Species differences in acrylonitrile metabolism and toxicity between experimental animals and humans based on observations in human accidental poisonings

The high acute toxicity of acrylonitrile may be a result of its intrinsic biological reactivity or of its metabolite cyanide. Intravenous N-acetylcysteine has been recommended for treatment of accidental intoxications in acrylonitrile workers, but such recommendations vary internationally. Acrylonitrile is metabolized in humans and experimental animals via two competing pathways; the glutathione-dependent pathway is considered to represent an avenue of detoxication whilst the oxidative pathway leads to a genotoxic epoxide, cyanoethylene oxide, and to elimination of cyanide. Cases of acute acrylonitrile overexposure or intoxication have occurred within persons having industrial contact with acrylonitrile; the route of exposure was by inhalation and/or by skin contact. The combined observations lead to the conclusion of a much higher impact of the oxidative metabolism of acrylonitrile in humans than in rodents. This is confirmed by differences in the clinical picture of acute life-threatening intoxications in both species, as well as by differential efficacies of antidotes. A combination of N-acetylcysteine with sodium thiosulfate seems an appropriate measure for antidote therapy of acute acrylonitrile intoxications. Clinical observations also highlight the practical importance of human individual susceptibility differences. Furthermore, differential adduct monitoring, assessing protein adducts with different rates of decay, enables the development of more elaborated biological monitoring strategies for the surveillance of workers with potential acrylonitrile contact.

Prescribing for nausea in palliative care : A cross-sectional national survey of Australian palliative medicine doctors

Background: Nausea can be a debilitating symptom for patients with a life-limiting illness. While addressing reversible components, nonpharmacological strategies and antiemetics are the main therapeutic option. The choice of medication, dose, and route of administration remain highly variable. Objective: The aim of this study was to codify the current clinical approaches and quantify any variation found nationally. Methods: A cross-sectional study utilizing a survey of palliative medicine clinicians examined prescribing preferences for nausea using a clinical vignette. Respondent characteristics, the use of nonpharmacological interventions, first- and second-line antiemetic choices, commencing and maximal dose, and time to review were collected. Results: Responding clinicians were predominantly working in palliative medicine across a range of settings with a 49% response rate (105/213). The main nonpharmacological recommendation was “small, frequent snacks.” Metoclopramide was the predominant first-line agent (69%), followed by haloperidol (26%), while second-line haloperidol was the predominant agent (47%), with wide variation in other nominated agents. Respondents favoring metoclopramide as first-line tended to use haloperidol second-line (65%), but not vice versa. Maximal doses for an individual antiemetic varied up to tenfold. Conclusion: For nausea, a commonly encountered symptom in palliative care, clinicians' favored metoclopramide and haloperidol; however, after these choices, there was large variation in antiemetic selection. While most clinicians recommended modifying meal size and frequency, use of other nonpharmacological therapies was limited.