Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Jan 15;16(1):e0245363. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245363

Association between liberal oxygen therapy and mortality in patients with paraquat poisoning: A multi-center retrospective cohort study

Xin-Hong Lin 1, Hsiu-Yung Pan 1,2, Fu-Jen Cheng 1,2, Kuo-Chen Huang 1, Chao-Jui Li 1, Chien-Chih Chen 1, Po-Chun Chuang 1,*
Editor: Muhammad Adrish3
PMCID: PMC7810293  PMID: 33449962

Abstract

Paraquat (N, N'-dimethyl-4, 4'-bipyridinium dichloride, PQ) intoxication is a common cause of lethal poisoning. This study aimed to identify the risk of using liberal oxygen therapy in patients with PQ poisoning. This was a multi-center retrospective cohort study involving four medical institutions in Taiwan. Data were extracted from the Chang Gung Research Database (CGRD) from January 2004 to December 2016. Patients confirmed to have PQ intoxication with a urine PQ concentration ≥ 5 ppm were analyzed. Patients who received oxygen therapy before marked hypoxia (SpO2 ≥ 90%) were defined as receiving liberal oxygen therapy. The association between mortality and patient demographics, blood paraquat concentration (ppm), and liberal oxygen therapy were analyzed. A total of 416 patients were enrolled. The mortality rate was higher in the liberal oxygen therapy group (87.8% vs. 73.7%, P = 0.007), especially in 28-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 4.71, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.533–14.471) and overall mortality (aOR: 5.97, 95% CI: 1.692–21.049) groups. Mortality in patients with PQ poisoning was also associated with age (aOR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.015–1.073), blood creatinine level (aOR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.124–1.978), and blood paraquat concentration (ppm) (aOR, 1.51; 95% CI: 1.298–1.766). Unless the evidence of hypoxia (SpO2 < 90%) is clear, oxygen therapy should be avoided because it is associated with increased mortality.

Introduction

Paraquat (N, N'-dimethyl-4, 4'-bipyridinium dichloride; PQ) intoxication is a common cause of lethal poisoning in many parts of Asia, Oceania, and the Americas [1, 2]. For example, in Taiwan, 1811 patients were admitted with PQ intoxication from 1997 to 2009, with a mortality rate of 78.6% [3]. Because paraquat is a nonselective, quick-acting, and cheap herbicide, it has been widely used in developing countries [4]. Paraquat is classified as a bipyridyl compound [5]. Its toxicity, which induces nonspecific cellular necrosis, occurs as a result of reactive oxygen species generation [6]. Once paraquat enters the intracellular space, it undergoes a process of alternate reduction and re-oxidation steps known as redox cycling.

Paraquat is oxidized to the paraquat radical upon entry into the cell and is subsequently reduced by enzyme systems such as (Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate) NADPH-cytochrome P450 reductase and nitric oxide synthase to form a mono-cation (PQ+) [79]. The PQ+ is then rapidly re-oxidized to form the parent paraquat compound in the presence of O2 and generates a superoxide radical (a reactive oxygen species). Reactive oxygen species has the characteristic of cytotoxicity that causes oxidative stress [1013]. This leads to lipid peroxidation [14, 15], consumption of intracellular NADPH as long as NADPH and oxygen are available [16, 17], mitochondrial damage [18], and even apoptosis [19, 20].

Paraquat causes major organ damage, the most prominent being lung and kidney injuries, since high concentrations of the toxin were found in these organs [16, 21]. Most cases of paraquat ingestion induce poisoning, and the severity of toxicity is related to the dose ingested. The symptoms could be limited and topical if exposure is through dermal contact or through a spray. Lethal complications such as pneumonitis, pulmonary hemorrhage, and acute tubular necrosis could occur [16] if more than 10 mL of the solution (20% wt./vol) is ingested [21]. In previous in vivo studies, supplemental oxygen enhanced the toxicity of paraquat, which resulted in damage to alveolar cells, particularly the type II pneumocytes [22, 23]. In addition, the toxicity seemed to be correlated with the concentration of the oxygen supplied [24, 25]. In clinical practice, emergency physicians do not administer oxygen therapy in patients with acute PQ poisoning unless the patients are hypoxic (usually clinically defined as a pulse oximeter level < 90%) because of the concern that supplemental oxygen might exacerbate the toxicity of paraquat by enhancing the generation of reactive oxygen species [17]. Previous clinical studies have focused on the effects of immunotherapy and hemoperfusion to patients suffering from paraquat poisoning [26, 27]. We conducted a retrospective study to analyze the association between liberal oxygen therapy and the outcomes of PQ poisoning.

