Antivenom dosage for Australian elapid envenoming should be decided by clinical evaluation of individual patients
Snakebite is arguably the most important type of envenoming, both worldwide and in Australia, but evidence‐based management remains unclear and controversial. This is particularly evident in Australia, where it has been advocated that antivenom dosing should be limited to a single vial,1 an opinion that is commonly questioned among physicians treating snakebites. Conducting standardised clinical research on envenoming is challenging, particularly in countries like Australia, where numbers of envenomed people are relatively low and scattered geographically. Globally, snakebite particularly affects the rural poor in developing nations, where surveillance, let alone model clinical research, is problematical. Antivenom remains the cornerstone of management for snakebite, supplemented by other tools such as intensive care medicine, mechanical ventilation and haemodialysis. Antivenom use worldwide is complicated by variability in quality, availability and dosing.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Johnston CI, Ryan NM, Page CB, et al. The Australian Snakebite Project, 2005–2015 (ASP‐20). Med J Aust 2017; 207: 119–125. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2017/207/3/australian-snakebite-project-2005-2015-asp-20
- 2. Mirtschin PJ, Rasmussen AR, Weinstein SA. Australia's dangerous snakes: biology, identification and envenoming. Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing, 2017.
- 3. Welton RE, Liew D, Braitberg G. Incidence of fatal snake bite in Australia: a coronial based retrospective study (2000‐2016). Toxicon 2017; 131: 11–15.
- 4. Allen GE, Brown SG, Buckley NA, et al. Clinical effects and antivenom dosing in brown snake (Pseudonaja spp.) envenoming – Australian Snakebite Project (ASP‐14). PLoS One 2012; 7: e53188.
- 5. O'Leary MA, Maduwage K, Isbister GK. Detection of venom after administration is largely due to bound venom. Toxicon 2014; 93: 112–118.
- 6. Ho M, Warrell MJ, Warrell DA, et al. A critical reappraisal of the use of enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays in the study of snake bite. Toxicon 1986; 24: 211–221.
- 7. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996; 312: 71–72.
- 8. Ou J, Haiart S, Galluccio S, et al. An instructive case of presumed brown snake (Pseudonaja spp.) envenoming. Clin Toxicol 2015; 53: 834–839.
- 9. White J. Australian and Pacific snakes. In: Brent J et al, editors. Critical care toxicology: diagnosis and management of the critically poisoned patient. Dordrecht: Springer, 2017: 2405–2439.
- 10. Weinstein SA, White J, Ou J, et al. Reply to Isbister and Page: further discussion of an illuminating case of presumed brown snake (Pseudonaja spp.) envenoming. Clin Toxicol 2015; 53: 926–927.
- 11. Tibballs J. Australian snakebite and treatment. In: Gopalakrishnakone P et al, editors. Clinical toxinology. Dordrecht: Springer, 2018: 1–41.
- 12. Sutherland SK. Snake bite in remote areas. Med J Aust 1979; 1: 520. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1979.tb119347.x
- 13. Mirtschin PJ, Dunstan N, Hough B, et al. Venom yields from Australian and some other species of snakes. Ecotoxicol 2006; 15: 531–538.
- 14. Trinca JC, editor. CSL Medical Handbook. Antivenenes. Melbourne. CSL Ltd, 1973: 176–197.
- 15. Lim AY, Singh PN, Isbister GK. Severe rhabdomyolysis from red‐bellied black snake (Pseudechis porphyriacus) envenoming despite antivenom. Toxicon 2016; 117: 46–48.
- 16. Coroner's Court of Victoria. Coronial Report COR 2015 000048. Issued 21 August 2018. https://www.coronerscourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-12/mrsz_004815.pdf (viewed July 2019).
- 17. Coroner's Court of Victoria. Coronial Report COR 2014 005696. Issued 21 August 2018. https://www.coronerscourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-12/shanekyletatti_569614.pdf (viewed July 2019).
Julian White provides advice to Seqirus, manufacturer of antivenoms used in Australia, as part of a contract between his employing hospital and Seqirus. He occasionally receives travel support to attend toxinology meetings from Seqirus. However, he does not receive any financial remuneration or other compensation from Seqirus, and Seqirus has no role, input or influence on any of his reports, clinical practice or comments. He also provided an invited opinion in the referenced coronial cases. Peter Mirtschin provided independent commentary included in the coronial reports and is owner of Venom Supplies in the Barossa Valley, SA, a business that is leased to others; this business occasionally conducts business with Seqirus, but he has no input into, and does not receive any financial remuneration or other compensation from, Seqirus.