Acute valproic acid intoxication is an increasing problem, accounting for more than 5000 calls to the American Association of Poison Control Centers in 2000. The purpose of this paper is to review the pharmacology and toxicology of valproic acid toxicity. Unlike earlier antiepileptic agents, valproic acid appears to function neither through sodium channel inhibition nor through direct gamma-aminobutyric acid agonism, but through an indirect increase in regional brain gamma-aminobutyric acid levels. Manifestations of acute valproic acid toxicity are myriad, and reflect both exaggerated therapeutic effect and impaired intermediary metabolism. Central nervous system depression is the most common finding noted in overdose, and may progress to coma and respiratory depression. Cerebral edema has also been observed. Although hepatotoxicity is rare in the acute overdose setting, pancreatitis and hyperammonemia have been reported. Metabolic and hematologic derangements have also been described. Management of acute valproic acid ingestion requires supportive care and close attention to the airway. The use of controversial adjunctive therapies, including extracorporeal drug elimination and L-carnitine supplementation, will be discussed.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of self-collected and health care worker (HCW)-collected nasal swabs for detection of influenza viruses and determine the patients' preference for type of collection. Patients and Methods: We enrolled adult patients presenting with influenzalike illness to the Emergency Department at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, from January 28, 2011, through April 30, 2011. Patients self-collected a midturbinate nasal flocked swab from their right nostril following written instructions. A second swab was then collected by an HCW from the left nostril. Swabs were tested for influenza A and B viruses by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, and percent concordance between collection methods was determined. Results: Of the 72 paired specimens analyzed, 25 were positive for influenza A or B RNA by at least one of the collection methods (34.7% positivity rate). When the 14 patients who had prior health care training were excluded, the qualitative agreement between collection methods was 94.8% (55 of 58). Two of the 58 specimens (3.4%) from patients without health care training were positive only by HCW collection, and 1 of 58 (1.7%) was positive only by patient self-collection. A total of 53.4% of patients (31 of 58) preferred the self-collection method over the HCW collection, and 25.9% (15 of 58) had no preference. Conclusion: Self-collected midturbinate nasal swabs provide a reliable alternative to HCW collection for influenza A and B virus real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction.

No abstract