Advertisement

Recovery from Copperhead Snake Envenomation: Role of Age, Sex, Bite Location, Severity, and Treatment

  • Eric J. LavonasEmail author
  • Randy I. Burnham
  • John Schwarz
  • Eugenia Quackenbush
  • Brandon Lewis
  • S. Rutherfoord Rose
  • Spencer Greene
  • Eric A. Toschlog
  • Nathan P. Charlton
  • Michael E. Mullins
  • Richard Schwartz
  • David Denning
  • Kapil Sharma
  • Kurt Kleinschmidt
  • Sean P. Bush
  • Victoria E. Anderson
  • Adit A. Ginde
  • Charles J. Gerardo
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction

Few data exist to understand the recovery phase of pit viper envenomation. A recently published placebo-controlled clinical trial affords this opportunity. The purpose of this study is to examine the time course of recovery from copperhead snake (Agkistrodon contortrix) envenomation patients managed with and without the use of antivenom, stratified by age, sex, anatomic site of envenomation, initial severity of envenomation, and geographic region.

Methods

This is a post-hoc subgroup analysis of data from a multi-center double-blinded clinical trial of Fab antivenom (FabAV) vs. placebo. Outcomes were the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) score at 3, 7, 10, and 14 days after envenomation. Least-squares mean PSFS score curves were calculated for each subgroup, and repeated measures ANOVA was used to estimate between-group comparisons.

Results

Seventy-two subjects were included, of whom 44 received FabAV. Males demonstrated better overall recovery than females (model predicted PSFS score 6.18 vs 4.99; difference 1.19; 95% CI 0.12 to 2.25; p = 0.029). No sex difference was found in response to FabAV. Overall recovery and effect of FabAV were similar in adult vs adolescent patients, patients with upper vs lower extremity envenomation, and patients with initially mild vs moderate envenomation signs. Analysis by geographic location was not successful due to ANOVA mode instability.

Conclusions

Male victims of copperhead snake envenomation demonstrate slightly better recovery than females, but response to Fab antivenom overall is similar across all subgroups studied.

Keywords

Envenomation Snake Agkistrodon Antivenins Snake Fab Copperhead 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

This clinical trial and the subsequent subgroup analysis were funded by BTG International, Inc. In addition, the Denver Health and Hospital Authority (EJL, RJB, JS, and VJA) has research, consulting, and call center agreements with BTG International, Inc., and has completed research arrangements with the manufacturer of a competing antivenom. Duke University (CJG) has received research funding from BTG for projects beyond the current trial. Dr. Green has received income from BTG for professional consulting. No other author has received personal funds or has other conflicts to disclose.

Supplementary material

13181_2019_733_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (114 kb)
Online Resource 1 Mean scores on the Patient-Specific Functional Scale During Recovery from Copperhead Snake Envenomation, by Sex, Age Group, Envenomated Extremity, and Initial Severity, Divided by Treatment. Raw mean Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) scores and standard error for each time point (days after treatment) and treatment group. FabAV = Fab antivenom. (PDF 113 kb)
13181_2019_733_MOESM2_ESM.png (31 kb)
Online Resource 2 Mean Scores on the Patient-Specific Functional Scale During Recovery from Copperhead Snake Envenomation in Patients Treated at The Three Highest-Enrolling Study Sites. Raw mean Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) scores and standard error for each time point (days after treatment) and treatment group. FabAV = Fab antivenom. (PNG 31 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    O'Neil ME, Mack KA, Gilchrist J. Epidemiology of non-canine bite and sting injuries treated in U.S. emergency departments, 2001-2004. Pub Health Rep. 2007;122:764–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gummin DD, Mowry JB, Spyker DA, Brooks DE, Fraser MO, Banner W. 2016 annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System (NPDS): 34th annual report. Clin Toxicol. 2017;55:1072–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dart RC, Seifert SA, Carroll L, Clark RF, Hall E, Boyer-Hassen LV, et al. Affinity-purified, mixed monospecific crotalid ovine fab for the treatment of crotalid venom poisoning. Ann Emerg Med. 1997;30:33–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dart RC, Seifert SA, Boyer LV, Clark RF, Hall E, McKinney P, et al. A randomized multicenter trial of Crotalinae polyvalent immune fab (ovine) antivenom for the treatment for crotaline snakebite in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:2030–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Epstein JS. Approval Letter – CroFab. US Food and Drug Administration, October 2, 2000. Available at: https://www.fda.gov:80/FDAgov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/ApprovedProducts/LicensedProductsBLAs/FractionatedPlasmaProducts/ucm117586.htm. Accessed 16 Nov 2018.
  6. 6.
    Seifert SA, Boyer LV, Benson BE, Rogers JJ. AAPCC database characterization of native US venomous snake exposures, 2001 - 2005. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2009;47(4):327-335.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lavonas EJ, Kerns WP, Gerardo CJ, Richardson W, Whitlow KS, Berkoff DJ. Long-term limb function outcomes after copperhead snakebite. Ann Emerg Med. 2008;52:S141–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lavonas EJ, Gerardo CJ, O’Malley GO, Arnold TC, Bush SP, Banner W, et al. Initial experience with crotaline fab antivenom in the treatment of copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix) snakebite. Ann Emerg Med. 2004;43:200–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lavonas EJ, Kokko J, Schaeffer TH, Mlynarchek SL, Bogdan GM, Dart RC. Short-term outcomes following fab antivenom therapy for severe crotaline snakebite. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57:128–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yin S, Kokko J, Lavonas E, Mlynarchek S, Bogdan G, Schaeffer T. Factors associated with difficulty achieving initial control with Crotalidae polyvalent immune fab antivenom in snakebite patients. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18:46–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gerardo CJ, Vissoci JR, Brown MW, Bush SP. Coagulation parameters in copperhead compared to other Crotalinae envenomation: secondary analysis of the F(ab')2 versus fab antivenom trial. Clin Toxicol. 2017;55:109–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schaeffer TH, Khatri V, Zolot L, Lavonas EJ. Incidence of immediate hypersensitivity reaction and serum sickness following administration of Crotalidae polyvalent immune fab antivenom - a meta-analysis. Acad Emerg Med. 2012;19:121–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kleinschmidt KC, Ruha A-M, Campleman S, Brent J, Wax P, on behalf of the ToxIC North American Snakebite Registry Group. Acute adverse events associated with the administration of Crotalidae polyvalent immune Fab antivenom within the North American Snakebite Registry. Clin Toxicol. 2018;13:309–20.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khobrani M, Huckleberry Y, Boesen KJ, Aljabri A, Alharthi M, Patanwala AE. Incidence of allergic reactions to Crotalidae polyvalent immune fab. Clin Toxicol. 2018;57:164–7.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15563650.2018.1504956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mullins ME, Gerardo CJ, Bush SP, et al. Adverse Events in the Efficacy of Crotalidae Polyvalent Immune Fab Antivenom vs Placebo in Recovery from Copperhead Snakebite Trial. South Med J. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000902.
  16. 16.
    Caravati EM. Copperhead bites and Crotalidae polyvalent immune fab (ovine): routine use requires evidence of improved outcomes. Ann Emerg Med. 2004;43:207–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gerardo CJ, Quackenbush E, Lewis B, Rose SR, Greene S, Toschlog EA, et al. The efficacy of fab antivenom versus placebo plus optional rescue therapy on recovery from copperhead snake envenomation: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;70:233–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anderson VE, Gerardo CJ, Rapp-Olsson M, Bush SP, Mullins ME, Greene S, Toschlog EA, Quackenbush E, Rose SR, Schwartz RB, Charlton NP, Lewis B, Kleinschmidt KC, Sharma K, Lavonas EJ. Early administration of Fab antivenom resulted in faster limb recovery in copperhead snake envenomation patients.  Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2019; 57(1):25-30.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Freiermuth CE, Lavonas EJ, Anderson VE, Kleinschmidt KC, Sharma K, Rapp-Olsson M, et al. Antivenom treatment is associated with fewer patients using opioids after copperhead envenomation. Clin Toxicol. 2019;29(57):25-30.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stratford P. Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient specific measure. Physiother Can. 1995;47:258–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hefford C, Abbott JH, Arnold R, Baxter GD. The patient-specific functional scale: validity, reliability, and responsiveness in patients with upper extremity musculoskeletal problems. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42:56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Horn KK, Jennings S, Richardson G, Vliet DV, Hefford C, Abbott JH. The patient-specific functional scale: psychometrics, clinimetrics, and application as a clinical outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42:30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Westaway MD, Stratford PW, Binkley JM. The patient-specific functional scale: validation of its use in persons with neck dysfunction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;27:331–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mannberg Bäckman S, Stråt S, Susanne Ahlström S, Brodin N. Validity and sensitivity to change of the patient specific functional scale used during rehabilitation following proximal humeral fracture. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38:487–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Koehorst MLS, van Trijffel E, Lindeboom R. Evaluative measurement properties of the patient-specific functional scale for primary shoulder complaints in physical therapy practice. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44:595–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Anderson VE, Burnham RI, Gillman SM, Daugherty CA, Gerardo CJ, Lavonas EJ. Validation of patient specific functional scale in copperhead snakebite patients. Clin Toxicol. 2015;53:649.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gerardo CJ, Vissoci JRN, Anderson VE, Sharma K, Kleinschmidt KC, Mullins ME, et al. The validity, reliability and minimal clinically important difference of the patient specific functional scale in snake envenomation. Toxicon. 2018;150:352–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Theophanous RG, Vissoci JRN, Anderson VE, Lavonas EJ, Gerardo CJ. Telephone Administration of the Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS): a valid, reliable, and patient-oriented outcome in global snakebite research. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017;97(suppl 5):157–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American College of Medical Toxicology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric J. Lavonas
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Randy I. Burnham
    • 1
  • John Schwarz
    • 1
  • Eugenia Quackenbush
    • 4
  • Brandon Lewis
    • 5
  • S. Rutherfoord Rose
    • 6
  • Spencer Greene
    • 7
  • Eric A. Toschlog
    • 8
  • Nathan P. Charlton
    • 9
  • Michael E. Mullins
    • 10
  • Richard Schwartz
    • 11
  • David Denning
    • 12
  • Kapil Sharma
    • 13
  • Kurt Kleinschmidt
    • 13
  • Sean P. Bush
    • 14
  • Victoria E. Anderson
    • 1
  • Adit A. Ginde
    • 3
  • Charles J. Gerardo
    • 15
  1. 1.Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug CenterDenver Health and Hospital AuthorityDenverUSA
  2. 2.Department of Emergency MedicineDenver Health and Hospital AuthorityDenverUSA
  3. 3.Department of Emergency MedicineUniversity of Colorado School of MedicineAuroraUSA
  4. 4.Department of Emergency MedicineUniversity of North Carolina School of MedicineChapel HillUSA
  5. 5.Texas A&M Health Science CenterCollege StationUSA
  6. 6.Department of Emergency MedicineVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA
  7. 7.Henry J. N. Taub Department of Emergency MedicineBaylor College of MedicineHoustonUSA
  8. 8.Department of SurgeryBrody School of Medicine at East Carolina UniversityGreenvilleUSA
  9. 9.Division of Medical ToxicologyUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA
  10. 10.Division of Emergency MedicineWashington University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA
  11. 11.Department of Emergency Medicine and Hospital ServicesMedical College of GeorgiaAugustaUSA
  12. 12.Department of SurgeryMarshall HealthHuntingtonUSA
  13. 13.Department of Emergency MedicineUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA
  14. 14.Department of Emergency MedicineBrody School of Medicine at East Carolina UniversityGreenvilleUSA
  15. 15.Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of SurgeryDuke University School of MedicineDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations