephalopathy. This can occur at any age, but manifests in children at much lower BLLs than in adults. Patients can be altered or obtunded, have convulsive activity, and may develop cerebral edema. Encephalopathy is a life-threatening emergency and must be recognized and treated immediately. Lead encephalopathy should be suspected in any young child with hand-to-mouth behavior who has any of the above environmental risk factors.⁴ The findings of anemia or the other diagnostic signs described below are too unreliable and take too long to be truly helpful in making the diagnosis.

How is the diagnosis of lead poisoning made?

The gold standard for the diagnosis of lead poisoning is the measurement of BLL. However, the turnaround time for this test is usually at least 24 hours, but may take up to several days. As such, adjunctive testing can accelerate obtaining a diagnosis. A complete blood count (CBC) to evaluate for microcytic anemia may demonstrate a characteristic pattern of basophilic stippling.⁹ A protoporphyrin level—either a free erythrocyte protoporphyrin (FEP) or a zinc protoporphyrin level—will be elevated, a result of heme synthesis disruption.⁹ Urinalysis may demonstrate glycosuria or proteinuria.⁶ Hypertension is often present, even in pediatric patients.

An abdominal radiograph is essential in children to determine whether a lead foreign body, such as a paint chip, is present in the intestinal lumen. Long bone films may demonstrate “lead lines” at the metaphysis, which in fact do not reflect lead itself but abnormal calcium deposition in growing bone due to lead’s interference with bone remodeling. A computed tomography (CT) scan of the brain in patients with encephalopathy will often demonstrate cerebral edema.⁶

Of note, capillary BLLs taken via finger-stick can be falsely elevated due contamination during collection (eg, the presence of lead dust on the skin). However, this screening method is often used by clinicians in the pediatric primary care setting because of its feasibility. Elevated BLLs from capillary testing should always be followed by a BLL obtained by venipuncture.²

Case Continuation

The patient’s mother was counseled on sources of lead contamination. She was informed that although drinking water may contribute some amount to an elevated BLL, the most likely source of contamination is still lead paint found in older homes such as the one in which she and her son resided.

Diagnostic studies to support the diagnosis of lead poisoning were performed. A CBC revealed a hemoglobin of 9.8 g/dL with a mean corpuscular volume of 68 fL. A microscopic smear of blood demonstrated basophilic stippling of red blood cells. An FEP level was 386 mcg/dL. An abdominal radiograph demonstrated small radiopacities throughout the large intestine, without obstruction, which was suggestive of ingested lead paint chips.

What is the best management approach to patients with suspected lead poisoning?

The first-line treatment for patients with lead poisoning is removal from the exposure source, which first and foremost requires identification of the hazard through careful history taking and scene investigation by the local health department. This will avoid recurrent visits following successful chelation for repeat exposure to an unidentified source. Relocation to another dwelling will often be required for patients with presumed exposure until the hazard can be identified and abated.

Patients who have ingested or have embedded leaded foreign bodies will require removal via whole bowel irrigation or surgical means.

Following decontamination, chelation is required for children with a BLL more than 45 mcg/dL, and adults with CNS symptomatology and a BLL more than 70 mcg/dL. Table 2 provides guidelines for chelation therapy based on BLL.⁵

Work-up and Management in the ED

The patient with lead poisoning, while an unusual presentation in the ED, requires specialized management to minimize sequelae of exposure. Careful attention to history is vital. When in doubt, the EP should consult with her or his regional poison control center (800-222-1222) or with a medical toxicologist or other expert.

There are several scenarios in which a patient may present to the ED with lead toxicity. The following scenarios, along with their respective clinical approach strategies, represent three of the most common presentations.

Scenario 1: The Pediatric Patient With Elevated Venous Blood Lead Levels

The EP should employ the following clinical approach when evaluating and managing the pediatric patient with normal mental status whose routine screening reveals a BLL sufficiently elevated to warrant evaluation or admission—perhaps to discontinue exposure or initiate chelation therapy.

• Obtain a history, including possible lead sources; perform a complete physical examination; and obtain a repeat BLL, CBC with microscopic examination, and renal function test.
• Obtain an abdominal film to look for radiopacities, including paint chips or larger ingested foreign bodies.
• If radiopaque foreign bodies are present on abdominal radiograph, whole bowel irrigation with polyethylene glycol solution given via a nasogastric tube at 250 to 500 cc/h for a pediatric patient (1 to 2 L/h for adult patients) should be given until no residual foreign bodies remain.
• Obtain a radiograph of the long bone, which may demonstrate metaphyseal enhancement in the pediatric patient, suggesting long-term exposure.
• Ensure local or state health departments are contacted to arrange for environmental inspection of the home. This is essential prior to discharge to the home environment.
• Begin chelation therapy according to the BLL (Table 2).

Scenario 2: Adult Patients Presenting With Signs and Symptoms of Lead Toxicity

The adult patient who presents to the ED with complaints suggestive of lead poisoning and whose history is indicative of lead exposure should be evaluated and managed as follows:

• Obtain a thorough history, including the occupation and hobbies of the patient and all family members.
• Obtain vital signs to evaluate for hypertension; repeat BLL, CBC with smear, and serum creatinine test. Perform a physical examination to evaluate for lead lines.
• Obtain radiographic images, which may demonstrate a leaded foreign body, such as in the patient with prior history of gunshot wounds.
• If the BLL is sufficiently elevated or clinical findings are sufficiently severe, admit for chelation.

Scenario 3: The Pediatric or Adult Patient Presenting With Altered Mental Status

The patient presenting with altered mental status of unclear etiology—regardless of age—and in whom lead encephalopathy is a possible cause, should be worked-up and managed as follows:

• Obtain BLL, CBC, FEP levels. Consider radiographic imaging to assess for ingested or embedded foreign bodies.
• If abnormalities in the above laboratory studies are consistent with lead poisoning, initiate chelation immediately—prior to receiving repeat BLL result.
• Obtain a CT scan of the head to assess for cerebral edema.
• Provide supportive care for encephalopathy, including airway control and management of increased intracranial pressure.

Case Conclusion

The patient was admitted to the hospital for whole bowel irrigation and chelation therapy with succimer. The local health department conducted an investigation of the home and found multiple areas of peeling lead paint and lead dust, and ordered remediation of the property before it could be re-occupied by the family. A test of the home’s drinking water found no elevation above the 15 ppb standard.

The patient was discharged from the hospital in the care of his mother. They were relocated to a lead-free home, with follow-up by the pediatrician for ongoing monitoring of the BLL and developmental milestones.

Case

A 2-year-old boy and his mother were referred to the ED by the child’s pediatrician after a routine venous blood lead level (BLL) taken at the boy’s recent well visit revealed an elevated lead level of 52 mcg/dL (normal range, <5 mcg/dL). The child’s mother reported that although her son had always been a picky eater, he had recently been complaining of abdominal pain.

The patient’s well-child visits had been normal until his recent 2-year checkup, at which time his pediatrician noticed some speech delay. On further history taking, the emergency physician (EP) learned the patient and his mother resided in an older home (built in the 1950s) that was in disrepair. The mother asked the EP if the elevation in the child’s BLL could be due to the drinking water in their town.

What are the most likely sources of environmental lead exposure?

In 2016, the topic of lead poisoning grabbed national attention when a pediatrician in Flint, Michigan detected an abrupt doubling of the number of children with elevated lead levels in her practice.¹ Upon further investigation, it was discovered that these kids had one thing in common: the source of their drinking water. The City of Flint had recently switched the source of its potable water from Lake Huron to the Flint River. The lower quality water, which was not properly treated with an anticorrosive agent such as orthophosphate, led to widespread pipe corrosion and lead contamination. This finding resulted in a cascade of water testing by other municipalities and school systems, many of which identified lead concentrations above the currently accepted drinking water standard of 15 parts per billion (ppb).

Thousands of children each year are identified to have elevated BLLs, based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition of a “level of concern” as more than 5 mcg/dL.² The majority of these exposures stem from environmental exposure to lead paint dust in the home, but drinking water normally contributes as a low-level, constant, “basal” exposure. While lead-contaminated drinking water is not acceptable, it is unlikely to generate many ED visits. However, there are a variety of other lead sources that may prompt children to present to the ED with acute or subacute lead poisoning.

Lead is a heavy metal whose physical properties indicate its common uses. It provides durability and opacity to pigments, which is why it is found in oil paint, house paint used before 1976, and on paint for large outdoor structures, where it is still used. Lead is also found in the pigments used in cosmetics, stained glass, and painted pottery, and as an adulterant in highly colored foodstuffs such as imported turmeric.³

The physicochemical characteristics of lead make it an ideal component of solder. Many plumbing pipes in use today are not lead, but join one another using lead solder at the joints, sites that are vulnerable to corrosion. The heavy molecular weight of lead makes it a useful component of bullets and munitions.

Tetraethyl lead was used as an “anti-knock” agent to smooth out the combustion of heterogenous compounds in automotive fuel before it was removed in the mid-1970s.⁴ Prior to its removal, leaded gasoline was the largest source of air, soil, and groundwater contamination leading to environmental exposures.⁴ At present, the most common source of environmental lead exposure among young children is through peeling paint in deteriorating residential buildings. Hazardous occupational lead exposures arise from work involving munitions, reclamation and salvage, painting, welding, and numerous other settings—particularly sites where industrial hygiene is suboptimal. Lead from these sites can be inadvertently transported home on clothing or shoes, raising the exposure risk for children in the household.⁴

What are the health effects of lead exposure?

