PubMed · 16628839
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
2006. Acetaminophen alert.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16628839/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
PURPOSE: In Thailand, there has been no study determining the concomitant use of medications, known to potentially interact with warfarin, in patients receiving warfarin therapy. This paper examined the frequency of which specific interacting drugs were concomitantly used in warfarin users. METHODS: We retrospectively examined the database of warfarin outpatient medical records from a regional 756-bed hospital located in the north of Thailand. All patients receiving warfarin from 10 June 1999 to 4 August 2004 were reviewed to identify all drugs possessing interaction potential with warfarin. The potential of significant interactions were divided into high, moderate and low, according to the extent of evidence documented in textbooks and literature. RESULTS: Among 1093 patients receiving warfarin therapy, 914 (84%) patients received at least one potentially interacting drug and half of them (457 patients) received at least one drug with high potential for interaction. The most frequently concomitant drug that increased INR was acetaminophen (63%, 316/457). Propylthiouracil was the most frequently concomitant drug that decreased INR response (4%, 19/457), while diclofenac was the most frequently concomitant drug that increased bleeding risk (16%, 73/457). CONCLUSIONS: About a half of patients receiving warfarin therapy was prescribed concomitant drug(s) that has a high potential of interactions with warfarin. These patients should be closely monitored and counselled to watch for signs and symptoms of bleeding and thrombosis to avoid adverse events associated with drug interactions.
Although antioxidants are used to treat an overdose of the analgaesic/antipyretic drug APAP (acetaminophen), roles of antioxidant enzymes in APAP-induced hepatotoxicity remain controversial. Our objective was to determine impacts of knockout of SOD1 (superoxide dismutase; Cu,Zn-SOD) alone or in combination with selenium-dependent GPX1 (glutathione peroxidase-1) on APAP-induced hepatotoxicity. All SOD1-null (SOD1-/-) and SOD1- and GPX1-double-knockout mice survived an intraperitoneal injection of 600 mg of APAP per kg of body mass, whereas 75% of WT (wild-type) and GPX1-null mice died within 20 h. Survival time of SOD1-/- mice injected with 1200 mg of APAP per kg of body mass was longer than that of the WT mice (934 compared with 315 min, P<0.05). The APAP-treated SOD1-/- mice had less (P<0.05) plasma ALT (alanine aminotransferase) activity increase and attenuated (P<0.05) hepatic glutathione depletion than the WT mice. The protection conferred by SOD1 deletion was associated with a block of the APAP-mediated hepatic protein nitration and a 50% reduction (P<0.05) in activity of a key APAP metabolism enzyme CYP2E1 (cytochrome P450 2E1) in liver. The SOD1 deletion also caused moderate shifts in the APAP metabolism profiles. In conclusion, deletion of SOD1 alone or in combination with GPX1 greatly enhanced mouse resistance to APAP overdose. Our results suggest a possible pro-oxidant role for the physiological level of SOD1 activity in APAP-mediated hepatotoxicity.
OBJECTIVE: Misconceptions and exaggerated fear of fever may divert parents' attention from more predictive symptoms of childhood illness, such as appetite and level of activity. This study aims at exploring how specific predefined characteristics of febrile preschool children affected parents' assessment of the severity of the condition and the perceived need for treatment with paracetamol. METHODS: Parents judged 24 constructed cases of febrile children with different levels of fever, appetite and activity, occurring at different times of the day. For each case they decided whether the child was moderately or severely ill, and whether or not they would prefer to administer paracetamol. Parents' decision-making was examined by discriminant analyses. RESULTS: Of 466 invited parents, 267 supplied information about their families and 205 accepted to participate in judging constructed cases of febrile children. A total of 159 parents responded to all cases. When evaluating the severity of the illness, 119 parents (75%) responded to one or more of the four cues describing illness. Only one of four cues was used by 80 parents (67%), and 86 (72%) parents emphasized fever. When deciding to give paracetamol, one or more of four cues was used by 102 parents (64%), while 72 parents (71%) used only one cue, and 92 parents (90%) emphasized fever. CONCLUSIONS: Parents focus on fever when they evaluate febrile illness and decide whether or not to give paracetamol. Educating parents to focus on their child's level of appetite or activity may improve management, especially when judgement is based on only one or two cues.