Comparing clinical outcomes between two scorpion antivenom dosing strategies in children

Abstract

Background and Objectives: The clinical course from scorpion envenomation can range from mild to life threatening, particularly in younger children. The F(ab’)₂ antivenom currently available in the United States is extremely effective for countering the neurotoxic effects but extremely expensive. This dose comparison study assesses clinical outcomes between two antivenom dosing strategies.

Methods: This was a retrospective review of medical records of pediatric patients treated in the pediatric emergency department (PED) with grade 3 or 4 envenomation requiring antivenom. Treatments rendered at two time-periods were assessed: 3-vial first dose (May 2007–August 2011) and single-vial-serial dose (September 2011–June 2016). Primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved complete symptom resolution within 4 h post antivenom dose.

Results: One hundred and forty-one children met entry criteria, 76 in 3-vial first dose and 65 in single-vial-serial dose. Median age was 4 years (Q1:2–Q3:7), 56.2% males. There were no demographic and differences in clinical severity at presentation between the two dosing groups. All children, irrespective of group assignment, achieved the primary end-point of symptom resolution within 4 h. Median time to complete resolution of symptoms was longer for the single-vial-serial-dosing group vs. the 3-vial-first dose group [90 min (Q1:63–Q3:124) vs. 62 min (Q1:40–Q3:90), p = 0.002]. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding clinical outcomes including PED discharge, intubation, hospitalization, or death.

Conclusion: In this retrospective analysis, children in both single-vial-serial dosing group, and 3-vial-full dosing group, achieved symptom resolution within 4 h of initiating therapy with no additional complications or adverse clinical outcomes.

Keywords:

• Scorpion
• antivenom
• children
• dosing
• cost

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.