Like most heavy metals, lead is toxic to many organ systems in the body. The signs and symptoms of lead poisoning vary depending on the patient’s BLL and age (Table 1).⁵ The most common clinical effect of lead in the adult population is hypertension.⁶ Additional renal effects include a Fanconi-type syndrome with glycosuria and proteinuria. Lead can cause a peripheral neuropathy that is predominantly motor, classically causing foot or wrist drop. Abdominal pain from lead exposure is sometimes termed “lead colic” due to its intermittent and often severe nature. Abnormalities in urate metabolism cause a gouty arthritis referred to as “saturnine gout.” ⁶

The young pediatric central nervous system (CNS) is much more vulnerable to the effects of lead than the adult CNS. Even low-level lead exposure to the developing brain causes deficits in intelligence quotient, attention, impulse control, and other neurocognitive functions that are largely irreversible.⁷

Children with an elevated BLL may also develop constipation, anorexia, pallor, and pica.⁸ The development of geophagia (subtype of pica in which one craves and ingests nonfood clay or soil-like materials), represents a “chicken-or-egg” phenomena as it both causes and results from lead poisoning.

Lead impairs multiple steps of the heme synthesis pathway, causing microcytic anemia with basophilic stippling. Lead-induced anemia exacerbates pica as anemic patients are more likely to eat leaded paint chips and other lead-containing materials such as pottery.⁸ Of note, leaded white paint is reported to have a pleasant taste due to the sweet-tasting lead acetate used as a pigment.

The most dramatic and consequential manifestation of lead poisoning is lead encephalopathy. This can occur at any age, but manifests in children at much lower BLLs than in adults. Patients can be altered or obtunded, have convulsive activity, and may develop cerebral edema. Encephalopathy is a life-threatening emergency and must be recognized and treated immediately. Lead encephalopathy should be suspected in any young child with hand-to-mouth behavior who has any of the above environmental risk factors.⁴ The findings of anemia or the other diagnostic signs described below are too unreliable and take too long to be truly helpful in making the diagnosis.

How is the diagnosis of lead poisoning made?

The gold standard for the diagnosis of lead poisoning is the measurement of BLL. However, the turnaround time for this test is usually at least 24 hours, but may take up to several days. As such, adjunctive testing can accelerate obtaining a diagnosis. A complete blood count (CBC) to evaluate for microcytic anemia may demonstrate a characteristic pattern of basophilic stippling.⁹ A protoporphyrin level—either a free erythrocyte protoporphyrin (FEP) or a zinc protoporphyrin level—will be elevated, a result of heme synthesis disruption.⁹ Urinalysis may demonstrate glycosuria or proteinuria.⁶ Hypertension is often present, even in pediatric patients.

An abdominal radiograph is essential in children to determine whether a lead foreign body, such as a paint chip, is present in the intestinal lumen. Long bone films may demonstrate “lead lines” at the metaphysis, which in fact do not reflect lead itself but abnormal calcium deposition in growing bone due to lead’s interference with bone remodeling. A computed tomography (CT) scan of the brain in patients with encephalopathy will often demonstrate cerebral edema.⁶

Of note, capillary BLLs taken via finger-stick can be falsely elevated due contamination during collection (eg, the presence of lead dust on the skin). However, this screening method is often used by clinicians in the pediatric primary care setting because of its feasibility. Elevated BLLs from capillary testing should always be followed by a BLL obtained by venipuncture.²

Case Continuation

The patient’s mother was counseled on sources of lead contamination. She was informed that although drinking water may contribute some amount to an elevated BLL, the most likely source of contamination is still lead paint found in older homes such as the one in which she and her son resided.

Diagnostic studies to support the diagnosis of lead poisoning were performed. A CBC revealed a hemoglobin of 9.8 g/dL with a mean corpuscular volume of 68 fL. A microscopic smear of blood demonstrated basophilic stippling of red blood cells. An FEP level was 386 mcg/dL. An abdominal radiograph demonstrated small radiopacities throughout the large intestine, without obstruction, which was suggestive of ingested lead paint chips.

What is the best management approach to patients with suspected lead poisoning?

The first-line treatment for patients with lead poisoning is removal from the exposure source, which first and foremost requires identification of the hazard through careful history taking and scene investigation by the local health department. This will avoid recurrent visits following successful chelation for repeat exposure to an unidentified source. Relocation to another dwelling will often be required for patients with presumed exposure until the hazard can be identified and abated.

Patients who have ingested or have embedded leaded foreign bodies will require removal via whole bowel irrigation or surgical means.

Following decontamination, chelation is required for children with a BLL more than 45 mcg/dL, and adults with CNS symptomatology and a BLL more than 70 mcg/dL. Table 2 provides guidelines for chelation therapy based on BLL.⁵

Work-up and Management in the ED

The patient with lead poisoning, while an unusual presentation in the ED, requires specialized management to minimize sequelae of exposure. Careful attention to history is vital. When in doubt, the EP should consult with her or his regional poison control center (800-222-1222) or with a medical toxicologist or other expert.

There are several scenarios in which a patient may present to the ED with lead toxicity. The following scenarios, along with their respective clinical approach strategies, represent three of the most common presentations.

Scenario 1: The Pediatric Patient With Elevated Venous Blood Lead Levels

The EP should employ the following clinical approach when evaluating and managing the pediatric patient with normal mental status whose routine screening reveals a BLL sufficiently elevated to warrant evaluation or admission—perhaps to discontinue exposure or initiate chelation therapy.

• Obtain a history, including possible lead sources; perform a complete physical examination; and obtain a repeat BLL, CBC with microscopic examination, and renal function test.
• Obtain an abdominal film to look for radiopacities, including paint chips or larger ingested foreign bodies.
• If radiopaque foreign bodies are present on abdominal radiograph, whole bowel irrigation with polyethylene glycol solution given via a nasogastric tube at 250 to 500 cc/h for a pediatric patient (1 to 2 L/h for adult patients) should be given until no residual foreign bodies remain.
• Obtain a radiograph of the long bone, which may demonstrate metaphyseal enhancement in the pediatric patient, suggesting long-term exposure.
• Ensure local or state health departments are contacted to arrange for environmental inspection of the home. This is essential prior to discharge to the home environment.
• Begin chelation therapy according to the BLL (Table 2).

Scenario 2: Adult Patients Presenting With Signs and Symptoms of Lead Toxicity

The adult patient who presents to the ED with complaints suggestive of lead poisoning and whose history is indicative of lead exposure should be evaluated and managed as follows:

• Obtain a thorough history, including the occupation and hobbies of the patient and all family members.
• Obtain vital signs to evaluate for hypertension; repeat BLL, CBC with smear, and serum creatinine test. Perform a physical examination to evaluate for lead lines.
• Obtain radiographic images, which may demonstrate a leaded foreign body, such as in the patient with prior history of gunshot wounds.
• If the BLL is sufficiently elevated or clinical findings are sufficiently severe, admit for chelation.

Scenario 3: The Pediatric or Adult Patient Presenting With Altered Mental Status

The patient presenting with altered mental status of unclear etiology—regardless of age—and in whom lead encephalopathy is a possible cause, should be worked-up and managed as follows:

• Obtain BLL, CBC, FEP levels. Consider radiographic imaging to assess for ingested or embedded foreign bodies.
• If abnormalities in the above laboratory studies are consistent with lead poisoning, initiate chelation immediately—prior to receiving repeat BLL result.
• Obtain a CT scan of the head to assess for cerebral edema.
• Provide supportive care for encephalopathy, including airway control and management of increased intracranial pressure.

Case Conclusion

The patient was admitted to the hospital for whole bowel irrigation and chelation therapy with succimer. The local health department conducted an investigation of the home and found multiple areas of peeling lead paint and lead dust, and ordered remediation of the property before it could be re-occupied by the family. A test of the home’s drinking water found no elevation above the 15 ppb standard.

The patient was discharged from the hospital in the care of his mother. They were relocated to a lead-free home, with follow-up by the pediatrician for ongoing monitoring of the BLL and developmental milestones.

Case

A 2-year-old boy and his mother were referred to the ED by the child’s pediatrician after a routine venous blood lead level (BLL) taken at the boy’s recent well visit revealed an elevated lead level of 52 mcg/dL (normal range, <5 mcg/dL). The child’s mother reported that although her son had always been a picky eater, he had recently been complaining of abdominal pain.

The patient’s well-child visits had been normal until his recent 2-year checkup, at which time his pediatrician noticed some speech delay. On further history taking, the emergency physician (EP) learned the patient and his mother resided in an older home (built in the 1950s) that was in disrepair. The mother asked the EP if the elevation in the child’s BLL could be due to the drinking water in their town.

What are the most likely sources of environmental lead exposure?

In 2016, the topic of lead poisoning grabbed national attention when a pediatrician in Flint, Michigan detected an abrupt doubling of the number of children with elevated lead levels in her practice.¹ Upon further investigation, it was discovered that these kids had one thing in common: the source of their drinking water. The City of Flint had recently switched the source of its potable water from Lake Huron to the Flint River. The lower quality water, which was not properly treated with an anticorrosive agent such as orthophosphate, led to widespread pipe corrosion and lead contamination. This finding resulted in a cascade of water testing by other municipalities and school systems, many of which identified lead concentrations above the currently accepted drinking water standard of 15 parts per billion (ppb).

Thousands of children each year are identified to have elevated BLLs, based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition of a “level of concern” as more than 5 mcg/dL.² The majority of these exposures stem from environmental exposure to lead paint dust in the home, but drinking water normally contributes as a low-level, constant, “basal” exposure. While lead-contaminated drinking water is not acceptable, it is unlikely to generate many ED visits. However, there are a variety of other lead sources that may prompt children to present to the ED with acute or subacute lead poisoning.

Lead is a heavy metal whose physical properties indicate its common uses. It provides durability and opacity to pigments, which is why it is found in oil paint, house paint used before 1976, and on paint for large outdoor structures, where it is still used. Lead is also found in the pigments used in cosmetics, stained glass, and painted pottery, and as an adulterant in highly colored foodstuffs such as imported turmeric.³

The physicochemical characteristics of lead make it an ideal component of solder. Many plumbing pipes in use today are not lead, but join one another using lead solder at the joints, sites that are vulnerable to corrosion. The heavy molecular weight of lead makes it a useful component of bullets and munitions.