Materials and methods

Ethics approval

This retrospective study was approved by the Chang Gung medical foundation institutional review board (number 201901558B0). All patient data used in the analyses were anonymized and de-identified.

Study setting

The data were obtained from the largest health care institution in Taiwan, the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (CGMH), which receives 10–12% of the National Health Insurance budget according to government statistics. The Chang Gung Research Database (CGRD) was used. This database combines original medical records from four medical institutes (Keelung, Linkou, Chiayi, and Kaohsiung branches) located from northern to southern Taiwan.

Patients

All patients who experienced paraquat poisoning, visited the emergency department (ED), and had confirmed paraquat intoxication (i.e., urine paraquat concentration ≥ 5 ppm) from January 2004 to December 2016 were included in the study. Patients who were transferred to other hospitals, discharged against medical advice (DAMA), or exhibited marked hypoxia (SpO2 < 90%) at initial presentation were excluded.

Measurements

Liberal oxygen therapy was defined as patients receiving oxygen therapy (supplied by a nasal cannula or mask) before marked hypoxia developed (defined as SpO2 ≥ 90%). Conservative oxygen therapy was defined as patients receiving oxygen therapy only if marked hypoxia occurred (defined as SpO2 < 90%). In-hospital mortality and impending death discharge were viewed as mortality [2830]. The following patient demographics were extracted from the CGRD: age, sex, vital signs, blood creatinine level, urine and blood paraquat concentration (ppm), cyclophosphamide treatment, hemoperfusion, intubation, and signed Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). The paraquat concentration is semi-quantitatively analyzed and the upper limit of this analysis is 50 ppm in urine and 10 ppm in blood.

Data analysis

For continuous variables with normal distribution: age was summarized as mean ± standard deviation. For continuous variables with non-normal distribution: vital signs, paraquat concentrations, and blood creatinine levels were expressed as medians and first quartiles to third quartiles (Q1-Q3). The distributions of categorical data were presented as numbers and percentages. Student’s t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used to analyze continuous variables with normal and non-normal distributions, respectively. The chi-square test was used to analyze categorical data. To determine the odds ratios between the variables and mortality, we carried out a multivariate logistic regression. Variables with a P-value <0.2 in the univariate analysis between the survival and mortality groups were included in the logistic regression analysis. The effects were estimated in terms of adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results were considered statistically significant for a 2-tailed test if P < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows, version 22.0 (released 2013, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).

Results

Fig 1 shows the flowchart of enrollment and the status of patients with PQ poisoning. After excluding patients who were non-critical and DAMA, transferred to other hospitals, or exhibited marked hypoxia at initial presentation, a total of 416 patients were enrolled. The baseline clinical characteristics of patients with PQ poisoning are shown in Table 1. Of the 416 patients who suffered from PQ poisoning, 334 received conservative oxygen therapy and 82 received liberal oxygen therapy. Higher intubation and overall mortality rates were observed in patients who received liberal oxygen therapy (P = 0.001 and P = 0.007, respectively).

Fig 1. Flowchart of enrollment and the status of patients upon enrollment.

Fig 1

Table 1. Clinical characteristics of patients with paraquat poisoning who received conservative and liberal oxygen therapy (N = 416).

