Advertisement

Pharmaceutisch Weekblad

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 56–60 | Cite as

A ready-to-use activated charcoal mixture

Adsorption studiesin vitro and in dogs: its influence on the intestinal secretion of theophylline in a rat model
  • C. M. A. Rademaker
  • A. van Dijk
  • M. H. de Vries
  • F. Kadir
  • J. H. Glerum
Original Articles

Abstract

A practical, ready-to-use preparation of activated charcoal (AZU mixture) for application in toxicology has been formulated. Tb establish its efficacy, the formulation was testedin vitro and in dogs. Thein vitro adsorption capacity was compared to that of freshly prepared charcoal suspension in water (CW) and to Carbomix®. Langmuir adsorption coefficients demonstrated small but clinically insignificant differences in adsorption capacity between the preparations. The laxative sodium sulfate did not reduce the adsorption capacity of charcoalin vitro. Dogs were given 60 mg of paracetamol per kg as an oral solution followed by 5 g of activated charcoal preparation. The area under the plasma concentration versus time curve (control 2955±353 mg·min−1·1−1) was significantly reduced following CW (921±453) and AZU (786±270). The premixed AZU charcoal formulation is efficacious, inexpensive and overcomes the problems of bed-side preparation. An isolated vascularly perfused rat small intestine can be used to describe the effect of activated charcoal on the intestinal secretion of theophylline.

Keywords

Adsorption capacity Charcoal, activated Clearance enhancement Paracetamol Poisoning Theophylline 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cooney DO. Activated charcoal. Antidotal and other medical uses. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1980.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Decker WJ, Combs HF, Corby DG. Adsorption of drug and poison by activated charcoal. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1968;13:454–69.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Holt LE Jr, Holz PH. The black bottle. J Pediatr 1963;63:306–14.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anonymous. Activated charcoal rediscovered [Editorial]. Br Med J 1972;3:487.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Picchioni AL, Chin L, Laird HE. Activated charcoal preparations. Relative antidotal efficacy. Clin Toxicol 1974;1:97–108.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hayden JW, Comstock EG. Use of activated charcoal in acute poisoning. Clin Toxicol 1975;5:515–33.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Neuvonen PJ, Olkkola T. Oral activated charcoal in the treatment of intoxications. Role of single and repeated doses. Med Toxicol 1988;3:33–58.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Neuvonen PJ, Elonen E. Effect of activated charcoal on absorption and elimination of phenobarbitone, carbamazepine and phenylbutazone in man. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1980;17:51–7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pond SM. Role of repeated oral doses of activated charcoal in clinical toxicology. Med Toxicol 1986;1:3–11.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Manes M, Mann JF. Easily swallowed formulations of antidote charcoals. Clin Toxicol 1974;7:355–64.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gwilt PR, Perrier D. Influence of ‘thickening’ agents on the antidotal efficacy of activated charcoal. Clin Toxicol 1976;9:89–92.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cooney DO. Palatibility of sucrose, sorbitol and saccharin sweetened activated charcoal formulations. Am J Hosp Pharm 1980;37:237–9.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Neve R. Antidotal efficacy of activated charcoal in presence of jam, starch and milk. Am J Hosp Pharm 1976;33:965–6.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scholtz EC, Jaffe JM, Colaizzi JL. Evaluation of five activated charcoal formulations for inhibition of aspirin absorption and palatibility in man. Am J Hosp Pharm 1987;35:1355–9.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Levey G, Soda DM, Lampman TA. Inhibition by ice cream of the antidotal efficacy of activated charcoal. Am J Hosp Pharm 1975;32:389–91.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chung DC, Murphy JE, Taylor TW.In vivo comparison of the adsorption capacity of superactive charcoal and fructose with activated charcoal and fructose. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 1982;19:219–24.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davis RB, Thompson JE, Pardue HL. Characteristics of statistical parameters used to interpret least-squares results. Clin Chem 1978;24:611–20.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hartmann F, Vieillard-Baron D, Heinrich R. Isolated perfusion of the small intestine using perfluorotributylamine as artificial oxygen carrier. Adv Exp Med Biol 1984;180:711–20.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Vries MH, Rademaker CMA, Geerlings C, Van Dijk A, Noordhoek J. Pharmacokinetic modeling of the effect of activated charcoal on thein vitro intestinal secretion of theophylline in the rat. J Pharm Pharmacol (in press).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bainbridge CA, Kelly EL, Walking WD.In vitro adsorption of acetaminophen onto activated charcoal. J Pharm Sci 1977;4:480–3.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Berlinger WG, Spector R, Goldberg MJ, et al. Enhancement of theophylline clearance by oral activated charcoal. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1983;33:351–4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Dutch Association for Advancement of Pharmacy 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. M. A. Rademaker
    • 1
  • A. van Dijk
    • 1
  • M. H. de Vries
    • 2
  • F. Kadir
    • 3
  • J. H. Glerum
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Hospital PharmacyUniversity Hospital UtrechtGV Utrechtthe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of UtrechtGH Utrechtthe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of BiopharmaceuticsUniversity of UtrechtUtrecht

Personalised recommendations