Tetraethyl lead was used as an “anti-knock” agent to smooth out the combustion of heterogenous compounds in automotive fuel before it was removed in the mid-1970s.⁴ Prior to its removal, leaded gasoline was the largest source of air, soil, and groundwater contamination leading to environmental exposures.⁴ At present, the most common source of environmental lead exposure among young children is through peeling paint in deteriorating residential buildings. Hazardous occupational lead exposures arise from work involving munitions, reclamation and salvage, painting, welding, and numerous other settings—particularly sites where industrial hygiene is suboptimal. Lead from these sites can be inadvertently transported home on clothing or shoes, raising the exposure risk for children in the household.⁴

What are the health effects of lead exposure?

Like most heavy metals, lead is toxic to many organ systems in the body. The signs and symptoms of lead poisoning vary depending on the patient’s BLL and age (Table 1).⁵ The most common clinical effect of lead in the adult population is hypertension.⁶ Additional renal effects include a Fanconi-type syndrome with glycosuria and proteinuria. Lead can cause a peripheral neuropathy that is predominantly motor, classically causing foot or wrist drop. Abdominal pain from lead exposure is sometimes termed “lead colic” due to its intermittent and often severe nature. Abnormalities in urate metabolism cause a gouty arthritis referred to as “saturnine gout.” ⁶

The young pediatric central nervous system (CNS) is much more vulnerable to the effects of lead than the adult CNS. Even low-level lead exposure to the developing brain causes deficits in intelligence quotient, attention, impulse control, and other neurocognitive functions that are largely irreversible.⁷

Children with an elevated BLL may also develop constipation, anorexia, pallor, and pica.⁸ The development of geophagia (subtype of pica in which one craves and ingests nonfood clay or soil-like materials), represents a “chicken-or-egg” phenomena as it both causes and results from lead poisoning.

Lead impairs multiple steps of the heme synthesis pathway, causing microcytic anemia with basophilic stippling. Lead-induced anemia exacerbates pica as anemic patients are more likely to eat leaded paint chips and other lead-containing materials such as pottery.⁸ Of note, leaded white paint is reported to have a pleasant taste due to the sweet-tasting lead acetate used as a pigment.

The most dramatic and consequential manifestation of lead poisoning is lead encephalopathy. This can occur at any age, but manifests in children at much lower BLLs than in adults. Patients can be altered or obtunded, have convulsive activity, and may develop cerebral edema. Encephalopathy is a life-threatening emergency and must be recognized and treated immediately. Lead encephalopathy should be suspected in any young child with hand-to-mouth behavior who has any of the above environmental risk factors.⁴ The findings of anemia or the other diagnostic signs described below are too unreliable and take too long to be truly helpful in making the diagnosis.

How is the diagnosis of lead poisoning made?

The gold standard for the diagnosis of lead poisoning is the measurement of BLL. However, the turnaround time for this test is usually at least 24 hours, but may take up to several days. As such, adjunctive testing can accelerate obtaining a diagnosis. A complete blood count (CBC) to evaluate for microcytic anemia may demonstrate a characteristic pattern of basophilic stippling.⁹ A protoporphyrin level—either a free erythrocyte protoporphyrin (FEP) or a zinc protoporphyrin level—will be elevated, a result of heme synthesis disruption.⁹ Urinalysis may demonstrate glycosuria or proteinuria.⁶ Hypertension is often present, even in pediatric patients.

An abdominal radiograph is essential in children to determine whether a lead foreign body, such as a paint chip, is present in the intestinal lumen. Long bone films may demonstrate “lead lines” at the metaphysis, which in fact do not reflect lead itself but abnormal calcium deposition in growing bone due to lead’s interference with bone remodeling. A computed tomography (CT) scan of the brain in patients with encephalopathy will often demonstrate cerebral edema.⁶

Of note, capillary BLLs taken via finger-stick can be falsely elevated due contamination during collection (eg, the presence of lead dust on the skin). However, this screening method is often used by clinicians in the pediatric primary care setting because of its feasibility. Elevated BLLs from capillary testing should always be followed by a BLL obtained by venipuncture.²

Case Continuation

The patient’s mother was counseled on sources of lead contamination. She was informed that although drinking water may contribute some amount to an elevated BLL, the most likely source of contamination is still lead paint found in older homes such as the one in which she and her son resided.

Diagnostic studies to support the diagnosis of lead poisoning were performed. A CBC revealed a hemoglobin of 9.8 g/dL with a mean corpuscular volume of 68 fL. A microscopic smear of blood demonstrated basophilic stippling of red blood cells. An FEP level was 386 mcg/dL. An abdominal radiograph demonstrated small radiopacities throughout the large intestine, without obstruction, which was suggestive of ingested lead paint chips.

What is the best management approach to patients with suspected lead poisoning?

The first-line treatment for patients with lead poisoning is removal from the exposure source, which first and foremost requires identification of the hazard through careful history taking and scene investigation by the local health department. This will avoid recurrent visits following successful chelation for repeat exposure to an unidentified source. Relocation to another dwelling will often be required for patients with presumed exposure until the hazard can be identified and abated.

Patients who have ingested or have embedded leaded foreign bodies will require removal via whole bowel irrigation or surgical means.

Following decontamination, chelation is required for children with a BLL more than 45 mcg/dL, and adults with CNS symptomatology and a BLL more than 70 mcg/dL. Table 2 provides guidelines for chelation therapy based on BLL.⁵

Work-up and Management in the ED

The patient with lead poisoning, while an unusual presentation in the ED, requires specialized management to minimize sequelae of exposure. Careful attention to history is vital. When in doubt, the EP should consult with her or his regional poison control center (800-222-1222) or with a medical toxicologist or other expert.

There are several scenarios in which a patient may present to the ED with lead toxicity. The following scenarios, along with their respective clinical approach strategies, represent three of the most common presentations.

Scenario 1: The Pediatric Patient With Elevated Venous Blood Lead Levels

The EP should employ the following clinical approach when evaluating and managing the pediatric patient with normal mental status whose routine screening reveals a BLL sufficiently elevated to warrant evaluation or admission—perhaps to discontinue exposure or initiate chelation therapy.

• Obtain a history, including possible lead sources; perform a complete physical examination; and obtain a repeat BLL, CBC with microscopic examination, and renal function test.
• Obtain an abdominal film to look for radiopacities, including paint chips or larger ingested foreign bodies.
• If radiopaque foreign bodies are present on abdominal radiograph, whole bowel irrigation with polyethylene glycol solution given via a nasogastric tube at 250 to 500 cc/h for a pediatric patient (1 to 2 L/h for adult patients) should be given until no residual foreign bodies remain.
• Obtain a radiograph of the long bone, which may demonstrate metaphyseal enhancement in the pediatric patient, suggesting long-term exposure.
• Ensure local or state health departments are contacted to arrange for environmental inspection of the home. This is essential prior to discharge to the home environment.
• Begin chelation therapy according to the BLL (Table 2).

Scenario 2: Adult Patients Presenting With Signs and Symptoms of Lead Toxicity

The adult patient who presents to the ED with complaints suggestive of lead poisoning and whose history is indicative of lead exposure should be evaluated and managed as follows:

• Obtain a thorough history, including the occupation and hobbies of the patient and all family members.
• Obtain vital signs to evaluate for hypertension; repeat BLL, CBC with smear, and serum creatinine test. Perform a physical examination to evaluate for lead lines.
• Obtain radiographic images, which may demonstrate a leaded foreign body, such as in the patient with prior history of gunshot wounds.
• If the BLL is sufficiently elevated or clinical findings are sufficiently severe, admit for chelation.

Scenario 3: The Pediatric or Adult Patient Presenting With Altered Mental Status

The patient presenting with altered mental status of unclear etiology—regardless of age—and in whom lead encephalopathy is a possible cause, should be worked-up and managed as follows:

• Obtain BLL, CBC, FEP levels. Consider radiographic imaging to assess for ingested or embedded foreign bodies.
• If abnormalities in the above laboratory studies are consistent with lead poisoning, initiate chelation immediately—prior to receiving repeat BLL result.
• Obtain a CT scan of the head to assess for cerebral edema.
• Provide supportive care for encephalopathy, including airway control and management of increased intracranial pressure.

Case Conclusion

The patient was admitted to the hospital for whole bowel irrigation and chelation therapy with succimer. The local health department conducted an investigation of the home and found multiple areas of peeling lead paint and lead dust, and ordered remediation of the property before it could be re-occupied by the family. A test of the home’s drinking water found no elevation above the 15 ppb standard.

The patient was discharged from the hospital in the care of his mother. They were relocated to a lead-free home, with follow-up by the pediatrician for ongoing monitoring of the BLL and developmental milestones.

BY JEFF BAUER

A large retrospective analysis found a wide variation in opioid prescribing among emergency physicians (EPs) working within the same ED. The study also found that Medicare patients treated by EPs who wrote the most prescriptions for opioids were more likely to use opioids for 6 months after their ED visit than were those treated by EPs who wrote fewer opioid prescriptions.

Researchers evaluated initial visits to an ED by approximately 378,000 Medicare beneficiaries (average age: 68 years) from 2008 through 2011. None of these patients had received a prescription for an opioid in the 6 months before the ED visit, and none of the visits resulted in a hospital admission. Prescriptions for opioids (excluding methadone) were identified by the national drug code in the Medicare Part D database. An opioid prescription was attributed to the treating EP if the patient filled the prescription within 3 days after the ED visit.

Investigators categorized the treating EPs in this study as “high-intensity” or “low-intensity” opioid prescribers by calculating the proportion of all ED visits that resulted in an opioid prescription being filled. They then grouped the EPs into quartiles of opioid prescribing within each hospital. High-intensity prescribers were those in the top quartile of opioid prescribing rates, and low-intensity prescribers were those in the bottom quartile.

The primary outcome was long-term opioid use, defined as 6 months or more of opioids supplied in the 12 months after the initial ED visit. This did not include prescriptions filled within 30 days of the initial visit.

Overall, approximately 215,700 patients were treated by low-intensity prescribers and 162,000 by high-intensity prescribers. In general, the patient characteristics and diagnoses were similar in both groups. The rate of opioid prescribing of high-intensity prescribers was approximately triple the rate of low-intensity prescribers. High-intensity prescribers provided an opioid prescription for 21.4% of ED visits, compared to 7.3% among low-intensity prescribers.

