3,970
Views
16
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Clinical Research

A randomized trial comparing physostigmine vs lorazepam for treatment of antimuscarinic (anticholinergic) toxidrome

, , , , , & show all
Pages 698-704 | Received 12 Sep 2020, Accepted 17 Nov 2020, Published online: 09 Dec 2020
 

Abstract

Background

Toxicity from antimuscarinic agents precipitates a constellation of signs and symptoms; two of the most significant are agitation and delirium. Benzodiazepines are commonly used for treatment; physostigmine is also effective but is underutilized due to concerns for safety and short duration of action. The objective of this study was to compare lorazepam to physostigmine for the treatment of antimuscarinic delirium and agitation.

Methods

This was a blinded, randomized clinical trial in patients presenting for antimuscarinic toxidrome. Inclusion criteria were: ≥10–<18 years old, at least one central and two peripheral antimuscarinic symptoms, delirium and moderate agitation. Subjects were randomized to either (1) lorazepam bolus (0.05 mg/kg) followed by a 4-h normal saline infusion, or (2) physostigmine 0.02 mg/kg bolus followed by a 4-h physostigmine infusion (0.02 mg/kg/h). Primary outcomes were the control of delirium and agitation after bolus and during the infusion.

Results

Ten (53%) subjects were enrolled in the lorazepam arm, 9 (47%) in the physostigmine arm. Diphenhydramine was the most common agent ingested (16, 84%). Fewer patients receiving physostigmine had delirium after the initial bolus (44% vs 100%, p = 0.01) and at the 4th hour of infusion (22% vs 100%, p < 0.001) compared to patients who received lorazepam. There was a significant decrease in agitation scores in the physostigmine arm compared to the lorazepam arm after the initial bolus (89% vs 30%, p = 0.02), but no difference at the 4th hour of infusion (p > 0.99). There were no seizures, bradycardia, bronchorrhea, bronchospasm, intubation, or cardiac dysrhythmias.

Conclusion

Physostigmine was superior to lorazepam in controlling antimuscarinic delirium and agitation after bolus dosing, and control of delirium after a 4-h infusion. There were no serious adverse events in either treatment arm. Physostigmine bolus and infusion should be considered in adolescent patients with significant delirium and agitation from antimuscarinic agents

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research project was supported by the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology Junior Investigator Research Award Grant and Lampe-Kunkel Memorial Award.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 1,501.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.