D. Nicholas
Bateman
* and
James W.
Dear
First published on 3rd October 2019
Mullins et al. made a comment on our article (DOI: 10.1039/C9TX00002J) stating they noticed the omission of the one-bag, standard concentration protocol which is shared by several centers in North America when we discussed IV acetylcysteine protocols. In this reply we clarify that we did not include this methodology as it is a technical adaption of the way in which a 2-bag NAC regimen in administered and there is insufficient comparative data with other regimens.
The authors suggest that their 1 h infusion of 150 mg kg−1 h−1 is ‘safe’ but, to our knowledge, there are no robust comparative data with other regimens. In a large audit we have shown this 1 h infusion rate causes no reduction in ADR's as compared to an initial 15 minutes infusion of the same dose.1 In the face of modern clinical trial evidence,2 we prefer regimens associated with far lower ADR rates than the traditional regimen, hence fewer treatment interruptions. Crucially our data demonstrate comparable efficacy to the licenced 21 h regimen.3
We agree the idea of a single programmable pump is logical, but we would stress it is important to audit its use correctly, and to use the optimum evidence-based NAC protocol, which we currently believe to be based on an initial 2 dose, 12 h regimen.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2019 |