Long-term opioid use at 12 months was significantly higher among patients who had been initially treated by high-intensity prescribers compared to those who had been treated by low-intensity prescribers (1.51% vs 1.16%; unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.31). There was minimal change in this difference after the results were adjusted for the patients’ age, race, sex, disability status, and presence of chronic conditions (OR, 1.30). The number needed to harm was calculated as 49, meaning theoretically, for every 49 patients who received a new opioid prescription in the ED, one would become a long-term user. The authors noted, however, that “…prescriptions provided by other physicians in the months after an [ED] visit are necessary for long-term opioid use to take hold.”

Researchers pointed out several limitations to their study. Because the study was observational, it could not establish causality. Researchers were not able to directly attribute opioid prescriptions to the treating EPs, but instead used prescriptions filled within 3 days of an ED visits as a surrogate; some opioid prescriptions could have been written by another clinician, such as the patient’s primary care physician during a follow-up visit. Because the study focused on Medicare patients, the results may not be applicable to younger patients. Based on their analysis, researchers could not determine whether an opioid prescription was appropriate, and therefore they could not quantify the extent of opioid overprescribing.

For more on EPs and opioid prescribing, see “The New Opioid Epidemic and the Law of Unintended Consequences” by Emergency Medicine Editor in Chief Neal Flomenbaum, MD (Emergency Medicine. 2017;49[2]:52) and “The New Opioid Epidemic: Prescriptions, Synthetics, and Street Drugs” by Rama B. Rao, MD and Emergency Medicine Associate Editor, Toxicology Lewis S. Nelson, MD (Emergency Medicine. 2017;49[2]:64-70).

Barnett ML, Olenski AR, Jena AB. Opioid-prescribing patterns of emergency physicians and risk of long-term use. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(7):663-673. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1610524.

Lower Admission Rates, Other Factors Tied to High Rate of Death Soon After ED Discharge Among Older Adults

BY JEFF BAUER

Each year, approximately 10,000 older adult patients die within 7 days of discharge from an ED in the United States, despite having no obvious life-threatening illness, according to a large retrospective study. Emergency departments with lower rates of inpatient admission from the ED, lower patient volumes, and lower charges had significantly higher rates of death after discharge.

Researchers evaluated Medicare claims data related to slightly more than 10 million ED visits from 2007 to 2012. Because the goal was to study generally healthy patients, the following patients were excluded: individuals who were age 90 years and older; were receiving palliative or hospice care; or had received a life-limiting diagnosis, such as a myocardial infarction (MI) or a malignancy, either in the ED or in the year prior to the ED visit. The primary outcome was death within 7 days after discharge from an ED. The cause of death was determined by linking claims to death certificates; this information was available only for a subset of patients who visited an ED in 2007 or 2008.

Overall, during the 6-year study, 0.12% of discharged patients died within 7 days of discharge; this translates to more than 10,000 early deaths per year nationally. The leading causes of death were atherosclerotic heart disease (13.6%), MI (10.3%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (9.6%).

Emergency departments ranked in the lowest fifth for admission rates admitted 15% of patients, compared to 56% of patients at EDs with the highest admission rates. The early death rate of patients treated at EDs with the lowest rates of inpatient admissions from the ED was 3.4 times higher than the death rate seen in EDs with the highest inpatient admission rates (0.27% vs 0.08%, respectively). This was true despite the fact that EDs with low-admission rates treated healthier patients, as evidenced by the overall 7-day mortality rate of all patients treated in the ED, whether they were admitted or discharged. Emergency departments that saw higher volumes of patients and had higher charges for visits had significantly fewer deaths.

Obermeyer Z, Cohn B, Wilson M, Jena AB, Cutler DM. Early death after discharge from emergency departments: analysis of national US insurance claims data. BMJ. 2017;356:j239. doi:10.1136/bmj.j239.

Tertiary Center Repeat Computed Tomography Scans Find Additional Injuries

MICHELE G. SULLIVAN

FRONTLINE MEDICAL NEWS

Imaging obtained at nontertiary trauma centers (NTCs) probably does not tell the whole story of a trauma patient’s injuries, according to a new retrospective study.

Repeat scans done at a Level 1 trauma center identified new injuries in 76% of patients who were transferred, Morgan Bonds, MD, reported at the annual scientific assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. About half of these previously unobserved injuries were considered clinically significant, said Dr Bonds, a surgical resident at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City.

Her study examined imaging and clinical assessment of 203 trauma patients who were initially worked up at an NTC, and then transferred to the Level 1 University of Oklahoma tertiary trauma center (TTC). The facility’s primary radiologist reviewed all of the initial computed tomography (CT) scans while blinded to the NTC interpretation. The initial scans and interpretations were then compared with those done at the TTC.

The team split imaging and interpretation disconnects into four categories:

• Type A errors: A missed injury on the NTC scan. “This represents the expertise and experience of our primary radiologist,” Dr Bonds said.
• Type B errors: Missed injuries on scans where NTC radiologists saw other injuries that the TTC radiologist did not confirm. “This represents the experience of our radiologist and also the inexperience and overreaction of the NTC radiologists.”
• Type C errors: New injuries seen on additional TTC imaging of the same body area. “This represents the quality of the image.”
• Type D errors: New injuries found upon any new imaging, whether of a previously scanned or newly scanned body area. “This represents quality of work-up—the decision of the trauma team to more fully investigate the patient’s injuries, as well as the quality of the CT tech performing the scan.”

During the study period, 203 patients presented at the TTC with prior scans conducted at an NTC.

The mean age of the patients was 43 years; most (67%) were men. The mean Injury Severity Score was 16; 97% had experienced blunt trauma. Shock was present in 3% and a traumatic brain injury in 8%. Repeat scans were most common for neck and cervical spine injuries (54%) and thoracic/lumbar spine injuries (53%), and least common for chest injuries (32%).

An inadequate NTC work-up as judged by the TTC attending was the most common reason for obtaining new images (76%). Poor image quality was the next most common reason (31%).

Among the 203 patients, 99 (49%) had a type A error. Of these injuries missed on the initial scan, 90% were considered to be clinically significant.

Type B errors occurred in 15% of patients. Type C errors (new injuries in different body area) occurred in 54% of patients and, of these, 76% were considered clinically significant. Type D errors (new injuries seen in any imaging of any area) occurred in 73% of patients.

“This study confirms that images are often repeated or completed after having images done at NTCs,” Dr Bonds said. “Relying on NTC image interpretation can lead to undertreating our patients. One potential solution to this issue could be image sharing between NTCs and TTCs. This might reduce both the rate of missed injuries and the need for repeat scans.”

Cutaneous Eruption Reported in Pregnant Woman With Locally Acquired Zika Virus

M. ALEXANDER OTTO

FRONTLINE MEDICAL NEWS

Zika presented in a young, pregnant Florida woman as erythematous follicular macules and papules on the trunk and arms, scattered tender pink papules on the palms, and a few petechiae on the hard palate, according to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The report advises how Zika virus may present during pregnancy. “Medical providers on the front line should be aware of the constellation of symptoms in patients reporting travel to endemic areas, including areas in Southern Florida, where other non-travel-associated cases have been confirmed,” wrote investigators led by Lucy Chen, MD, of the University of Miami.

The 23-year-old woman presented on July 7, 2016 at 23 weeks and 3 days’ gestation with a 3-day history of fever, widespread pruritic rash, and sore throat, which were followed by myalgias and joint pain 2 days later. The cutaneous eruption was noted on physical examination; neither conjunctivitis nor lymphadenopathy was present. The patient and her partner said they had not traveled outside the United States for 2 years.

Zika virus RNA was detected in the woman’s urine and serum specimens with the use of reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction and persisted for 2 weeks in urine samples and for 6 weeks in serum samples. On histopathology, skin lesions revealed a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltration in the upper dermis, admixed with some neutrophils. Liver and renal functions were normal.

Fetal ultrasonography performed on the day of presentation showed an estimated fetal weight of 644 g (53rd percentile), an estimated head circumference of 221 mm (63rd percentile), and normal intracranial anatomy. Fevers and rash subsided after 3 days of supportive care. Screening for measles, varicella, rubella, syphilis, Epstein-Barr virus, influenza, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, mumps, and dengue was negative.

An initial immunoglobulin M test on July 7 was negative; seroconversion occurred 1 week after presentation and remained positive through delivery.

A full-term infant weighing 2,990 g was delivered vaginally. Neonatal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging of the head showed a normal head size and intracranial anatomy, with no calcifications. Placental tissue was negative for Zika virus, and neonatal laboratory testing revealed no evidence of infection.

The case was confirmed by the Miami-Dade County Department of Health as the first non-travel-associated Zika infection in the United States.

Chen L, Hafeez F, Curry CL, Elgart G. Cutaneous eruption in a U.S. woman with locally acquired Zika virus infection. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(4):400-401. doi:10.1056/NEJMc1610614.

Lab Values Poor Surrogate for Detecting Pediatric Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever in Children

WHITNEY MCKNIGHT

FRONTLINE MEDICAL NEWS

Three fatalities observed in a retrospective analysis of six cases of Rocky Mountain spotted fever (RMSF) in children were associated with either a delayed diagnosis pending laboratory findings or delayed anti-rickettsia treatment, researchers said.

“The fact that all fatal cases died before the convalescent period emphasizes that diagnosis should be based on clinical findings instead of RMSF serologic and histologic testing,” wrote the authors of a study published online in Pediatric Dermatology.

Rechelle Tull of the department of dermatology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, and her colleagues conducted a retrospective review of 3,912 inpatient dermatology consultations over a period of 10 years at a tertiary care center, and identified six patients aged 22 months to 2 years (mean, 5.1 years) diagnosed with RMSF. The patients were evaluated in the months of April, May, and June, and three of the six patients infected with the vector-borne obligate intracellular bacterium, Rickettsia rickettsii, had died within 4 days of hospitalization, according to the authors.

