62
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      2013 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System (NPDS): 31st Annual Report

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          Background: This is the 31st Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ (AAPCC) National Poison Data System (NPDS). As of January 1, 2013, 57 of the nation's poison centers (PCs) uploaded case data automatically to NPDS. The upload interval was 8.08 [7.10, 11.63] (median [25%, 75%]) minutes, creating a near real-time national exposure and information database and surveillance system.

          Methodology: We analyzed the case data tabulating specific indices from NPDS. The methodology was similar to that of previous years. Where changes were introduced, the differences are identified. Poison center (PC) cases with medical outcomes of death were evaluated by a team of 38 medical and clinical toxicologist reviewers using an ordinal scale of 1–6 to assess the Relative Contribution to Fatality (RCF) of the exposure to the death.

          Results: In 2013, 3,060,122 closed encounters were logged by NPDS: 2,188,013 human exposures, 59,496 animal exposures, 806,347 information calls, 6,116 human-confirmed nonexposures, and 150 animal-confirmed nonexposures. Total encounters showed a 9.3% decline from 2012, while health care facility human exposure calls were essentially flat, decreasing by 0.1%.All information calls decreased 21.4% and health care facility (HCF) information calls decreased 8.5%, medication identification requests (drug ID) decreased 26.8%, and human exposures reported to US PCs decreased 3.8%. Human exposures with less serious outcomes have decreased 3.7% per year since 2008 while those with more serious outcomes (moderate, major or death) have increased by 4.7% per year since 2000.

          The top five substance classes most frequently involved in all human exposures were analgesics (11.5%), cosmetics/personal care products (7.7%), household cleaning substances (7.6%), sedatives/hypnotics/antipsychotics (5.9%), and antidepressants (4.2%). Sedative/hypnotics/antipsychotics exposures as a class increased most rapidly (2,559 calls/year) over the last 13 years for cases showing more serious outcomes. The top five most common exposures in children of 5 years or less were cosmetics/personal care products (13.8%), household cleaning substances (10.4%), analgesics (9.8%), foreign bodies/toys/miscellaneous (6.9%), and topical preparations (6.1%). Drug identification requests comprised 50.7% of all information calls. NPDS documented 2,477 human exposures resulting in death with 2,113 human fatalities judged related (RCF of 1, undoubtedly responsible; 2, probably responsible; or 3, contributory).

          Conclusions: These data support the continued value of PC expertise and need for specialized medical toxicology information to manage the more severe exposures, despite a decrease in calls involving less severe exposures. Unintentional and intentional exposures continue to be a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. The near real-time, always current status of NPDS represents a national public health resource to collect and monitor US exposure cases and information calls. The continuing mission of NPDS is to provide a nationwide infrastructure for public health surveillance for all types of exposures, public health event identification, resilience response and situational awareness tracking. NPDS is a model system for the nation and global public health.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Position statement: ipecac syrup. American Academy of Clinical Toxicology; European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists.

          In preparing this Position Statement, all relevant scientific literature was identified and reviewed critically by acknowledged experts using agreed criteria. Well-conducted clinical and experimental studies were given precedence over anecdotal case reports and abstracts were not usually considered. A draft Position Statement was then produced and subjected to detailed peer review by an international group of clinical toxicologists chosen by the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology and the European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists. The Position Statement went through multiple drafts before being approved by the boards of the two societies and being endorsed by other societies. The Position Statement includes a summary statement for ease of use and is supported by detailed documentation which describes the scientific evidence on which the Statement is based. Syrup of ipecac should not be administered routinely in the management of poisoned patients. In experimental studies the amount of marker removed by ipecac was highly variable and diminished with time. There is no evidence from clinical studies that ipecac improves the outcome of poisoned patients and its routine administration in the emergency department should be abandoned. There are insufficient data to support or exclude ipecac administration soon after poison ingestion. Ipecac may delay the administration or reduce the effectiveness of activated charcoal, oral antidotes, and whole bowel irrigation. Ipecac should not be administered to a patient who has a decreased level or impending loss of consciousness or who has ingested a corrosive substance or hydrocarbon with high aspiration potential.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Position paper: Ipecac syrup.

            (2003)
            Syrup of ipecac should not be administered routinely in the management of poisoned patients. In experimental studies the amount of marker removed by ipecac was highly variable and diminished with time. There is no evidence from clinical studies that ipecac improves the outcome of poisoned patients and its routine administration in the emergency department should be abandoned. There are insufficient data to support or exclude ipecac administration soon after poison ingestion. Ipecac may delay the administration or reduce the effectiveness of activated charcoal, oral antidotes, and whole bowel irrigation. Ipecac should not be administered to a patient who has a decreased level or impending loss of consciousness or who has ingested a corrosive substance or hydrocarbon with high aspiration potential. A review of the literature since the preparation of the 1997 Ipecac Syrup Position Statement revealed no new evidence that would require a revision of the conclusions of that Statement.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Poison treatment in the home. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention.

              (2003)
              The ingestion of a potentially poisonous substance by a young child is a common event, with the American Association of Poison Control Centers reporting approximately 1.2 million such events in the United States in 2001. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has long concerned itself with this issue and has made poison prevention an integral component of its injury prevention initiatives. A key AAP recommendation has been to keep a 1-oz bottle of syrup of ipecac in the home to be used only on the advice of a physician or poison control center. Recently, there has been interest regarding activated charcoal in the home as a poison treatment strategy. After reviewing the evidence, the AAP believes that ipecac should no longer be used routinely as a home treatment strategy, that existing ipecac in the home should be disposed of safely, and that it is premature to recommend the administration of activated charcoal in the home. The first action for a caregiver of a child who may have ingested a toxic substance is to consult with the local poison control center.

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clin Toxicol (Phila)
                Clin Toxicol (Phila)
                ICTX
                ictx20
                Clinical Toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.)
                Taylor & Francis
                1556-3650
                1556-9519
                1 December 2014
                6 January 2015
                : 52
                : 10
                : 1032-1283
                Author notes
                Address correspondence to: James B. Mowry, PharmD, DABAT, FAACT, American Association of Poison Control Centers , 515 King Street, Suite 510, Alexandria, VA 22314. E-mail: annualreport@ 123456aapcc.org
                Article
                987397
                10.3109/15563650.2014.987397
                4782684
                25559822
                1c0c0521-97a8-4ec3-b36c-496a345915ff
                © 2014 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The moral rights of the named author(s) have been asserted.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 8, Tables: 35, References: 13, Pages: 252
                Categories
                NPDS Report 2013

                Toxicology
                Toxicology

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log