Conservative oxygen therapy n = 334 Liberal oxygen therapy n = 82 p-value
Age 51 ± 17.1 55 ± 18.3 0.050
Male sex 244 (73.1) 51 (62.2) 0.052
Current smoker 200 (59.9) 70 (85.4) <0.001
Chronic lower respiratory diseases 2 (0.6) 4 (4.9) 0.015
Malignant neoplasms of lung 0 (0.0) 1 (1.2) 0.197
Body temperature during triage (°C) 36.1 (35.6–36.7) 36.0 (35.3–36.6) 0.181
Heart rate during triage 92 (79–106.5) 92.5 (78–107) 0.948
Respiratory rate during triage 20 (18–20) 20 (18–22) 0.359
Mean arterial pressure during triage 103.3 (89.7–118.0) 105.8 (93.3–121.0) 0.390
SpO2 during triage (%) 98 (95–100) 98 (95–100) 0.351
Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) 15 (13–15) 15 (11–15) 0.624
Urine paraquat concentration (ppm) 50 (50–50) 50 (50–50) 0.462
Blood paraquat concentration (ppm) 8.5 (1.5–10) 8.6 (1.1–10) 0.950
Blood creatinine level (mg/dL) 1.8 (1.1–2.8) 1.7 (1.3–3.6) 0.252
Cyclophosphamide treatment 159 (47.6) 37 (45.1) 0.687
Hemoperfusion 236 (70.7) 58 (70.7) 0.990
Intubation 42 (12.6) 23 (28) 0.001
Signed Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) 172 (51.5) 49 (59.8) 0.179
Mortality
    3-day mortality 191 (57.2) 46 (56.1) 0.858
    7-day mortality 217 (65) 59 (72) 0.231
    28-day mortality 239 (71.6) 69 (84.1) 0.020
    Overall mortality 246 (73.7) 72 (87.8) 0.007

Data are presented as number (percentage), mean ± SD, or median (Q1-Q3).

Abbreviations: SpO2, peripheral oxygen saturation.

A comparison between the survival group and mortality group (Table 2) showed that the survival group exhibited a younger age (42 ± 14.7 vs. 54 ± 17.1 years, P < 0.001) and lower blood paraquat concentration (0.5 [0.1–2] vs. 10 [4.5–10] ppm, P < 0.001). The respiratory rate during triage, blood creatinine level, rates of intubation, patients with DNR status, and liberal oxygen therapy administration were also higher in the mortality group.

Table 2. Clinical characteristics of patients between survival and overall mortality patients (N = 416).

Survival patients n = 98 Mortality patients n = 318 p-value
Age 42 ± 14.7 54 ± 17.1 <0.001
Male sex 64 (65.3) 231 (72.6) 0.162
Body temperature during triage (°C) 36.5 (36.0–36.9) 36.0 (35.4–36.5) <0.001
Heart rate during triage 91 (79–102) 92 (79–108) 0.343
Respiratory rate during triage 19 (18–20) 20 (18–22) 0.001
Mean arterial pressure during triage 103.3 (92.3–116.0) 104.2 (89.7–119.0) 0.966
Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) 15 (15–15) 15 (10–15) <0.001
Blood paraquat concentration (ppm) 0.5 (0.1–2) 10 (4.5–10) <0.001
Blood creatinine level (mg/dL) 0.9 (0.7–1.4) 2 (1.4–3.1) <0.001
Cyclophosphamide treatment 60 (61.2) 136 (42.8) 0.001
Hemoperfusion 74 (75.5) 220 (69.2) 0.229
Intubation 4 (4.1) 61 (19.2) <0.001
Signed Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) 14 (14.3) 207 (65.1) <0.001
Liberal oxygen therapy 10 (10.2) 72 (22.6) 0.007

Data are presented as number (percentage), mean ± SD, or median (Q1-Q3).

After analysis with binary logistic regression, the age, blood creatinine, blood paraquat concentration, patients with DNR status, and liberal oxygen therapy were all associated with mortality (Table 3). Fewer patients received cyclophosphamide treatment in the mortality group, but there was no association between cyclophosphamide treatment and mortality (aOR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.437–2.490).

Table 3. Logistic regression analysis of risk factors associated with overall mortality.