Two of the fatal cases involved delayed anti-rickettsial therapy after the patients were misdiagnosed with group A Streptococcus. None of the six children were initially evaluated for R rickettsii; they averaged three encounters with their clinician before being admitted for acute inpatient care, where they received intravenous doxycycline after nearly a week of symptoms.

“All fatal cases were complicated by neurologic manifestations, including seizures, obtundation, and uncal herniation,” a finding that is consistent with the literature, the authors said.

Although the high-fatality rate might be the result of the small study size, Ms Tull and her coinvestigators concluded that the disease should be considered in all differential diagnoses for children who present with a fever and rash during the summer months in endemic areas, particularly since pediatric cases of the disease are associated with poorer outcomes than adult cases.

Given that RMSF often remains subclinical in its early stages, and typically presents with nonspecific symptoms of fever, rash, headache, and abdominal pain when it does emerge, physicians might be tempted to defer treatment until after serological and histological results are in, as is the standard method. Concerns over doxycycline’s tendency to stain teeth and cause enamel hypoplasia are also common. However, empirical administration could mean the difference between life and death, since treatment within the first 5 days following infection is associated with better outcomes—an algorithm complicated by the fact that symptoms caused by R rickettsii have been known to take as long as 21 days to appear.

In the study, Ms Tull and her colleagues found that the average time between exposure to the tick and the onset of symptoms was 6.6 days (range, 1-21 days).

Currently, there are no diagnostic tests “that reliably diagnose RMSF during the first 7 days of illness,” and most patients “do not develop detectable antibodies until the second week of illness,” the investigators reported. Even then, sensitivity of indirect fluorescent antibody serum testing after the second week of illness is only between 86% and 94%, they noted. Further, the sensitivity of immunohistochemical (IHC) tissue staining has been reported at 70%, and false-negative IHC results are common in acute disease when antibody response is harder to detect.

Ms Tull and her colleagues found that five of the six patients in their study had negative IHC testing; two of the six had positive serum antibody titers. For this reason, they concluded that RMSF diagnosis should be based on “clinical history, examination, and laboratory abnormalities” rather than laboratory testing, and urged that “prompt treatment should be instituted empirically.”

Tull R, Ahn C, Daniel A, Yosipovitch G, Strowd LC. Retrospective study of Rocky Mountain spotted fever in children. Pediatr Dermatol. 2016 Dec 19. doi:10.1111/pde.13053. [Epub ahead of print]

BY JEFF BAUER

A large retrospective analysis found a wide variation in opioid prescribing among emergency physicians (EPs) working within the same ED. The study also found that Medicare patients treated by EPs who wrote the most prescriptions for opioids were more likely to use opioids for 6 months after their ED visit than were those treated by EPs who wrote fewer opioid prescriptions.

Researchers evaluated initial visits to an ED by approximately 378,000 Medicare beneficiaries (average age: 68 years) from 2008 through 2011. None of these patients had received a prescription for an opioid in the 6 months before the ED visit, and none of the visits resulted in a hospital admission. Prescriptions for opioids (excluding methadone) were identified by the national drug code in the Medicare Part D database. An opioid prescription was attributed to the treating EP if the patient filled the prescription within 3 days after the ED visit.

Investigators categorized the treating EPs in this study as “high-intensity” or “low-intensity” opioid prescribers by calculating the proportion of all ED visits that resulted in an opioid prescription being filled. They then grouped the EPs into quartiles of opioid prescribing within each hospital. High-intensity prescribers were those in the top quartile of opioid prescribing rates, and low-intensity prescribers were those in the bottom quartile.

The primary outcome was long-term opioid use, defined as 6 months or more of opioids supplied in the 12 months after the initial ED visit. This did not include prescriptions filled within 30 days of the initial visit.

Overall, approximately 215,700 patients were treated by low-intensity prescribers and 162,000 by high-intensity prescribers. In general, the patient characteristics and diagnoses were similar in both groups. The rate of opioid prescribing of high-intensity prescribers was approximately triple the rate of low-intensity prescribers. High-intensity prescribers provided an opioid prescription for 21.4% of ED visits, compared to 7.3% among low-intensity prescribers.

Long-term opioid use at 12 months was significantly higher among patients who had been initially treated by high-intensity prescribers compared to those who had been treated by low-intensity prescribers (1.51% vs 1.16%; unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.31). There was minimal change in this difference after the results were adjusted for the patients’ age, race, sex, disability status, and presence of chronic conditions (OR, 1.30). The number needed to harm was calculated as 49, meaning theoretically, for every 49 patients who received a new opioid prescription in the ED, one would become a long-term user. The authors noted, however, that “…prescriptions provided by other physicians in the months after an [ED] visit are necessary for long-term opioid use to take hold.”

Researchers pointed out several limitations to their study. Because the study was observational, it could not establish causality. Researchers were not able to directly attribute opioid prescriptions to the treating EPs, but instead used prescriptions filled within 3 days of an ED visits as a surrogate; some opioid prescriptions could have been written by another clinician, such as the patient’s primary care physician during a follow-up visit. Because the study focused on Medicare patients, the results may not be applicable to younger patients. Based on their analysis, researchers could not determine whether an opioid prescription was appropriate, and therefore they could not quantify the extent of opioid overprescribing.

For more on EPs and opioid prescribing, see “The New Opioid Epidemic and the Law of Unintended Consequences” by Emergency Medicine Editor in Chief Neal Flomenbaum, MD (Emergency Medicine. 2017;49[2]:52) and “The New Opioid Epidemic: Prescriptions, Synthetics, and Street Drugs” by Rama B. Rao, MD and Emergency Medicine Associate Editor, Toxicology Lewis S. Nelson, MD (Emergency Medicine. 2017;49[2]:64-70).

Barnett ML, Olenski AR, Jena AB. Opioid-prescribing patterns of emergency physicians and risk of long-term use. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(7):663-673. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1610524.

Lower Admission Rates, Other Factors Tied to High Rate of Death Soon After ED Discharge Among Older Adults

BY JEFF BAUER

Each year, approximately 10,000 older adult patients die within 7 days of discharge from an ED in the United States, despite having no obvious life-threatening illness, according to a large retrospective study. Emergency departments with lower rates of inpatient admission from the ED, lower patient volumes, and lower charges had significantly higher rates of death after discharge.

Researchers evaluated Medicare claims data related to slightly more than 10 million ED visits from 2007 to 2012. Because the goal was to study generally healthy patients, the following patients were excluded: individuals who were age 90 years and older; were receiving palliative or hospice care; or had received a life-limiting diagnosis, such as a myocardial infarction (MI) or a malignancy, either in the ED or in the year prior to the ED visit. The primary outcome was death within 7 days after discharge from an ED. The cause of death was determined by linking claims to death certificates; this information was available only for a subset of patients who visited an ED in 2007 or 2008.

Overall, during the 6-year study, 0.12% of discharged patients died within 7 days of discharge; this translates to more than 10,000 early deaths per year nationally. The leading causes of death were atherosclerotic heart disease (13.6%), MI (10.3%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (9.6%).

Emergency departments ranked in the lowest fifth for admission rates admitted 15% of patients, compared to 56% of patients at EDs with the highest admission rates. The early death rate of patients treated at EDs with the lowest rates of inpatient admissions from the ED was 3.4 times higher than the death rate seen in EDs with the highest inpatient admission rates (0.27% vs 0.08%, respectively). This was true despite the fact that EDs with low-admission rates treated healthier patients, as evidenced by the overall 7-day mortality rate of all patients treated in the ED, whether they were admitted or discharged. Emergency departments that saw higher volumes of patients and had higher charges for visits had significantly fewer deaths.

Obermeyer Z, Cohn B, Wilson M, Jena AB, Cutler DM. Early death after discharge from emergency departments: analysis of national US insurance claims data. BMJ. 2017;356:j239. doi:10.1136/bmj.j239.

Tertiary Center Repeat Computed Tomography Scans Find Additional Injuries

MICHELE G. SULLIVAN

FRONTLINE MEDICAL NEWS

Imaging obtained at nontertiary trauma centers (NTCs) probably does not tell the whole story of a trauma patient’s injuries, according to a new retrospective study.

Repeat scans done at a Level 1 trauma center identified new injuries in 76% of patients who were transferred, Morgan Bonds, MD, reported at the annual scientific assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. About half of these previously unobserved injuries were considered clinically significant, said Dr Bonds, a surgical resident at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City.

Her study examined imaging and clinical assessment of 203 trauma patients who were initially worked up at an NTC, and then transferred to the Level 1 University of Oklahoma tertiary trauma center (TTC). The facility’s primary radiologist reviewed all of the initial computed tomography (CT) scans while blinded to the NTC interpretation. The initial scans and interpretations were then compared with those done at the TTC.

The team split imaging and interpretation disconnects into four categories:

• Type A errors: A missed injury on the NTC scan. “This represents the expertise and experience of our primary radiologist,” Dr Bonds said.
• Type B errors: Missed injuries on scans where NTC radiologists saw other injuries that the TTC radiologist did not confirm. “This represents the experience of our radiologist and also the inexperience and overreaction of the NTC radiologists.”
• Type C errors: New injuries seen on additional TTC imaging of the same body area. “This represents the quality of the image.”
• Type D errors: New injuries found upon any new imaging, whether of a previously scanned or newly scanned body area. “This represents quality of work-up—the decision of the trauma team to more fully investigate the patient’s injuries, as well as the quality of the CT tech performing the scan.”

During the study period, 203 patients presented at the TTC with prior scans conducted at an NTC.

The mean age of the patients was 43 years; most (67%) were men. The mean Injury Severity Score was 16; 97% had experienced blunt trauma. Shock was present in 3% and a traumatic brain injury in 8%. Repeat scans were most common for neck and cervical spine injuries (54%) and thoracic/lumbar spine injuries (53%), and least common for chest injuries (32%).

An inadequate NTC work-up as judged by the TTC attending was the most common reason for obtaining new images (76%). Poor image quality was the next most common reason (31%).

Among the 203 patients, 99 (49%) had a type A error. Of these injuries missed on the initial scan, 90% were considered to be clinically significant.

Type B errors occurred in 15% of patients. Type C errors (new injuries in different body area) occurred in 54% of patients and, of these, 76% were considered clinically significant. Type D errors (new injuries seen in any imaging of any area) occurred in 73% of patients.

“This study confirms that images are often repeated or completed after having images done at NTCs,” Dr Bonds said. “Relying on NTC image interpretation can lead to undertreating our patients. One potential solution to this issue could be image sharing between NTCs and TTCs. This might reduce both the rate of missed injuries and the need for repeat scans.”

Cutaneous Eruption Reported in Pregnant Woman With Locally Acquired Zika Virus

M. ALEXANDER OTTO

FRONTLINE MEDICAL NEWS

Zika presented in a young, pregnant Florida woman as erythematous follicular macules and papules on the trunk and arms, scattered tender pink papules on the palms, and a few petechiae on the hard palate, according to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The report advises how Zika virus may present during pregnancy. “Medical providers on the front line should be aware of the constellation of symptoms in patients reporting travel to endemic areas, including areas in Southern Florida, where other non-travel-associated cases have been confirmed,” wrote investigators led by Lucy Chen, MD, of the University of Miami.

The 23-year-old woman presented on July 7, 2016 at 23 weeks and 3 days’ gestation with a 3-day history of fever, widespread pruritic rash, and sore throat, which were followed by myalgias and joint pain 2 days later. The cutaneous eruption was noted on physical examination; neither conjunctivitis nor lymphadenopathy was present. The patient and her partner said they had not traveled outside the United States for 2 years.

Zika virus RNA was detected in the woman’s urine and serum specimens with the use of reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction and persisted for 2 weeks in urine samples and for 6 weeks in serum samples. On histopathology, skin lesions revealed a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltration in the upper dermis, admixed with some neutrophils. Liver and renal functions were normal.

Fetal ultrasonography performed on the day of presentation showed an estimated fetal weight of 644 g (53rd percentile), an estimated head circumference of 221 mm (63rd percentile), and normal intracranial anatomy. Fevers and rash subsided after 3 days of supportive care. Screening for measles, varicella, rubella, syphilis, Epstein-Barr virus, influenza, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, mumps, and dengue was negative.

An initial immunoglobulin M test on July 7 was negative; seroconversion occurred 1 week after presentation and remained positive through delivery.

A full-term infant weighing 2,990 g was delivered vaginally. Neonatal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging of the head showed a normal head size and intracranial anatomy, with no calcifications. Placental tissue was negative for Zika virus, and neonatal laboratory testing revealed no evidence of infection.

The case was confirmed by the Miami-Dade County Department of Health as the first non-travel-associated Zika infection in the United States.

Chen L, Hafeez F, Curry CL, Elgart G. Cutaneous eruption in a U.S. woman with locally acquired Zika virus infection. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(4):400-401. doi:10.1056/NEJMc1610614.

Lab Values Poor Surrogate for Detecting Pediatric Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever in Children

WHITNEY MCKNIGHT

FRONTLINE MEDICAL NEWS

Three fatalities observed in a retrospective analysis of six cases of Rocky Mountain spotted fever (RMSF) in children were associated with either a delayed diagnosis pending laboratory findings or delayed anti-rickettsia treatment, researchers said.

“The fact that all fatal cases died before the convalescent period emphasizes that diagnosis should be based on clinical findings instead of RMSF serologic and histologic testing,” wrote the authors of a study published online in Pediatric Dermatology.

Rechelle Tull of the department of dermatology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, and her colleagues conducted a retrospective review of 3,912 inpatient dermatology consultations over a period of 10 years at a tertiary care center, and identified six patients aged 22 months to 2 years (mean, 5.1 years) diagnosed with RMSF. The patients were evaluated in the months of April, May, and June, and three of the six patients infected with the vector-borne obligate intracellular bacterium, Rickettsia rickettsii, had died within 4 days of hospitalization, according to the authors.

Two of the fatal cases involved delayed anti-rickettsial therapy after the patients were misdiagnosed with group A Streptococcus. None of the six children were initially evaluated for R rickettsii; they averaged three encounters with their clinician before being admitted for acute inpatient care, where they received intravenous doxycycline after nearly a week of symptoms.

“All fatal cases were complicated by neurologic manifestations, including seizures, obtundation, and uncal herniation,” a finding that is consistent with the literature, the authors said.

Although the high-fatality rate might be the result of the small study size, Ms Tull and her coinvestigators concluded that the disease should be considered in all differential diagnoses for children who present with a fever and rash during the summer months in endemic areas, particularly since pediatric cases of the disease are associated with poorer outcomes than adult cases.

Given that RMSF often remains subclinical in its early stages, and typically presents with nonspecific symptoms of fever, rash, headache, and abdominal pain when it does emerge, physicians might be tempted to defer treatment until after serological and histological results are in, as is the standard method. Concerns over doxycycline’s tendency to stain teeth and cause enamel hypoplasia are also common. However, empirical administration could mean the difference between life and death, since treatment within the first 5 days following infection is associated with better outcomes—an algorithm complicated by the fact that symptoms caused by R rickettsii have been known to take as long as 21 days to appear.

In the study, Ms Tull and her colleagues found that the average time between exposure to the tick and the onset of symptoms was 6.6 days (range, 1-21 days).

Currently, there are no diagnostic tests “that reliably diagnose RMSF during the first 7 days of illness,” and most patients “do not develop detectable antibodies until the second week of illness,” the investigators reported. Even then, sensitivity of indirect fluorescent antibody serum testing after the second week of illness is only between 86% and 94%, they noted. Further, the sensitivity of immunohistochemical (IHC) tissue staining has been reported at 70%, and false-negative IHC results are common in acute disease when antibody response is harder to detect.

Ms Tull and her colleagues found that five of the six patients in their study had negative IHC testing; two of the six had positive serum antibody titers. For this reason, they concluded that RMSF diagnosis should be based on “clinical history, examination, and laboratory abnormalities” rather than laboratory testing, and urged that “prompt treatment should be instituted empirically.”

Tull R, Ahn C, Daniel A, Yosipovitch G, Strowd LC. Retrospective study of Rocky Mountain spotted fever in children. Pediatr Dermatol. 2016 Dec 19. doi:10.1111/pde.13053. [Epub ahead of print]

BY JEFF BAUER

A large retrospective analysis found a wide variation in opioid prescribing among emergency physicians (EPs) working within the same ED. The study also found that Medicare patients treated by EPs who wrote the most prescriptions for opioids were more likely to use opioids for 6 months after their ED visit than were those treated by EPs who wrote fewer opioid prescriptions.

Researchers evaluated initial visits to an ED by approximately 378,000 Medicare beneficiaries (average age: 68 years) from 2008 through 2011. None of these patients had received a prescription for an opioid in the 6 months before the ED visit, and none of the visits resulted in a hospital admission. Prescriptions for opioids (excluding methadone) were identified by the national drug code in the Medicare Part D database. An opioid prescription was attributed to the treating EP if the patient filled the prescription within 3 days after the ED visit.

Investigators categorized the treating EPs in this study as “high-intensity” or “low-intensity” opioid prescribers by calculating the proportion of all ED visits that resulted in an opioid prescription being filled. They then grouped the EPs into quartiles of opioid prescribing within each hospital. High-intensity prescribers were those in the top quartile of opioid prescribing rates, and low-intensity prescribers were those in the bottom quartile.

The primary outcome was long-term opioid use, defined as 6 months or more of opioids supplied in the 12 months after the initial ED visit. This did not include prescriptions filled within 30 days of the initial visit.

Overall, approximately 215,700 patients were treated by low-intensity prescribers and 162,000 by high-intensity prescribers. In general, the patient characteristics and diagnoses were similar in both groups. The rate of opioid prescribing of high-intensity prescribers was approximately triple the rate of low-intensity prescribers. High-intensity prescribers provided an opioid prescription for 21.4% of ED visits, compared to 7.3% among low-intensity prescribers.

Long-term opioid use at 12 months was significantly higher among patients who had been initially treated by high-intensity prescribers compared to those who had been treated by low-intensity prescribers (1.51% vs 1.16%; unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.31). There was minimal change in this difference after the results were adjusted for the patients’ age, race, sex, disability status, and presence of chronic conditions (OR, 1.30). The number needed to harm was calculated as 49, meaning theoretically, for every 49 patients who received a new opioid prescription in the ED, one would become a long-term user. The authors noted, however, that “…prescriptions provided by other physicians in the months after an [ED] visit are necessary for long-term opioid use to take hold.”

Researchers pointed out several limitations to their study. Because the study was observational, it could not establish causality. Researchers were not able to directly attribute opioid prescriptions to the treating EPs, but instead used prescriptions filled within 3 days of an ED visits as a surrogate; some opioid prescriptions could have been written by another clinician, such as the patient’s primary care physician during a follow-up visit. Because the study focused on Medicare patients, the results may not be applicable to younger patients. Based on their analysis, researchers could not determine whether an opioid prescription was appropriate, and therefore they could not quantify the extent of opioid overprescribing.

For more on EPs and opioid prescribing, see “The New Opioid Epidemic and the Law of Unintended Consequences” by Emergency Medicine Editor in Chief Neal Flomenbaum, MD (Emergency Medicine. 2017;49[2]:52) and “The New Opioid Epidemic: Prescriptions, Synthetics, and Street Drugs” by Rama B. Rao, MD and Emergency Medicine Associate Editor, Toxicology Lewis S. Nelson, MD (Emergency Medicine. 2017;49[2]:64-70).

Barnett ML, Olenski AR, Jena AB. Opioid-prescribing patterns of emergency physicians and risk of long-term use. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(7):663-673. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1610524.

Lower Admission Rates, Other Factors Tied to High Rate of Death Soon After ED Discharge Among Older Adults

BY JEFF BAUER

Each year, approximately 10,000 older adult patients die within 7 days of discharge from an ED in the United States, despite having no obvious life-threatening illness, according to a large retrospective study. Emergency departments with lower rates of inpatient admission from the ED, lower patient volumes, and lower charges had significantly higher rates of death after discharge.

