Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of Pre-Medication on Early Adverse Reactions Following Antivenom Use in Snakebite

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Pre-medication has been used to protect against early adverse reactions (EAR) following antivenom administration after snakebite. Studies have evaluated its efficacy with variable results.

Objective: The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review and metaanalysis of published data to assess the effect of pre-medication on the risk of EAR.

Methods: We conducted a search of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database and various search engines/websites, searched handbooks, book chapters and peer-reviewed articles relating to clinical snakebite, and consulted experts in this field. The search was on published literature up to September 2010. A meta-analysis was conducted of all randomized and non-randomized studies of EAR following antivenom in snakebite that utilized either adrenaline (epinephrine)-containing or non-adrenaline (antihistamines, corticosteroids)-containing pre-medications compared with control groups. We performed either random- or fixed-effects analysis based on the presence of heterogeneity as assessed with two tests, including the I(su2) statistic, and performed restricted analyses on data derived from randomized or non-randomized studies. Sensitivity analysis investigating the influence of single studies on overall estimates was conducted and we determined publication bias where detected in both of the two tests used for its assessment.

Results: Three randomized and four non-randomized studies were selected for inclusion in this study. When all ten comparisons from the seven selected studies were combined (with a total of 434 subjects in the pre-medication groups and 399 subjects in the control groups), the overall summary risk ratio (RR) for EAR was 0.70 (95% CI 0.50, 0.99; p = 0.041; I2 = 66.5%). When analysis was restricted to only studies employing adrenaline-containing premedication, the combined summary RR was 0.32 (95% CI 0.18, 0.58; p < 0.0001; I2 = 9.5%). Results were not statistically significant when analyses were restricted to studies employing non-adrenaline-containing pre-medications, or cohort or randomized controlled designs. Analysis was limited by heterogeneity, paucity and quality of data.

Conclusions: Findings are consistent with a substantial beneficial effect of adrenaline pre-medication, but a marginal benefit with the combination of pre-medications used against EAR could not be excluded. Future studies are recommended and they should explore possible synergism of broader combinations of drugs and effects of mode of antivenom administration in large randomized controlled trials. Meanwhile, highly purified antivenoms with less risk of EAR should be made available in the rural tropics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig 1
Table I
Fig 2
Fig 3
Fig 4
Fig 5
Fig 6
Fig 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gawarammana IB, Kularatne SA, Dissanayake W, et al. Parallel infusion of hydrocortisone±chlorpheniramine bolus injection to prevent acute adverse reactions to antivenom for snakebites: a randomised, double-blind, placebocontrolled study. Med J Aust 2004; 180(1): 20–3

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Malasit P, Warrell DA, Chanthavanich P, et al. Prediction, prevention, and mechanism of early (anaphylactic) antivenom reactions in victims of snake bites. BMJ 1986; 292(6512): 17–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fan HW, Marcopito LF, Cardoso JLC, et al. Sequential randomised and double blind trial of promethazine prophylaxis against early anaphylactic reactions to antivenom for bothrops snake bites. BMJ 1999; 318(7196): 1451–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Premawardhena AP, de Silva CE, Fonseka MMD, et al. Low dose subcutaneous adrenaline to prevent acute adverse reactions to antivenom serum in people bitten by snakes: randomised, placebo controlled trial. BMJ 1999; 318(7190): 1041–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Nuchpraryoon I, Garner P. Interventions for preventing reactions to snake antivenom. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2000;(2):CD002153

  6. Ball DE, Tisocki K. Prophylaxis against early anaphylactic reactions to snake antivenom: stopping trials early may result in insufficient evidence being accrued. BMJ 1999; 319(7214): 920–1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Caron EJ, Manock SR, Maudlin J, et al. Apparent marked reduction in early antivenom reactions compared to historical controls: was it prophylaxis or method of administration? Toxicon 2009; 54(6): 779–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomised clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17(1): 1–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. BMJ 2003; 327: 557–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7(3): 177–88

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Dickersin K, Berlin JA. Meta-analysis: state-of-the-science. Epidemiol Rev 1992; 14: 154–76

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Tobias A. Assessing the influence of single study in the metaanalysis estimate (sb26). Stata Tech Bull 1999; 47: 15–7

    Google Scholar 

  13. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994; 50(4): 1088–101

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in metaanalysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315(7109): 629–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, et al. The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ 2006; 333: 597–600

