pmc logo image
Logo of bmjBMJ helping doctors make better decisionsSearchLatest content

Formats:

BMJ. 2001 March 3; 322(7285): 553.
PMCID: PMC1119747
Severity of overdose after restriction of paracetamol availability
Study's results conflict with those of other papers
C L Sheen, clinical research fellow
Email: chris/at/memo.dundee.ac.uk
T M MacDonald, professor of pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology
Medicines Monitoring Unit, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee DD1 9SY
Editor—Robinson et al report a reduction in the amount of paracetamol ingested in overdose since the introduction of reduced pack sizes and blister packing of over the counter paracetamol in September 1998.1 They found no change, however, in the incidence of hepatotoxicity. Their results contrast with those of other studies, which have shown a 21% reduction in episodes of hepatotoxicity and a 64% reduction in the development of severe hepatotoxicity.2,3
As they have stated, hepatic failure is rare if <12 g of paracetamol is ingested.4 But the median dose ingested in their study did not reach this level. It is thus unsurprising that the study included only five cases of hepatotoxicity; given this low number, it seems imprudent to claim that no change in incidence has occurred.
In addition, the paracetamol concentrations quoted in the paper are low, considering that concentrations >200 mg/l four hours after ingestion and >130 mg/l six hours after ingestion are used to guide the appropriate use of acetylcysteine treatment. Despite the low concentrations quoted, acetylcysteine was given to 25% and 31% of patients. This does not seem to accord with current practice recommendations.
Robinson et al conclude that the change in pack size had no effect on the incidence of severe liver failure. In our view, a stricter definition of paracetamol overdose is required if we are to make sense of the conflicting reports. Perhaps paracetamol overdose should be confined to subjects who claim to have taken an overdose and have a measurable serum concentration.
The burden of paracetamol poisoning on the NHS is high, with over 70 000 episodes a year in Britain.5 It is worrying that the recent measures have not had a more dramatic effect on this serious problem. If, as Turvill et al say,3 only a 21% reduction has been achieved then further measures such as limiting paracetamol to prescription only should be considered.
Footnotes
Competing interests: CLS is funded by an unrestricted fellowship from Pfizer to study the toxicity of over the counter non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and other analgesics. TMM is a member of the subcommittee on pharmacovigilance of the Committee on Safety of Medicines.
Competing interests: None declared.
Competing interests: RL is a member of the working group advising the New Zealand Ministry of Health on mandatory reporting of medical error policy. He is also executive director of the National Nutritional Foods Association and is motivated by injustice.
References
1. Robinson D, Smith AMJ, Johnston GD. Severity of overdose after restriction of paracetamol availability: retrospective study. BMJ. 2000;321:926–927. . (14 October.). [PubMed]
2. Prince MI, Thomas SHL, James OFW, Hudson M. Reduction in incidence of severe paracetamol poisoning. Lancet. 2000;355:2047–2048. [PubMed]
3. Turvill JL, Burroughs AK, Moore KP. Change in occurrence of paracetamol overdose in UK after introduction of blister packs. Lancet. 2000;355:2048–2049.
4. Routledge P, Vale JA, Bateman DN, Johnston GD, Jones A, Judd A, et al. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) poisoning. BMJ. 1998;317:1609–1610. [PubMed]
5. Fagan E, Wannan G. Reducing paracetamol overdoses. BMJ. 1996;313:1417–1418. [PubMed]

Restriction has not reduced admissions with self poisoning
Mohan R Thomas, staff grade physician
Nigel I Jowett, consultant physician
Email: nigel.jowett/at/pdt.tr.wales.nhs.uk Department of Medicine, Withybush General Hospital, Pembrokeshire SA61 2PZ
 