Researchers evaluated Medicare claims data related to slightly more than 10 million ED visits from 2007 to 2012. Because the goal was to study generally healthy patients, the following patients were excluded: individuals who were age 90 years and older; were receiving palliative or hospice care; or had received a life-limiting diagnosis, such as a myocardial infarction (MI) or a malignancy, either in the ED or in the year prior to the ED visit. The primary outcome was death within 7 days after discharge from an ED. The cause of death was determined by linking claims to death certificates; this information was available only for a subset of patients who visited an ED in 2007 or 2008.

Overall, during the 6-year study, 0.12% of discharged patients died within 7 days of discharge; this translates to more than 10,000 early deaths per year nationally. The leading causes of death were atherosclerotic heart disease (13.6%), MI (10.3%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (9.6%).

Emergency departments ranked in the lowest fifth for admission rates admitted 15% of patients, compared to 56% of patients at EDs with the highest admission rates. The early death rate of patients treated at EDs with the lowest rates of inpatient admissions from the ED was 3.4 times higher than the death rate seen in EDs with the highest inpatient admission rates (0.27% vs 0.08%, respectively). This was true despite the fact that EDs with low-admission rates treated healthier patients, as evidenced by the overall 7-day mortality rate of all patients treated in the ED, whether they were admitted or discharged. Emergency departments that saw higher volumes of patients and had higher charges for visits had significantly fewer deaths.

Obermeyer Z, Cohn B, Wilson M, Jena AB, Cutler DM. Early death after discharge from emergency departments: analysis of national US insurance claims data. BMJ. 2017;356:j239. doi:10.1136/bmj.j239.

Tertiary Center Repeat Computed Tomography Scans Find Additional Injuries

MICHELE G. SULLIVAN

FRONTLINE MEDICAL NEWS

Imaging obtained at nontertiary trauma centers (NTCs) probably does not tell the whole story of a trauma patient’s injuries, according to a new retrospective study.

Repeat scans done at a Level 1 trauma center identified new injuries in 76% of patients who were transferred, Morgan Bonds, MD, reported at the annual scientific assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. About half of these previously unobserved injuries were considered clinically significant, said Dr Bonds, a surgical resident at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City.

Her study examined imaging and clinical assessment of 203 trauma patients who were initially worked up at an NTC, and then transferred to the Level 1 University of Oklahoma tertiary trauma center (TTC). The facility’s primary radiologist reviewed all of the initial computed tomography (CT) scans while blinded to the NTC interpretation. The initial scans and interpretations were then compared with those done at the TTC.

The team split imaging and interpretation disconnects into four categories:

• Type A errors: A missed injury on the NTC scan. “This represents the expertise and experience of our primary radiologist,” Dr Bonds said.
• Type B errors: Missed injuries on scans where NTC radiologists saw other injuries that the TTC radiologist did not confirm. “This represents the experience of our radiologist and also the inexperience and overreaction of the NTC radiologists.”
• Type C errors: New injuries seen on additional TTC imaging of the same body area. “This represents the quality of the image.”
• Type D errors: New injuries found upon any new imaging, whether of a previously scanned or newly scanned body area. “This represents quality of work-up—the decision of the trauma team to more fully investigate the patient’s injuries, as well as the quality of the CT tech performing the scan.”

During the study period, 203 patients presented at the TTC with prior scans conducted at an NTC.

The mean age of the patients was 43 years; most (67%) were men. The mean Injury Severity Score was 16; 97% had experienced blunt trauma. Shock was present in 3% and a traumatic brain injury in 8%. Repeat scans were most common for neck and cervical spine injuries (54%) and thoracic/lumbar spine injuries (53%), and least common for chest injuries (32%).

An inadequate NTC work-up as judged by the TTC attending was the most common reason for obtaining new images (76%). Poor image quality was the next most common reason (31%).

Among the 203 patients, 99 (49%) had a type A error. Of these injuries missed on the initial scan, 90% were considered to be clinically significant.

Type B errors occurred in 15% of patients. Type C errors (new injuries in different body area) occurred in 54% of patients and, of these, 76% were considered clinically significant. Type D errors (new injuries seen in any imaging of any area) occurred in 73% of patients.

“This study confirms that images are often repeated or completed after having images done at NTCs,” Dr Bonds said. “Relying on NTC image interpretation can lead to undertreating our patients. One potential solution to this issue could be image sharing between NTCs and TTCs. This might reduce both the rate of missed injuries and the need for repeat scans.”

Cutaneous Eruption Reported in Pregnant Woman With Locally Acquired Zika Virus

M. ALEXANDER OTTO

FRONTLINE MEDICAL NEWS

Zika presented in a young, pregnant Florida woman as erythematous follicular macules and papules on the trunk and arms, scattered tender pink papules on the palms, and a few petechiae on the hard palate, according to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The report advises how Zika virus may present during pregnancy. “Medical providers on the front line should be aware of the constellation of symptoms in patients reporting travel to endemic areas, including areas in Southern Florida, where other non-travel-associated cases have been confirmed,” wrote investigators led by Lucy Chen, MD, of the University of Miami.

The 23-year-old woman presented on July 7, 2016 at 23 weeks and 3 days’ gestation with a 3-day history of fever, widespread pruritic rash, and sore throat, which were followed by myalgias and joint pain 2 days later. The cutaneous eruption was noted on physical examination; neither conjunctivitis nor lymphadenopathy was present. The patient and her partner said they had not traveled outside the United States for 2 years.

Zika virus RNA was detected in the woman’s urine and serum specimens with the use of reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction and persisted for 2 weeks in urine samples and for 6 weeks in serum samples. On histopathology, skin lesions revealed a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltration in the upper dermis, admixed with some neutrophils. Liver and renal functions were normal.

Fetal ultrasonography performed on the day of presentation showed an estimated fetal weight of 644 g (53rd percentile), an estimated head circumference of 221 mm (63rd percentile), and normal intracranial anatomy. Fevers and rash subsided after 3 days of supportive care. Screening for measles, varicella, rubella, syphilis, Epstein-Barr virus, influenza, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, mumps, and dengue was negative.

An initial immunoglobulin M test on July 7 was negative; seroconversion occurred 1 week after presentation and remained positive through delivery.

A full-term infant weighing 2,990 g was delivered vaginally. Neonatal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging of the head showed a normal head size and intracranial anatomy, with no calcifications. Placental tissue was negative for Zika virus, and neonatal laboratory testing revealed no evidence of infection.

The case was confirmed by the Miami-Dade County Department of Health as the first non-travel-associated Zika infection in the United States.

Chen L, Hafeez F, Curry CL, Elgart G. Cutaneous eruption in a U.S. woman with locally acquired Zika virus infection. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(4):400-401. doi:10.1056/NEJMc1610614.

Lab Values Poor Surrogate for Detecting Pediatric Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever in Children

WHITNEY MCKNIGHT

FRONTLINE MEDICAL NEWS

Three fatalities observed in a retrospective analysis of six cases of Rocky Mountain spotted fever (RMSF) in children were associated with either a delayed diagnosis pending laboratory findings or delayed anti-rickettsia treatment, researchers said.

“The fact that all fatal cases died before the convalescent period emphasizes that diagnosis should be based on clinical findings instead of RMSF serologic and histologic testing,” wrote the authors of a study published online in Pediatric Dermatology.

Rechelle Tull of the department of dermatology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, and her colleagues conducted a retrospective review of 3,912 inpatient dermatology consultations over a period of 10 years at a tertiary care center, and identified six patients aged 22 months to 2 years (mean, 5.1 years) diagnosed with RMSF. The patients were evaluated in the months of April, May, and June, and three of the six patients infected with the vector-borne obligate intracellular bacterium, Rickettsia rickettsii, had died within 4 days of hospitalization, according to the authors.

Two of the fatal cases involved delayed anti-rickettsial therapy after the patients were misdiagnosed with group A Streptococcus. None of the six children were initially evaluated for R rickettsii; they averaged three encounters with their clinician before being admitted for acute inpatient care, where they received intravenous doxycycline after nearly a week of symptoms.

“All fatal cases were complicated by neurologic manifestations, including seizures, obtundation, and uncal herniation,” a finding that is consistent with the literature, the authors said.

Although the high-fatality rate might be the result of the small study size, Ms Tull and her coinvestigators concluded that the disease should be considered in all differential diagnoses for children who present with a fever and rash during the summer months in endemic areas, particularly since pediatric cases of the disease are associated with poorer outcomes than adult cases.

Given that RMSF often remains subclinical in its early stages, and typically presents with nonspecific symptoms of fever, rash, headache, and abdominal pain when it does emerge, physicians might be tempted to defer treatment until after serological and histological results are in, as is the standard method. Concerns over doxycycline’s tendency to stain teeth and cause enamel hypoplasia are also common. However, empirical administration could mean the difference between life and death, since treatment within the first 5 days following infection is associated with better outcomes—an algorithm complicated by the fact that symptoms caused by R rickettsii have been known to take as long as 21 days to appear.

In the study, Ms Tull and her colleagues found that the average time between exposure to the tick and the onset of symptoms was 6.6 days (range, 1-21 days).

Currently, there are no diagnostic tests “that reliably diagnose RMSF during the first 7 days of illness,” and most patients “do not develop detectable antibodies until the second week of illness,” the investigators reported. Even then, sensitivity of indirect fluorescent antibody serum testing after the second week of illness is only between 86% and 94%, they noted. Further, the sensitivity of immunohistochemical (IHC) tissue staining has been reported at 70%, and false-negative IHC results are common in acute disease when antibody response is harder to detect.

Ms Tull and her colleagues found that five of the six patients in their study had negative IHC testing; two of the six had positive serum antibody titers. For this reason, they concluded that RMSF diagnosis should be based on “clinical history, examination, and laboratory abnormalities” rather than laboratory testing, and urged that “prompt treatment should be instituted empirically.”