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 1999; 354: 1896–900

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for writing. JAMA 2000; 283(15): 2008–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Sutherland SK. Antivenom use in Australia: premedication, adverse reactions and the use of venom detection kits. Med J Aust 1992; 157(11–12): 734–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bucaretchi F, Douglas JL, Fonseca MR, et al. Snake bites in children: antivenom early reaction frequency in patients pretreated with histamine antagonists H1 and H2 and hydrocortisone. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo 1994; 36(5): 451–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Zafar J, Aziz S, Hamid B, et al. Snake bite experience at Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences. J Pak Med Assoc 1998; 48(10): 308–10

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sutherland SK. A life-threatening anaphylactoid reaction to polyvalent antivenom despite pretreatment. Med J Aust 1999; 170(2): 92–3

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Chen JC, Bullard MJ, Chiu TF, et al. Risk of immediate effects from F(ab)2 bivalent antivenin in Taiwan. Wilderness Environ Med 2000; 11(3): 163–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kularatne SAM. Reaction to snake venom antisera: study of pattern, severity, and management at General Hospital, Anuradhapura. Sri Lanka J Med 2000; 9: 8–13

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dassanayake AS, Karunanayake P, Kasturiratne KTA, et al. Safety of subcutaneous adrenaline as prophylaxis against acute adverse reactions to anti-venom serum in snakebite. Ceylon Med J 2002; 47(2): 48–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Brown SG. Parallel infusion of hydrocortisone ± chlorpheniramine bolus injection to prevent acute adverse reactions to antivenom for snakebites [letter]. Med J Aust 2004; 180(8): 428

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cheng AC, Winkel KD. Antivenom efficacy, safety and availability: measuring smoke. Med J Aust 2004; 180(1): 5–6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Williams DJ, Jensen SD, Nimorakiotakis B, et al. Antivenom use, premedication and early adverse reactions in the management of snake bites in rural Papua New Guinea. Toxicon 2007; 49(6): 780–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Isbister GK, Brown SG, MacDonald E, et al. Current use of Australian snake antivenoms and frequency of immediatetype hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis. Med J Aust 2008; 188(8): 473–6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Seneviratne SL, Opanayaka CJ, Ratnayake NS, et al. Use of antivenom serum in snake bite: a prospective study of hospital practice in the Gampaha district. Ceylon Med J 2000; 45(2): 65–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Brown SG. Clinical features and severity grading of anaphylaxis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004; 114(2): 371–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lin RY, Curry A, Pesola GR, et al. Improved outcomes in patients with acute allergic syndromes who are treated with combined H1 and H2 anatagonists. Ann Emerg Med 2000; 36(5): 462–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Meyer WP, Habib AG, Onayade AA, et al. First clinical experiences with a new ovine FAB Echis ocellatus snakebite antivenom in Nigeria: randomised comparative trial with institute pasteur serum (IPSer) Africa antivenom. Am J Trop Med Hygiene 1997; 56(3): 291–300

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Chippaux J-P, Lang J, Amadi Eddine S, et al. Clinical safety of a polyvalent F(ab’)2 equine antivenom in 223 African snake envenomations: a field trial in Cameroon. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1998; 92(6): 657–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Mills EJ, Nachega JB, Buchan I, et al. Adherence to antiretroviral therapy in sub-Saharan Africa and North America. JAMA 2006; 296(6): 679–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Balcells ME, Thomas SL, Godfrey-Fausett P, et al. Isoniazid preventive therapy and risk for resistant tuberculosis. Emerg Infect Dis 2006; 12(5): 744–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Martyn-St James M, Carroll S. Meta-analysis of walking for preservation of bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. Bone 2008; 43: 521–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kwok CS, Nijjar RS, Loke YK. Effects of proton pump inhibitors on adverse gastrointestinal events in patients receiving clopidogrel: systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug Saf 2011; 34(1): 47–57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Chippaux JP, Stock RP, Massougbodji A. Methodology of clinical studies dealing with the treatment of envenoma-tion. Toxicon 2010; 55(7): 1195–212

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article. The author declares there is no conflict of interest. The author would like to acknowledge with gratitude fellow colleagues in the EchiTab Study Group (Nigeria and UK) [working on the control of snakebite in Nigeria], in particular Professor David A. Warrell, for their encouragement and continued support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit, Department of Medicine, Bayero University Kano, Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, PMB, 3452, Kano, Nigeria

    Abdulrazaq G. Habib

Authors
  1. Abdulrazaq G. Habib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdulrazaq G. Habib.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Habib, A.G. Effect of Pre-Medication on Early Adverse Reactions Following Antivenom Use in Snakebite. Drug-Safety 34, 869–880 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2165/11592050-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11592050-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation