Dapsone 5mg/5ml oral solution

IntroductionThe Clinical Toxicology Recommendations Collaborative was established by three international clinical toxicology societies and tasked to produce recommendations on the management of poisonings. The Activated Charcoal in Clinical Toxicology Workgroup (the Workgroup) was formed to provide recommendations on the administration of activated charcoal for gastrointestinal decontamination and enhanced elimination in poisoning.MethodsBased on a systematic review of the literature, 43 poisons or poison categories were selected for appraisal. Voting statements were drafted using a predetermined format. Strength of consensus was measured using the Disagreement Index as defined by the RAND/University of California at Los Angeles Appropriateness Method. A two-round modified Delphi method was used to reach expert consensus.ResultsThe Workgroup concluded that there is no role for activated charcoal in poisoning from arsenic, caesium, copper, ethanol, methanol, ethylene glycol, iron, lead, lithium, and metformin. Activated charcoal is appropriate after ingestion of antidysrhythmics (types I and III not discussed specifically), beta-adrenergic antagonists, bupropion, calcium-channel blockers, carbamazepine, cardiac glycosides, chloroquine, cocaine, colchicine, cyanide, dapsone, diphenhydramine, disopyramide, factor Xa inhibitors, ibuprofen, isoniazid, lamotrigine, methotrexate, moclobemide, opioids, organophosphorus insecticides, paracetamol (acetaminophen), paraquat, phenobarbital, phenytoin, quinidine and quinine, salicylates, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, sulfonylureas, thallium, theophylline, tricyclic antidepressants, valproic acid, venlafaxine, and warfarin. An additional dose of activated charcoal to complete gastrointestinal decontamination is appropriate after ingestion of carbamazepine, paracetamol, paraquat, phenobarbital, salicylates, thallium, theophylline, valproic acid and verapamil. The maximum time post-ingestion for which activated charcoal administration is recommended differs for each poison and different formulations. According to an individualized risk assessment, activated charcoal is appropriate up to 6 h post-ingestion for many poisons. If ongoing absorption is suspected, which may occur, for example, with pharmacobezoar formation, certain modified-release preparations, or when drug burden exceeds the limits of solubility, then activated charcoal can be administered beyond 6 h post-ingestion for gastrointestinal decontamination. Multiple-dose activated charcoal for enhanced elimination is appropriate in poisoning with carbamazepine, cardiac glycosides, colchicine, dapsone, phenobarbital, phenytoin, thallium and theophylline.Before deciding to perform endotracheal intubation to assist with the administration of activated charcoal, every clinician needs to weigh the potential complications and adverse effects of this procedure against the toxicity expected to be prevented by the administration of activated charcoal. This is a challenging decision, and a local poison centre and/or a bedside toxicology consultation can assist with this decision. Endotracheal intubation is not a benign procedure and is associated with a high rate of various adverse events, such as new haemodynamic instability, severe hypoxaemia, and cardiac arrest, which seem more common in children. In three studies that evaluated the risks of endotracheal intubation in over 2,200 poisoned patients, the rates of hypotension were between 1.5% and 11.8%, desaturation between 3.4% and 7.1%, and cardiac arrest in 0.4%. The risk of aspiration following administration of activated charcoal after endotracheal intubation is reported to be low (1-4%). Therefore, the decision to endotracheally intubate a patient to administer activated charcoal needs to carefully assess the patient's other comorbidities and the expected toxicity of the ingestion, which needs to be clinically significant to outweigh the risk of endotracheal intubation. Endotracheal intubation may also be considered if another treatment, such as haemodialysis or extracorporeal circulation, might be required or for transportation to another institution for ongoing clinical care. In these situations, for which endotracheal intubation has been performed for another indication, the risk-benefit will change in favour of activated charcoal administration. The following good practice statements were adopted to address the use of endotracheal intubation to facilitate the administration of activated charcoal. Endotracheal intubation should not be performed solely for the purpose of administration of activated charcoal in patients not anticipated to develop clinically significant complications of poisoning.In patients in whom endotracheal intubation is clinically indicated (e.g., compromised or unprotected airway, respiratory failure, significantly diminished level of consciousness, refractory seizures, hemodynamic instability), insertion of a nasogastric or orogastric tube is reasonable to facilitate gastrointestinal decontamination with activated charcoal.In patients with a clinically significant risk of developing life-threatening toxicity, endotracheal intubation is reasonable to safely facilitate gastrointestinal decontamination, especially if other treatment options are nonexistent or unavailable.Use of nasogastric or orogastric tube insertion without endotracheal intubation to facilitate the administration of activated charcoal: The following good practice statement was adopted: Nasogastric or orogastric tube insertion without endotracheal intubation should not be performed solely for the purpose of administration of AC.DiscussionThe decision to use activated charcoal is complex and depends primarily on the nature of the poison(s), the time since ingestion, the severity of the symptoms present at the time of decision or expected based on the dose ingested or patient comorbidities, and the availability of antidotes or other treatments. Although the existing level of evidence is primarily of low or very low quality, clinical decisions are still necessary.ConclusionsThe Workgroup recommends the administration of a single-dose of activated charcoal beyond the traditional 1 h post-ingestion time point in selected poisons and introduces the concept of an additional dose of activated charcoal to prevent further absorption of poisons that may remain in the gastrointestinal tract for prolonged periods of time. Multiple-dose activated charcoal is also recommended to enhance elimination in selected clinical scenarios.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Background: Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory dermatosis characterized by vascular dysregulation, immune dysfunction, neurovascular alterations, and microbial involvement. Recent advances in understanding its pathophysiology have led to the development of targeted therapeutic strategies addressing multiple disease mechanisms. This systematic review aimed to evaluate contemporary evidence regarding emerging and established treatment approaches for rosacea. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published between 2016 and 2025. Original human studies evaluating therapeutic interventions for rosacea were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools appropriate for each study design. Results: Fifteen studies involving 537 patients with rosacea and 77 controls (614 participants in total) met the eligibility criteria. Evaluated interventions included vascular-targeted therapies, topical anti-inflammatory agents, systemic and immunomodulatory treatments, and microbiome-oriented approaches. Oxymetazoline, pulsed-dye laser, platelet-rich plasma, ivermectin, azelaic acid, dapsone, sulfur preparations, and metronidazole demonstrated clinical benefits in reducing erythema, inflammatory lesions, or overall disease severity. Emerging therapies, including tofacitinib and oral ivermectin, showed promising results in refractory disease. Microbiome-related interventions, particularly Demodex-targeted therapies and Helicobacter pylori eradication, were also associated with clinical improvement. Risk-of-bias assessment identified two studies with low risk of bias, twelve with moderate risk of bias, and one study with high risk of bias. Conclusions: Current evidence supports a multimodal and mechanism-based approach to rosacea management, integrating vascular, inflammatory, immunological, and microbiological targets. However, the available evidence remains limited by small sample sizes, heterogeneous methodologies, short follow-up periods, and a predominance of non-randomized study designs. Large, well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to establish optimal evidence-based treatment strategies and define the long-term efficacy and safety of emerging therapies.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Dapsone Hypersensitivity Syndrome (DHS) is a serious debilitating condition which can develop after 2-8 weeks of dapsone treatment in varying proportions between genetically diverse populations. Approximately 10% of the affected individuals die, and DHS patients often spend weeks to months in the hospital, which impacts health and psychological morbidity and household financial burden. In recent years, a human leukocyte antigen, HLA-B*13:01, has been consistently associated with up to 85% of DHS cases across international population studies; however, the necessity of next generation sequencing (NGS) severely limits clinical applications in low resource contexts. To investigate HLA-B*13:01 associations with DHS among Nepalese leprosy cases, retrospective and active DHS cases and dapsone-tolerant controls treated at least for 3 months with multi-drug therapy (MDT) were sampled and screened by HLA-B*13:01 qPCR. In the present study we enrolled 34 DHS cases and 82 dapsone tolerant controls and found that the association is maintained in a multi-ethnic Nepali population with an Odds Ratio of 50.1 (95% CI: 15.0-166.6). A previously validated qPCR-based commercial kit was used in the study, and we revalidated the methodology (23 negative and 35 positives by commercial qPCR) using Next Generation sequencing (NGS) method and found a concordance rate of 98.3%. We meta-analyzed all eligible HLA-B*13:01 and DHS association studies and found a summary Odds Ratio of 61.86 (95% CI 32.60 - 117.4). As 23.5% of the DHS cases were HLA-B*13:01 negative in our study, further analyses of the HLA-B*13:01 positive and negative study participants revealed that HLA-B*13:01 positive DHS cases were significantly younger than HLA-B*13:01 negative DHS cases (35.5 years vs. 66 years, p = 0.0018). The positive predictive value of the HLA test in the Nepalese population was ~ 24. The study validates the association between HLA-B*13:01 and DHS in Nepalese leprosy population. Inclusion of a genetic screening test before starting MDT could potentially prevent significant proportion of DHS occurring in leprosy cases, especially in South Asian and Southeast countries.

Abstract licence: CC BY