Comparative therapeutic index, lethal time and safety margin of various toxicants and snake antivenoms using newly derived and old formulas

Abstract

Objective

The assessment of clinical efficacy and toxicity is very important in pharmacology and toxicology. The effects of psychostimulants (e.g. amphetamine), psychotomimetics (e.g. Cannabis sativus) and snake antivenoms are sometimes unpredictable even at lower doses, leading to serious intoxication and fatal consequences. Hence, there is need to re-assess some formulas for calculation of therapeutic index, lethal time and safety margin with a view to identifying therapeutic agents with remarkable toxicity potentials.

Results

The therapeutic index formula \(\left[ {T_{1} = 3\left( {W_{a} \times 10^{ - 4} } \right)} \right]\) was derived from T1 = LD50/ED50 and ED50 = \(\frac{{LD_{50} }}{3} x W_{a} \times 10^{ - 4}\). Findings have shown that, therapeutic index is a function of death reversal (s), safety factor (10−4) and weight of animal (Wa). However, the new safety margin formula \(\left[ {MS = \sqrt[3]{{\frac{{LT_{50} }}{{LD_{50} }}}} \times \frac{1}{{ED_{99} }}} \right]\) derived from LT50 = \(\frac{{LD_{50} }}{{D_{1}^{p} }}\) and MS = \(\frac{{LD_{1} }}{{ED_{99} }}\) shows that safety margin is a function of cube root of ratio between LT50 and LD50 and ED100th. Concentration (k) of toxicant at the receptor \(\left[ {K = \sqrt[3]{{\frac{{LT_{50} }}{{LD_{50} }}}} \times \frac{1}{{T^{n} }}} \right]\) derived from D1 × Tn = K and LD1 = \(\sqrt[3]{{\frac{{LT_{50} }}{{LD_{50} }}}}\) shows that therapeutic index, lethal time and safety margin is a function of drug or toxicant concentration at the receptor, the drug-receptor interaction and dose of toxicant or drug administered at a particular time.

Introduction

The important assessment of clinical efficacy and toxicity of drugs and chemicals cannot be overemphasized. Dose–response relationship can identify hazardous substance [1] with toxic or beneficial effect over time [2]. Examples of such substances are snake and scorpion venoms, plant extract, drug and chemicals that cause different kinds of toxic effects on various body systems [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. Attempts were made to use structures of therapeutic agents to predict their toxic effects [12, 13]. The predictive toxicity was based on active sites of compounds, such as the number of aromatic rings in polycyclic hydrocarbons, the number of chlorine atoms in chlorinated hydrocarbons and the number of hydroxyl groups. Such predictions have made some success but far from perfect [14,15,16]. In the past, many animals (40–100) were used for safety study until OECD introduced up-and-down procedure, limiting the number of animals for the study to 5-20 [17,18,19]. The use of large number of animals for determination of median lethal dose (LD50) has been discouraged worldwide [20]. Hence, based on the principle of R3 (Reduction, Refinement and Replacement), the number of animals for LD50 determination has been reduced to 2–6 animals [6]. The inherent variability, lack of predictive validity and lack of reliability of experimental animal models and conflicting clinical reports on therapeutic indices, safety margins and lethal times of some psychostimulants, psychotomimetics and snake antivenoms have necessitated the need to revise the current therapeutic index and safety margin formulas.

Main text

Methodology

Literatures from journals published by Elseviers, Springer, Springer Nature, Sage, Tailor and Francis, Wiley and other publishers were searched for reports on LD50 of amphetamine, dextroamphetamine, lysergic acid diethylamide, potassium permanganate, Abrus precatorius and tetrahydroxycannonbinol in dog, rabbit, mouse, human and rat, respectively. The d-tubocurarine has been reported to counteract their effects to some levels. However the reported LD50 and ED50 of some snake venoms and antivenoms were used for the study. The formulas used in determination of LD50 for snake venom with effective dose fifty (ED50) divided by the denominator (3) as well as other related formulas, were incorporated into derived therapeutic index, lethal time and margin safety formulas [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. The derivations are as follow:

Previously established formulas

$${\text{Therapeutic index }}\left( {\text{TI}} \right) = \frac{{TD_{50} }}{{ED_{50} }} = \frac{{LD_{50} }}{{ED_{50} }}$$
(1)
$${\text{Margin of safety }} = \frac{{TD_{1} }}{{ED_{99} }} = \frac{{LD_{1} }}{{ED_{99} }}$$
(2)
$${\text{Effective dose fifty }}\left( {{\text{ED}}_{ 50} } \right){\text{ for snake antivenom }} = \frac{{LD_{50} }}{3} \times {\text{Wa}} \times 10^{ - 4}$$
(3)

Newly derived formulas

$${\text{If LD}}_{ 50} = {\text{ TI}} \times {\text{ED}}_{ 50}$$
(4)

Substitute for LD50 in Eq. (3)

$$\begin{aligned} {\text{ED}}_{ 50} = \frac{{TI \times ED_{50} }}{3} \times {\text{Wa}} \times 10^{ - 4} \hfill \\ = \frac{{\frac{{TI \times ED_{50} }}{3}}}{{ED_{50} }} = {\text{ Wa}} \times 10^{ - 4} \hfill \\ \end{aligned}$$
(5)
$$= \frac{{TI \times ED_{50} }}{3} \times \frac{1}{{ED_{50} }} = {\text{ Wa}} \times 10^{ - 4}$$
(6)
$$= \frac{TI}{3} = {\text{ Wa}} \times 10^{ - 4}$$
(7)
$$= {\text{ TI }} = { 3}({\text{Wa}} \times 10^{ - 4} )$$
(8)

TI = Therapeutic index; LD50 = Median lethal dose; ED50 = Median effective dose; Wa = Weight of animal; 10−4 = Safety factor.

Integration of lethal time with margin safety formula

$${\text{Median lethal time }}\left( {{\text{LT}}_{ 50} } \right) \, = \frac{{LD_{50} }}{{D^{p} }}$$
(9)
$${\text{LD}}_{ 50} = \frac{{LT_{50} }}{{LD_{1}^{p} }}$$
(10)

whereas LD1 = Dose that kills one animal; p = Exponent (1/3).

Remember Eq. (2) for margin of safety (MS) = \(\frac{{LD_{1} }}{{ED_{99} }}\).

$${\text{LD}}_{ 1} = {\text{ MS}} \times {\text{ED}}_{ 9 9}$$
(11)
$$LD_{1}^{P} = \frac{{LT_{50} }}{{LD_{50} }}$$
(12)

But p = 1/3.

Therefore

$$LD_{1}^{{\frac{1}{3}}} = \frac{{LT_{50} }}{{LD_{50} }}$$
(13)
$${\text{LD}}_{ 1} = \sqrt[3]{{\frac{{LT_{50} }}{{LD_{50} }}}}$$
(14)

So, integrate Eqs. (11) and (14)

$${\text{LD}}_{ 1} = {\text{ MS}} \times {\text{ED}}_{ 9 9} = \sqrt[3]{{\frac{{LT_{50} }}{{LD_{50} }}}}$$
(15)

Hence,

$${\text{MS }} = \sqrt[3]{{\frac{{LT_{50} }}{{LD_{50} }}}} \times \frac{1}{{ED_{99} }}$$
(16)

Therefore, margin of safety is a function of cube root of ratio between LT50 and LD50 and one-hundredth of ED.

Integration of time of exposure with toxic or lethal dose

$${\text{Concentration of toxicant }}\left( {\text{K}} \right) \, = {\text{ D}} \times {\text{T}}^{\text{n}}$$
(17)

whereas D = Daily dose; T = Time of exposure; K = constant which is the concentration of toxicant causing toxicity; n = power of exponent.

Therefore,

$${\text{D }} = \frac{{T^{n} }}{K}$$
(18)

But if D can kill one animal as shown in Eq. (15) and related to Eq. (18), it would be referred to as TD1

$$\therefore {\text{LD}}_{ 1} = {\text{ TD}}_{ 1} = \sqrt[3]{{\frac{{LT_{50} }}{{LD_{50} }}}} = \frac{{T^{n} }}{K}$$
(19)

Therefore,

$${\text{K }} = \sqrt[3]{{\frac{{LT_{50} }}{{LD_{50} }}}} \times \frac{1}{{T^{n} }}$$
(20)

The formulas were used to calculate LD50, ED50, LT50, LD1, ED99, therapeutic index (TI) and safety of margin for all the reported antidotes for snake envenomation, Abrus precatorius, lysergic acid diethylamide, tetrahydroxycannabinol, amphetamine, methamphetamine, dextroamphetamine and potassium permanganate poisoning. All the LT50 in hour and minute should be converted to second.

Results

The LD50, ED50, LT50, LD1, ED99, dose of toxicants, therapeutic index and safety margin of amphetamine, dextroamphetamine, methamphetamine, lysergic acid diethylamide, tetrahydroxycannabinol, potassium permanganate and Abrus precatorius are presented in Table 1.The LD50, ED50, LD1, ED99, therapeutic index and safety margin of snake venoms and antivenoms are presented in Table 2.

Table 1 Therapeutic indices and safety margins of some chemicals and plant extract
Table 2 Therapeutic indices and safety margins of the antidotes of some snake venoms

Discussion

Side effects, adverse drug reactions, untoward effects, side toxicity and idiosyncratic effects associated with drugs may be due to normal dose, under dose or drug over dose [5, 28]. The calculated therapeutic index of amphetamine (2.95), dextroamphetamine and amphetamine (3.02) using the previously established formula as compared to therapeutic index of 3.0 for the three drugs using the new formula show that, the newly developed formula can be used for calculation of therapeutic index of some psychomimetic and psychotomimetic drugs. However, the previously established formula yielded very high therapeutic index for LSD (15.0), potassium permanganate (1499.7), Abrus precatorius extract (0.5) and tetrahydroxycannabinol (193.3) as compared to 0.54, 0.003, 18.0 and 0.05 yielded by the newly developed formula, respectively. The findings agree with the report indicating that the conventional formula for calculation of therapeutic index is not a truthful measure of safety of a drug in clinical setting [10]. The low therapeutic index of 0.05 for tetrahydroxycannabinol agrees with the report that most biologically active molecules of Cannabis sativa have no therapeutic uses [24]. Very low therapeutic index (0.003) of potassium permanganate yielded by the newly derived formula agrees with the report indicating that the chemical is highly toxic [4]. The associated toxicity signs are rapid shallow respiration, diarrhea, gastroenteritis, liver and kidney damage and death.

The low therapeutic index (0.5) of A.precatorius shows that the plant is very toxic. This may be due to presence of toxic principle called abrin [29]. However, the relatively high therapeutic index of 18.0 calculated using the new formula agrees with the report that the plant may have some degrees of therapeutic safety [21]. The therapeutic index for LSD using the conventional (15) and new formula (0.54) corroborates the findings that the pharmacology of LSD is complex and its mechanism of actions is not understood [25]. A. precatorius extract is more toxic when given intraperitoneally as compared to oral route [11]. However d-tubocurarine can alleviate toxicity effects of amphetamine, dextroamphetamine, methamphetamine [26], Abrus precatorius [30], tetrahydroxycannabinol [31], potassium permanganate [32], and lysergic acid diethylamide [33].

The dose-toxicity response pattern in graded fashion may culminate in LD50 and could be counteracted by therapeutic dose 50. This explains individual variation of susceptibility to doses of toxicants as proven by low therapeutic index (0.0007) of Micrarus fulvius antivenom (Table 2) as compared to high toxicity potential of M. fulvius venom [11]. The low to high therapeutic indices of all the snake antivenoms in the present study indicate that, treatments of snake envenomation is by toxin neutralization, using specific antidotes for specific snakes [8]. The obtaining of therapeutic index (0.006–1499.7) in the present study disagrees with the report of Stanley indicating that therapeutic index could be 33,000:1 [34]. Therefore one vial of the relevant antivenom is sufficient for the circulating venom, but recovery time may be delayed, because many clinical and laboratory effects are not reversed immediately [35]. Hence clinical trials of antivenoms are potentially more important and useful [36]. Pain score of more than two (2) requires additional antivenom and patient should be frequently assessed [37] for improvement. Therefore, there is need for clinicians and laboratory toxicologists to improve therapeutic knowledge of snake envenomation [38]. Cardio-respiratory distress, coagulopathy and swelling in the first hours of admission are poor prognostic signs associated with weak therapeutic response to snake envenomation [39]. Effective dose 99 (7.96–23 mg/kg) agrees with the report indicating that, there are many recommended therapeutic interventions, which are ineffective and may be harmful [40]. Therefore, more purified and specific antivenoms are required to avoid post-treatment reactions [41], suggesting that polyvalent antivenom may be less effective against neurotoxic snake bite [42], translating to 1:2 required 30 vials of antivenom [43]. Paraspecific neutralization of snake venom by antivenom could induce coagulopathy in the affected patients [44]. Efficient, safety and thermal stability have been reported for freeze-dried trivalent antivenom for snake bites in larger phase III trial [45]. Russell’s viper injects 63-70 mg of venom during the first bite and each vial of polyvalent antivenom neutralizes 6 mg of the venom, 8-10 vials are required in majority of the cases [46]. Neither antivenom nor time of its administration affects venom-induced coagulopathy [35]. Low dose of 20–220 ml reduced the hospital stay as compared to 40–550 ml dose, suggesting that the lower the dose of snake antivenom the more effective the antivenom. Fatality rates of 15.4% and 17.6% for 2 and 4 vials of antivenom as compared 223% have been reported [47]. Protection of snake antivenom against Echis ocellatus is 21–99% in Nigeria [36]. Hence, the number of animals for similar study can be reduced [5]. The LT50 (0.065–24.2 min) of all the animal, plant and chemical toxins in the present study shows the importance of dose-time-response relationship in identification of hazards [1].

Conclusion

The newly derived formulas yielded low and safer values for therapeutic indices and standard safety margins of drugs, toxicants, venoms, antivenom and other xenobiotics. But the safety of therapeutic agent is dependent on dose, lethal time, body weight, frequency and time of administration and safety factor of the drug.

Limitations

The calculations were based on the findings from experiments conducted in various laboratories across the globe. All the lethal times have to be converted to seconds. The derived formulas were applied on different species of toxic animals and plants.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

LT50 :

Median lethal time

LD50 :

Median lethal dose

ED50 :

Median effective dose

LD1 :

Lethal dose per one animal

ED1 :

Effective dose per one animal

ED99 :

Effective dose per 99 animal

LD1 :

Lethal dose 1

T1 :

Therapeutic index for the old formula

T2 :

Therapeutic index for the new formula

MS1 :

Margin of safety for new formula

MS2 :

Margin of safety for the new formula

References

  1. 1.

    Tennekes HA. The importance of dose-time-response relationships for hazard identification and limitation of animal experiments. Open Acc J Toxicol. 2017;1(5):1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Druckrey H. Quantitative Grundiagen der Krebserzeugung. Klin Wochenschr. 1943;22:532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Saganuwan SA. A modified arithmetical method of Reed and Muench for determination of a relatively ideal median lethal dose. Afr J Pharm Pharmacol. 2011;5(12):1543–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Saganuwan SA. Acute toxicity studies of potassium permanganate in Swiss albino mice. Nig J Physiol Sci. 2008;23(1–2):31–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Saganuwan SA. Arithmetic geometric-harmonic (agh) method of rough estimation of median lethal dose (LD50) using up-and-down procedure. J Drug Metab Toxicol. 2015;6(2):1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Saganuwan SA. Arithmetic rough estimation of median lethal dose (LD50) using up-and-down procedure. Toxicol Lett. 2014;229:5127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Saganuwan SA, Onyeyili PA. Comparative toxicology effects of orally and intraperitoneally administered aqueous extracts of Abrus precatorius leaf in Mus musculus. Herba Polon. 2011;57(3):32–44.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Saganuwan SA. Calculation of effective dose fifty of antivenom for American pit viper envenomation. Comp Clin Pathol. 2018;27:1321–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Saganuwan SA. Determination of median effective dose fifty (ED50) of scorpion antivenom against scorpion envenomation using a newly developed formula. Animal Mod Exp Med. 2018;1:228–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Saganuwan SA. Principles of Pharmacological Calculations. Zaria: Ahmadu Bello University Press; 2012. p. 529.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Saganuwan SA. The New algorithm for calculation of median lethal dose (LD50) and effective dose fifty (ED50) of Micrarus fulvius venom and anti-venom in mice. Int J Vet Sci Med. 2016;4:1–4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Golberg L. structure-activity correlation as a predictive tool in toxicological study. Fundamentals, methods, and application, hemisphere. Washington: OSA; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Rosenkranz HS, Takihi N, Klopman G. structure activity—based predictive toxicity: an efficient and economical method for generating non-cosmeric data bases. Nutagenesis. 1991;6:391–4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Saganuwan SA. Proxicam: source for Synthesis of Central Nervons (CNS) acting drugs. CNSAMC. 2017;17(2):135–40.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Saganuwan SA. Biomedical application of polymers: a case study of non-CNS drugs becoming cns acting drug. CNSAMC. 2018;18(1):32–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Saganuwan SA. Chemistry and effects of bramistem acting drugs. CNSAMC. 2019;19(3):180–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    OECD. OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals, Test Guideline 401, Acute Oral Toxicity. OECD Paris (1987) http://www.oecd.org//ehs/test/health.htm.

  18. 18.

    OECD. Gindan Document on Acute Oral Toxicity. Environmental Health and Safety Minograph Series on Testing and Assessment No. 24, 2000.

  19. 19.

    OECD. Harmonized Integrated Classification System for Human Health and Environmental Hazards of Chemical Substances and Mixtures. ENV/JM/MONO, OECD Paris 2001:6. http://www.oecd.org/ehs/class/hcl6.htm.

  20. 20.

    Saganuwan SA. Toxicity studies of drugs and chemicals in animals: an overview. Bulg J Vet Med. 2017;20(4):291–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Saganuwan SA, Onyeyili PA. The paradox of human equivalent dose formula: a canonical case study of Abrus precatorius aqueous leaf extract in monogastric animals. Mac Vet Rev. 2016;39(1):23–32.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Saganuwan SA. The use of body surface area for determination of age, body weight, urine creatinine clearance: the reliable canonical method of assessing renotoxicity in animals. Comp Clin Pathol. 2018;2018:1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Saganuwan SA. Toxicology: the basis for development of antidotes. Toxicology. 2015;1(1):1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Gabriel G. Toxicology and pharmacology of Cannabis sativa with special references to ∆9-THC. UNODC 2018: 1–33.

  25. 25.

    Passie T, Halperin JH, Stichtenoth DO, Enrich HM, Hintzen A. The pharmacology of lysergic acid diethylmide: a review. CNS Neurosci Therapeut. 2008;14:295–314.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Zalis EG, Kaplan G, Lundberg GD. Acute lethality of the amphetamines in dogs and its antagonism by curate. Exp Biol Med. 1965;118(2):557–61.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Timbrell JA. Principles of Biochemical Toxicology. Informa Healthcare: New York; 2009. p. 453.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Du W, Chong S, Mclachlan AJ, Luo L, Glasgon N, Gnjidic D. Adverse drug reactions due to opioid analgesic use in New South Wales, Australia: a spatial-temporal analysis. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2019;20(55):1–11.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Hart M. Jecquirity bean poisoning. N Engel J Med. 1963;268:885–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Karthikeyan A, Amalnath SD. Abrus precatorius poisoning: a retrospective study of 112 patients. Ind J Critical Care Med. 2017;21(4):224–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Whalley BJ, Lin H, Bell L, Hill T, Patel A, Gray RA, Roberts CE, Devinsky O, Bazelot M, Williams CM, Stephens GJ. Species-specific susceptibility to cannabis-induced convulsions. BJP. 2019;176:1506–23.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Cameron CB, Gregory GA, Rudolph AM, Heymann MA. Cardiovascular effects of d-tubocurarine and pancuronium in newborn lambs during normoxia and hypoxia. Pediatr Res. 1986;20(3):246–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Burish MJ, Thoren KL, Madou M, Toossi S, Shah M. Hallucinogens causing seizures? A case report of the synthetic amphetamine 2,5-dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetamine. Neurohospitalist. 2015;5(1):32–4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Stanley TH. Anesthesia for 21st century. Proceeding. 2000;13(1):7–10.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Isbister GK, Brown SGA, Page CB, McCoubrie DL, Greene SL, Burkley NA. snake bite in Australia: a practical approach to diagnosis and treatment. Med J Aust. 2013;199(11):763–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Williams DJ, Habib AG, Warrell DA. Clinical studies of the effectiveness and safety of antivenoms. Toxicon. 2018;150:1–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Kang S, Noon J, Chun B. Does the traditional snake bite seventy score correctly classify envenomated patients? Clin Exp Emerg Med. 2016;3(1):34–40.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Warrell DA, Gutierrez JM, Calvete JJ, Williams D. New approaches and technologies of venomics to meet challenge of human envenoming by snakebites in India. Indian J Med Res. 2013;138:38–59.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Dadpour B, Shatahi A, Monzavi SM, Zavav A, Afshari R, Khoshdel AR. Snakebite prognostic factors: leading factors of weak therapeutic response following snakebite envenomation. APJMT. 2012;1(1):27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Peterson ME. Snakebite: coral snake. Clin Techn Small Anim Pract. 2006;21:83–6.

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Morais VM, Massaldi H. Snake antivenoms: adverse reactions and production technology. J Venom Anim Toxins Med Trop Dis. 2009;15(1):2–18.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Pore SM, Ramanand SJ, Patil PT, Gore AD, Pawar MP, Gaidhankar SC, Ghanghas RR. A retrospective study of use of polyvalent anti-snake venom and risk factors for mortality from snakebite in a tertiary care setting. Indian J Pharmacol. 2015;47(3):270–4.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Warrel DA. Snakebite. Lancet. 2010;375:77–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Ainsworth S, Slagboom J, Alomran N, Pla D, Alhamdi Y, King SI, Balton FMS, Gutierreg JM, Vonk FJ, Toh CH, Calvete JJ, Kool J, Harrison RA, Casewell NR. The paraspecific neutralization of snake venom induced coagulopathy by antivenoms Commun Biol. 2018;1(34):1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Mendonca-da-Silva I, Tavares AN, Sachett J, Sardinha JF, Zaparolli L, Santos MFG, Lacerda M, Monteiro WM. Safety and efficacy of a freeze-dried trivalent antivenom for snake bites in the Brazilian Amazon: an open randomized controlled phase 116 clinical trial. Plos Neglet Trop DIS. 2017;11(11):1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Hazra A. Poisonous snakebites in India. Community Dev Med Unit Ration Drug Bull. 2003;30:1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Ramos-Cerrillo B, deRoodt AR, Chippaux JP, Olgivin L, Casasola A, Guzman G, Paniagua-Solis J, Alagon A, Slock RP. Characterization of a new polyvalent antivenom (Antivipnyn African) against African vipers and elapids. Toxicon. 2008;52(8):881–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I sincerely thank Williams Yusuf of Federal University of Agriculture Makurdi and Kehinde Ola Emmanuel of National Open University all in Nigeria for typing the work.

Funding

The study was carried out using my monthly emoluments.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

SAS designed and carried out the study, analyzed the data, wrote and proof read the manuscript. The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saganuwan Alhaji Saganuwan.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable, because neither animals nor humans were used for the study; the data were generated from earlier few data established in clinics and laboratories.

Consent to publish

Not applicable.

Competing interest

The author declares that he has no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Saganuwan, S.A. Comparative therapeutic index, lethal time and safety margin of various toxicants and snake antivenoms using newly derived and old formulas. BMC Res Notes 13, 292 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-020-05134-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Therapeutic index
  • Safety margin
  • Efficacy
  • Toxicity
  • Weight
  • Reversal
  • Drug