Editor—The report by Robinson et al,1-1 and other reports,1-2,1-3 suggests that restriction of sales of paracetamol has reduced the number and severity of paracetamol poisonings. This is welcome, but the effect on all cases of self poisoning has not been considered. Suspecting that selective restriction of paracetamol would result in other drugs being substituted,1-4 we carried out a study to look at this.
We surveyed all admissions for overdose before and after sales of paracetamol were restricted: 116 patients (group A) were admitted in the six months before paracetamol was restricted (February-August 1998) and 112 patients (group B) during February-August 1999. Altogether 52 (45%) paracetamol poisonings occurred before the restrictions were put in place and 40 (36%) after. The number of paracetamol tablets taken was known for 44 patients in group A and 35 in group B. Thirty (68%) patients took more than 16 tablets before rationing and 18 (51%) afterwards; this was reflected in the need for treatment with acetylcysteine, which fell from 16 cases to nine.
Although paracetamol overdose declined, non-paracetamol poisoning increased (from 64 to 72 cases), predominantly involving antidepressant, antipsychotic, and sedative drugs. For both sample periods the average time that each patient spent in hospital was the same (2.6 days). One death occurred from a tricyclic overdose. Although admissions with paracetamol overdose fell, the numbers of cases and bed days needed for care did not alter. Drug selection in self poisoning is usually dictated by what is immediately available, whether obtained over the counter or by medical prescription.1-5
Our patients used over 50 different prescription only drugs for overdose, which had been obtained previously for therapeutic purposes. Our results suggest that patients are now switching to alternative agents, often as part of a multidrug cocktail, with equivalent risk because of individual toxicity and interaction. There may be less demand on liver units,1-2 but the unwanted workload for general physicians is the same. More restraint in drug prescription may have a greater effect on the incidence and morbidity of, and mortality from, self poisoning than this simplistic restriction of paracetamol has had.
Footnotes
Competing interests: None declared.
References
1-1. Robinson D, Smith AMJ, Johnston GD. Severity of overdose after restriction of paracetamol availability: retrospective study. BMJ. 2000;321:926–927. . (14 October.). [PubMed]
1-2. Prince MI, Thomas SH, James OFW, Hudson M. Reduction in incidence of severe paracetamol poisoning. Lancet. 2000;355:2047–2048. [PubMed]
1-3. Turvill JI, Burroughs AK, Moore KP. Change in occurrence of paracetamol overdose in UK after introduction of blister packs. Lancet. 2000;355:2048–2049.
1-4. Jowett NI. Limitation of over the counter sales of paracetamol. BMJ. 1998;317:1657. [PubMed]
1-5. Hawton K, Ware C, Mistry H, Hewitt J, Kingsbury S, Roberts D, et al. Why patients choose paracetamol for self poisoning and their knowledge of its dangers. BMJ. 1995;310:164. [PubMed]

Why hasn't strategy for minimising paracetamol poisoning been enacted?
Ron Law, lecturer in management
Faculty of Business, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1, New Zealand Email: juderon/at/ihug.co.nz
 
Editor—It has been well known for nearly 20 years that adding methionine or acetylcysteine to each paracetamol (acetominophen) tablet provides the liver with sufficient reserve of the sulphydryl group to conjugate the toxic paracetamol metabolites. So why haven't our regulators mandated such?
If paracetamol were a dietary supplement it would have been put into the “most toxic substance on earth” category and banned long ago. Drug interactions with St John's wort (most of which were hypothetical) were acted on with great haste by regulators around the world, despite no deaths ever having been associated with use of St John's wort. Here we have a drug that is available from petrol stations and corner shops and has been killing thousands of people around the world for years, and our regulators turn a blind eye—even when there is a simple solution.
Why the double standards and the hypocrisy?
Footnotes
Competing interests: RL is a member of the working group advising the New Zealand Ministry of Health on mandatory reporting of medical error policy. He is also executive director of the National Nutritional Foods Association and is motivated by injustice.

See more articles cited in this paragraph
See more articles cited in this paragraph
See more articles cited in this paragraph
See more articles cited in this paragraph
See more articles cited in this paragraph
See more articles cited in this paragraph