Tull R, Ahn C, Daniel A, Yosipovitch G, Strowd LC. Retrospective study of Rocky Mountain spotted fever in children. Pediatr Dermatol. 2016 Dec 19. doi:10.1111/pde.13053. [Epub ahead of print]

In this issue of EM, EP-toxicologists Rama Rao, MD, and Lewis Nelson, MD, review the salient features of the current opioid epidemic in the United States. The authors differentiate this epidemic from prior patterns of heroin and opioid abuse partly by the clinical features that now make timely diagnosis and treatment in the ED more difficult.

According to the CDC, between 2000 and 2015, the number of opioid overdose deaths in this country quadrupled to half a million, or 91 deaths a day (http://bit.ly/2jEOHfs). We know now that prescription opioids have been driving this 15-year increase. Since 1999, both the amount of opioids prescribed and the number of opioid deaths in the US have quadrupled. Ironically, during that same period, the amount of pain reported has not changed overall (http://bit.ly/2jEOHfs). In 2015 alone, opioids were involved with 33,091 deaths, of which more than 15,000 were due to prescription opioid overdoses—most commonly methadone, oxycodone, and hydrocodone (http://bit.ly/2jZ1TfO and http://bit.ly/2iwagAI). Adding to the misery has been a sharp increase in deaths due to heroin since 2010, and a similar increase in deaths due to fentanyl, tramadol, and other synthetics since 2013. Currently, more than 1,000 people are treated in EDs each day for misusing prescription opioids (http://bit.ly/2iwagAI).

The road to the current epidemic began to be paved with good intentions in the late 1990s when, soon after the FDA approved the controlled-release form of oxycodone (Oxycontin), the American Pain Society introduced the phrase “pain as the fifth vital sign.” In 1999, the Department of Veterans Affairs embraced the statement, as did other organizations. The Joint Commission standards for pain management in 2001 stated “pain is assessed in all patients” (all was dropped in 2009) and contained a passing reference to pain as the fifth vital sign. In 2012, CMS added to its ED performance core measures timely pain treatment for long bone fractures, emphasizing parenteral medications.

By 2010, the problems created by emphasizing effective pain management had become evident, and measures began to be introduced to restrict the prescribing and availability of pharmaceutical opioids. The restrictions sent many patients to EDs seeking pain meds. Others sought substitutes on the street and ultimately ended up in EDs as overdoses from very potent synthetics. Many EPs began to limit opioid prescriptions to 3 days for acute painful conditions, though not all patients were able to obtain follow-up appointments with PCPs within that time period. 

In April 2016, the Joint Commission issued a statement claiming it was not responsible for “pain as the fifth vital sign” or for suggesting that pain be treated with opioids. In June 2016, the AMA urged dropping “pain-as-the-fifth-vital-sign” policies, and in 2014, CMS modified its core measure emphasis on parenteral medication in the timely treatment of long bone fractures. But the damage has been done, leaving many people requiring help managing their pain and others suffering the consequences of opioid dependence.

EPs must continue to deal with victims of overdoses without denying pain treatment to those with acute, acute-on-chronic, and recurrent pain. Increased use of effective non-opioid pain meds such as NSAIDs may help, although not everyone can tolerate them and there are long-term risks. For large, overcrowded, urban EDs where treatment of pain is not always timely or consistent, 24/7 ED pain management teams working with EPs could be a tremendous asset, just as 24/7 ED pharmacists have proven to be. Until both effective pain treatment and the resultant opioid dependence and overdoses can be successfully addressed, regulatory agencies should deemphasize, without completely eliminating, pain treatment questions in scoring patient satisfaction. 

In this issue of EM, EP-toxicologists Rama Rao, MD, and Lewis Nelson, MD, review the salient features of the current opioid epidemic in the United States. The authors differentiate this epidemic from prior patterns of heroin and opioid abuse partly by the clinical features that now make timely diagnosis and treatment in the ED more difficult.

According to the CDC, between 2000 and 2015, the number of opioid overdose deaths in this country quadrupled to half a million, or 91 deaths a day (http://bit.ly/2jEOHfs). We know now that prescription opioids have been driving this 15-year increase. Since 1999, both the amount of opioids prescribed and the number of opioid deaths in the US have quadrupled. Ironically, during that same period, the amount of pain reported has not changed overall (http://bit.ly/2jEOHfs). In 2015 alone, opioids were involved with 33,091 deaths, of which more than 15,000 were due to prescription opioid overdoses—most commonly methadone, oxycodone, and hydrocodone (http://bit.ly/2jZ1TfO and http://bit.ly/2iwagAI). Adding to the misery has been a sharp increase in deaths due to heroin since 2010, and a similar increase in deaths due to fentanyl, tramadol, and other synthetics since 2013. Currently, more than 1,000 people are treated in EDs each day for misusing prescription opioids (http://bit.ly/2iwagAI).

The road to the current epidemic began to be paved with good intentions in the late 1990s when, soon after the FDA approved the controlled-release form of oxycodone (Oxycontin), the American Pain Society introduced the phrase “pain as the fifth vital sign.” In 1999, the Department of Veterans Affairs embraced the statement, as did other organizations. The Joint Commission standards for pain management in 2001 stated “pain is assessed in all patients” (all was dropped in 2009) and contained a passing reference to pain as the fifth vital sign. In 2012, CMS added to its ED performance core measures timely pain treatment for long bone fractures, emphasizing parenteral medications.

By 2010, the problems created by emphasizing effective pain management had become evident, and measures began to be introduced to restrict the prescribing and availability of pharmaceutical opioids. The restrictions sent many patients to EDs seeking pain meds. Others sought substitutes on the street and ultimately ended up in EDs as overdoses from very potent synthetics. Many EPs began to limit opioid prescriptions to 3 days for acute painful conditions, though not all patients were able to obtain follow-up appointments with PCPs within that time period. 

In April 2016, the Joint Commission issued a statement claiming it was not responsible for “pain as the fifth vital sign” or for suggesting that pain be treated with opioids. In June 2016, the AMA urged dropping “pain-as-the-fifth-vital-sign” policies, and in 2014, CMS modified its core measure emphasis on parenteral medication in the timely treatment of long bone fractures. But the damage has been done, leaving many people requiring help managing their pain and others suffering the consequences of opioid dependence.

EPs must continue to deal with victims of overdoses without denying pain treatment to those with acute, acute-on-chronic, and recurrent pain. Increased use of effective non-opioid pain meds such as NSAIDs may help, although not everyone can tolerate them and there are long-term risks. For large, overcrowded, urban EDs where treatment of pain is not always timely or consistent, 24/7 ED pain management teams working with EPs could be a tremendous asset, just as 24/7 ED pharmacists have proven to be. Until both effective pain treatment and the resultant opioid dependence and overdoses can be successfully addressed, regulatory agencies should deemphasize, without completely eliminating, pain treatment questions in scoring patient satisfaction. 

In this issue of EM, EP-toxicologists Rama Rao, MD, and Lewis Nelson, MD, review the salient features of the current opioid epidemic in the United States. The authors differentiate this epidemic from prior patterns of heroin and opioid abuse partly by the clinical features that now make timely diagnosis and treatment in the ED more difficult.

According to the CDC, between 2000 and 2015, the number of opioid overdose deaths in this country quadrupled to half a million, or 91 deaths a day (http://bit.ly/2jEOHfs). We know now that prescription opioids have been driving this 15-year increase. Since 1999, both the amount of opioids prescribed and the number of opioid deaths in the US have quadrupled. Ironically, during that same period, the amount of pain reported has not changed overall (http://bit.ly/2jEOHfs). In 2015 alone, opioids were involved with 33,091 deaths, of which more than 15,000 were due to prescription opioid overdoses—most commonly methadone, oxycodone, and hydrocodone (http://bit.ly/2jZ1TfO and http://bit.ly/2iwagAI). Adding to the misery has been a sharp increase in deaths due to heroin since 2010, and a similar increase in deaths due to fentanyl, tramadol, and other synthetics since 2013. Currently, more than 1,000 people are treated in EDs each day for misusing prescription opioids (http://bit.ly/2iwagAI).

The road to the current epidemic began to be paved with good intentions in the late 1990s when, soon after the FDA approved the controlled-release form of oxycodone (Oxycontin), the American Pain Society introduced the phrase “pain as the fifth vital sign.” In 1999, the Department of Veterans Affairs embraced the statement, as did other organizations. The Joint Commission standards for pain management in 2001 stated “pain is assessed in all patients” (all was dropped in 2009) and contained a passing reference to pain as the fifth vital sign. In 2012, CMS added to its ED performance core measures timely pain treatment for long bone fractures, emphasizing parenteral medications.

By 2010, the problems created by emphasizing effective pain management had become evident, and measures began to be introduced to restrict the prescribing and availability of pharmaceutical opioids. The restrictions sent many patients to EDs seeking pain meds. Others sought substitutes on the street and ultimately ended up in EDs as overdoses from very potent synthetics. Many EPs began to limit opioid prescriptions to 3 days for acute painful conditions, though not all patients were able to obtain follow-up appointments with PCPs within that time period. 

In April 2016, the Joint Commission issued a statement claiming it was not responsible for “pain as the fifth vital sign” or for suggesting that pain be treated with opioids. In June 2016, the AMA urged dropping “pain-as-the-fifth-vital-sign” policies, and in 2014, CMS modified its core measure emphasis on parenteral medication in the timely treatment of long bone fractures. But the damage has been done, leaving many people requiring help managing their pain and others suffering the consequences of opioid dependence.

EPs must continue to deal with victims of overdoses without denying pain treatment to those with acute, acute-on-chronic, and recurrent pain. Increased use of effective non-opioid pain meds such as NSAIDs may help, although not everyone can tolerate them and there are long-term risks. For large, overcrowded, urban EDs where treatment of pain is not always timely or consistent, 24/7 ED pain management teams working with EPs could be a tremendous asset, just as 24/7 ED pharmacists have proven to be. Until both effective pain treatment and the resultant opioid dependence and overdoses can be successfully addressed, regulatory agencies should deemphasize, without completely eliminating, pain treatment questions in scoring patient satisfaction.