MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964113913 · doi:10.4088/pcc.13l01547

A Case of Intentional Asenapine Overdose

2013· article· en· W1964113913 on OpenAlexaff
Jay Taylor, Ranjith Chandrasena

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Primary Care Companion For CNS Disorders · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsenapineMedicineDrug overdoseMedical emergencyPoison controlInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor: Asenapine, marketed as Saphris, is a relatively new psychopharmaceutical agent approved in 2009 for the treatment of acute mania or mixed episodes in the context of bipolar I disorder as well as schizophrenia.1 Asenapine has a unique receptor profile and has been shown to be effective and well tolerated by patients experiencing an acute manic episode.2,3 Adverse effects of long-term use are not yet known, but the incidence of cardiovascular disease and diabetes is expected to be substantially lower than with older neuroleptic agents.4 Here we present the first published case of asenapine overdose of known quantity and route. Case report. Mr A, a 49-year-old man, presented to the emergency department (ED) after having ingested 74 tablets of asenapine in the ED parking lot several minutes previously. He was currently undergoing a course of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), having been diagnosed with bipolar disorder with mixed episodes and borderline personality disorder (both according to DSM-IV-TR criteria) and was 1 day postdischarge from the inpatient psychiatry unit. The quantity of ingested tablets was confirmed by the patient’s mental health outreach worker after examination of packages in the patient’s car. Mr A had made previous suicide attempts using ibuprofen and clonazepam in overdose. Because the ED physician was unfamiliar with asenapine toxicity, the patient was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for observation. Examination in the ED and ICU revealed a drowsy, yet easily rousable man who was unwilling to answer questions. Blood pressure was maintained at 149/88 mm Hg, pulse was 99 bpm, respiratory rate was 19/min, oxygen saturation was 98% on room air. Findings of cardiac, respiratory, and abdominal examinations were unremarkable. Urine drug screen was positive for amphetamines, marijuana, opiates, and benzodiazepines. There was no nausea or vomiting, and activated charcoal was not administered. Electrolytes, troponin I, international normalized ratio, complete blood cell count, and creatinine were all within normal laboratory values. Electrocardiogram showed only normal sinus rhythm. Mr A was determined to be medically stable by the ICU physician, and care was transferred to the psychiatric unit approximately 24 hours later. This patient’s bilateral ECT course was continued for a total of 10 treatments with good therapeutic effect and minimal side effects. He was subsequently discharged and has been followed by the outpatient psychiatry service, has received cognitive-behavioral therapy to address coping skills, and is doing well as of last contact. Here we present the first documented case of asenapine overdose with a known quantity and route of administration. Six previous cases of asenapine overdose have been noted at doses up to 400 mg, but the exact dose and route were not known.4 Similar to those cases, no specific adverse drug effects were observed. Notably, the bioavailability of asenapine is less than 2% when administered orally, compared to approximately 35% when given sublingually; this patient did not administer his overdose sublingually.4 Thus, despite ingesting 740 mg of asenapine, he was exposed to only the equivalent of 4 sublingual doses. Despite the large number of tablets and considerable concern from the ED, asenapine appears to be safe in overdose situations, likely due to its pharmacokinetic profile.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Primary Care Companion For CNS DisordersSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207