Study Preview
Study Title and Description
Caffeinated energy drink intoxication.
Key Questions Addressed
| 1 | For [population], is caffeine intake above [exposure dose], compared to intakes [exposure dose] or less, associated with adverse effects on acute toxicity*? |
|
Primary Publication Information
-
Comments (0) | - Post/View
| Title | Caffeinated energy drink intoxication. |
| Author | D Trabulo,S Marques,E Pedroso, |
| Country | |
| Year | 2011 |
| Numbers |
Secondary Publication Information
There are currently no secondary publications defined for this study.
Extraction Form: Acute Toxicity - Study Design Details
Arms
No arms have been defined in this extraction form.
| Question... Follow Up | Answer | Follow-up Answer | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Refid | 22714613 |
|
|
| What outcome is being evaluated in this paper? | Acute |
|
|
| What is the objective of the study (as reported by the authors)? | to describe a case of caffeine intoxication from an energy drink acting as a trigger of epileptogenesis (tonic clonic seizure) in a patient with a previous cerebrovascular accident. |
|
|
| Provide a general description of the methods as reported by the authors. Information should be extracted based on relevance to the SR (i.e., caffeine related methods) | medical history, drug use history noted, standard vitals taken,urine screen for drug use, ECG, Chest X-ray, Brain CT, lumbar puncture, transthoracic ECG, transoesophageal echocardiogram |
|
|
| How many outcome-specific endpoints are evaluated? | 6 |
|
|
| What is the (or one of the) endpoint(s) evaluated? (Each endpoint listed separately) | Standard vitals( increased heart rate 170 ppm, bp 160/70; respiratory 30/min, |
|
|
| List additional health endpoints (separately). | lumbar puncture/spinal fluid normal |
|
|
| List additional health endpoints (separately) | ECG (transthoracic and transoesphageal echocardiogram confirmed suer ventricular tachycardia and oropharyngeal candidiasis |
|
|
| Notes |
|
||
| Clinical | Clinical |
|
|
| Physiological | Physiological |
|
|
| Other |
|
||
| What is the study design? | Case report |
|
|
| Randomized or Non-Randomized? |
|
||
| What were the diagnostics or methods used to measure the outcome? | Both |
|
|
| Optional: Name of Method or short description |
|
||
| Caffeine (general) |
|
||
| Coffee | Coffee |
|
|
| Chocolate |
|
||
| Energy drinks | Energy drinks |
|
|
| Gum |
|
||
| Medicine/Supplement |
|
||
| Soda |
|
||
| Tea |
|
||
| Measured |
|
||
| Self-report | Self-report |
|
|
| Children |
|
||
| Adolescents |
|
||
| Adults | Adults |
|
|
| Pregnant Women |
|
||
| What was the reference, comparison, or control group(s)? (e.g. high vs low consumption, number of cups, etc.) | none case report |
|
|
| What were the listed confounders or modifying factors as stated by the authors? (e.g. multi-variable components of models. Copy from methods) | cerebrovascular accident for 6 months and previous drug use (authors don't mention latter as confounder but note it) |
|
|
| Provide a general description of results (as reported by the authors). | A 28 year old man brought to emergency room after ingesting 6 cans of red bull and coffee in four hour timeframe. Symptoms included postictus state, tonic clonic seizure, super ventricular tachycardia, oropharyngeal candidiasis. Treatment for all of the above plus hydration, oxygen and sodium bicarbonate plus use of a ventilator resolved the toxicity and patient was discharged within a week with no complaints. |
|
|
| Did the authors perform a dose-response analysis (or trend/related analysis)? | No |
|
|
| What were the authors's observations re: trend analysis? |
|
||
| What were the author's conclusions? | They populate a possible role of excessive consumption of caffeinated energy drinks in triggering life-threatening events described in this case |
|
|
| What were the sources of funding? | none stated |
|
|
| What conflicts of interest were reported? | noted as none |
|
|
| Does the exposure (dose) need to be standardized to the SR? | No |
|
|
| Provide calculations/conversions for the exposure based on the decision tree in the guide (for all endpoints/exposure levels of interest). |
|
||
| List all the endpoint(s) followed by the dose (mg) which will be used in comparison to Nawrot. Characterize value as LOAEL/NOAEL, etc. if possible. | seizure, super ventricular tachycardia, oropharyngeal candidiasis, ≥500mg |
|
|
| Notes regarding selection/listing of endpoints and exposures/doses to be compared to Nawrot. | These endpoints represent what the patient was ultimately treated for, there were many endpoints noted (blood pressure, heart rate, coma scale, plasma bicarbonate, lactic acid, |
|
|
| What is the importance of the study with respect to the adverseness of the outcome? | Important |
|
Baseline Characteristics
No baseline characteristics have been defined for this extraction form.
Results & Comparisons
No Results found.
Adverse Events
| Arm or Total | Title | Description | Comments |
|---|
Quality Dimensions
No quality dimensions were specified.
Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.
, means that you are leaving this Federal Government Web site and entering a non-Federal Web site.