4.5 Article

Pro: Oximes should be used routinely in organophosphate poisoning

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 88, 期 12, 页码 5064-5069

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15215

关键词

acetylcholinesterase; obidoxime; organophosphate poisoning; oximes; pralidoxime

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the treatment of poisoning with organophosphorus compounds, drug-induced reactivation of acetylcholinesterase is essential for timely termination of the cholinergic crisis. Obidoxime and pralidoxime have been proven to reactivate inhibited cholinesterase and save the lives of poisoned animals.
In poisoning with organophosphorus compounds (OP), patients can only profit from the regeneration of acetylcholinesterase, when the poison load has dropped below a toxic level. Every measure that allows an increase of synaptic acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activity at the earliest is essential for timely termination of the cholinergic crisis. Only drug-induced reactivation allows fast restoration of the inhibited AChE. Obidoxime and pralidoxime have proved to be able to reactivate inhibited cholinesterase thereby saving life of poisoned animals. A plasma level of obidoxime or pralidoxime allowing reactivation in humans poisoned by OP can be adjusted. There is no doubt that obidoxime and pralidoxime are able to reactivate OP-inhibited AChE activity in poisoned patients, thereby increasing AChE activity and contributing substantially to terminate cholinergic crisis. Hence, a benefit may be expected when substantial reactivation is achieved. A test system allowing determination of red blood cell AChE activity, reactivatability, inhibitory equivalents and butyrylcholinesterase activity is available for relatively low cost. If any reactivation is possible while inhibiting equivalents are present, oxime therapy should be maintained. In particular, when balancing the benefit risk assessment, obidoxime or palidoxime should be given as soon as possible and as long as a substantial reactivation may be expected.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据