Variable aOR 95% CI of aOR
Age 1.04 1.015–1.073
Male sex 2.52 0.953–6.649
Current smoker 0.39 0.127–1.168
Chronic lower respiratory diseases 0.56 0.014–22.613
Respiratory rate during triage 1.20 0.991–1.457
Blood paraquat concentration (ppm) 1.51 1.298–1.766
Blood creatinine level (mg/dL) 1.49 1.124–1.978
Cyclophosphamide treatment 1.04 0.437–2.490
Intubation 4.30 1.07–17.303
Signed Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) 8.50 3.347–21.58
Liberal oxygen therapy 5.97 1.692–21.049

Abbreviations: aOR, adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

The model was adjusted for the following confounders: age, male sex, current smoking, chronic lower respiratory diseases, malignant neoplasms of the lung, body temperature during triage, respiratory rate during triage, Glasgow Coma Scale, blood paraquat concentration (ppm), blood creatinine level (mg/dL), cyclophosphamide treatment, intubation, signed Do Not Resuscitate, and liberal oxygen therapy.

The adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of age, blood paraquat concentration, intubation, and liberal oxygen therapy between different times of mortality are shown in Fig 2. Older age and higher blood paraquat concentrations were associated with higher mortality rates. Liberal oxygen therapy was associated with a higher 28-day mortality rate (aOR, 4.71; 95% CI, 1.533–14.471) and a higher overall mortality rate (aOR: 5.97, 95% CI: 1.692–21.049).

Fig 2. Adjusted odds ratios between different mortality times.

Fig 2

The model was adjusted for age, male sex, smoking status (current smoker or not), chronic lower respiratory diseases, malignant neoplasms of the lung, body temperature during triage, respiratory rate during triage, Glasgow Coma Scale, blood paraquat concentration (ppm), blood creatinine level (mg/dL), cyclophosphamide treatment, intubation, signed Do Not Resuscitate, liberal oxygen therapy.

In the subgroup analysis, among the 55 intubated patients with their inspired oxygen fraction (FiO2) recorded after intubation, 26 and 29 used high FiO2 (≥40%) and low FiO2 (<40%) when starting the mechanical ventilator, respectively. The mortality rate was 96.1% and 89.6% in the high and low FiO2 group, respectively (P = 0.613). There were 17 patients who initially received high FiO2 in the conservative group (n = 36), and 9 patients initially received high FiO2 in the liberal group (n = 19) (47.2% and 47.4% in the conservative and liberal groups, respectively, P = 0.992). There were 10 patients who did not have FiO2 records after intubation due to mortality soon after intubation.

Discussion

This study involved 416 patients who experienced paraquat intoxication between January 2004 and December 2016 (Fig 1). Mortality rates were 87.8% and 73.7% in the liberal and conservative oxygen therapy groups, respectively (Table 1). Global mortality rates associated with paraquat intoxication have been reported to range from 8% to 78.6% in previous studies [3032]. The mortality rate was higher in Taiwan (approximately 60%–90%) [33, 34], which could be a result of the accessibility of paraquat, which was not banned in Taiwan until February 2019 [35, 36].

Patients who survived paraquat poisoning were younger (42 ± 14.7 and 54 ± 17.1 years, in the survival and mortality groups, respectively, P < 0.001) and exhibited lower blood paraquat concentration (0.5 [0.1–2] vs. 10 [4.5–10] ppm in the survival and mortality groups, respectively, P < 0.001) (Table 2). In previous studies, the mortality rate of paraquat intoxication was closely related to age and blood paraquat concentration [30, 37]. The association between mortality and older age, and mortality and higher blood PQ levels were still observed after further analysis of the data with binary logistic regression. Similar to previous studies [3841], older ages and higher blood paraquat levels were associated with almost all mortality periods in this study (Fig 2A and 2B).

Mortality was also associated with blood creatinine levels, patients with DNR status, and liberal oxygen therapy (Table 3). Paraquat is primarily eliminated unchanged by the renal system through glomerular filtration and active tubular secretion [42]. It causes acute tubular necrosis, hypoperfusion from hypovolemia/hypotension, and direct glomerular injury following poisoning, which may lead to the development of acute kidney injury [43]. Over 90% of paraquat is excreted in the urine within the first 24 h of poisoning if the renal function is normal [17]. Renal impairment prolongs the elimination of paraquat, which contributes to mortality.

Patients who were intubated due to respiratory failure were associated with a higher overall mortality rate (aOR: 4.30, 95% CI: 1.07–17.303), but were not associated with mortality before 28 days (Fig 2C). In the subgroup analysis among intubated patients, there were 55 patients who had recorded FiO2 levels. The rates of using high FiO2 at the initial phase were not statistically significant between the conservative and liberal groups (47.2% and 47.4%, respectively, P = 0.992). The mortality rate was higher in the high FiO2 group (96.1% and 89.6% in the high and low FiO2 groups, respectively, P = 0.613), but the difference was not statistically significant. This finding was similar to that of previous studies [3, 44] and might be explained by the different stages of lung injuries caused by paraquat. The initial toxicological effects of paraquat on the lungs are destruction of the alveolar type I and type II epithelial cells, which occur within 1–3 days of poisoning [41, 4547]. Damage to type I alveolar cells impairs gas exchange between the air space and the capillaries, which compromises lung function from the beginning of paraquat intoxication. The main functions of type II cells are surfactant secretion, active transport of water and ions, and epithelial regeneration. Destruction of type II cells results in increased surface tension within the alveoli, which draws fluid from capillaries to produce edema [48]. The influx of inflammatory cells, mainly neutrophils, macrophages, and eosinophils to the interstitial and alveolar spaces takes place during this destructive phase and is maintained throughout the proliferative phase. Because of this, alveolitis, pulmonary edema, acute pneumonitis, and hemorrhage develop. The proliferative phase, the second phase of paraquat-induced lung toxicity, occurs several days after paraquat ingestion and results in the development of extensive pulmonary fibrosis. The effectiveness of gas exchange is then reduced, which leads to death as a consequence of severe, refractory hypoxia.

As shown in Fig 2D, 28-day mortality and overall mortality (aOR, 4.71; 95% CI, 1.533–14.471; aOR, 5.97; 95% CI, 1.692–21.049, respectively) were associated with liberal oxygen therapy. This may be related to the production of cytotoxic reactive oxygen species. Superoxide radicals are formed by paraquat redox cycling and are susceptible to further reactions by other intracellular processes, leading to the formation of other reactive oxygen species that are also potentially cytotoxic. Paraquat redox cycling continues if nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) and oxygen are available. Depletion of NADPH prevents the recycling of glutathione and exacerbates toxicity by interfering with other intracellular processes such as energy production and active transport. Intracellular protective mechanisms such as superoxide dismutase and glutathione are also depleted, which further impairs the intracellular clearance of reactive oxygen species. Oxygen supply is believed to amplify the formation of reactive oxygen species. Previous studies also demonstrated that oxygen supply leads to type II pneumocyte injury and impaired pulmonary function [24, 25, 45]. The contribution of liberal oxygen therapy to mortality was more prominent than intubation (aOR = 5.97, P = 0.005 and 4.30, P = 0.04, respectively, separately shown in Table 3). This might imply that oxygen supply may worsen pulmonary functions and architecture by promoting the process of cytotoxic reactions. Therefore, clinicians should closely monitor oxygen saturation and respiration patterns in patients with PQ poisoning. Oxygen therapy should be administered with caution and should be reserved for those with hypoxia (SpO2 < 90%).

Limitations

This study has some limitations. First, we excluded patients who were transferred to other hospitals, escaped or were DAMA. This might have resulted in the higher mortality rates observed in this study. Second, due to the retrospective nature of the study, selection bias cannot be ignored. Patients might have looked much sicker (e.g., shallow breathing or breathing with accessory muscle use), and received “liberal oxygen” even if their oxygen saturation was above 90%. Thus, they ended up having worse conditions. Finally, the limitations of the retrospective design might have introduced some confounding factors that could have altered the values of oxygen saturation. For example, oximeter readings could be influenced by cold extremities or oxygen therapy may be applied by the emergency medical technicians (EMT) outside the hospital.

Conclusions

Unless the evidence of hypoxia (SpO2 < 90%) is clear, oxygen therapy should be avoided because it is associated with increased mortality.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Taiwanese Government for banning paraquat in February 2019 and acknowledge all clinical physicians for their struggle and effort to manage patients with PQ poisoning. The corresponding author Po-Chun Chuang thanks Doctor Ja-Liang Lin who contributed his life to toxicology and medical education in Taiwan.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Gunnell D, Eddleston M, Phillips MR, Konradsen F. The global distribution of fatal pesticide self-poisoning: systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2007;7:357 10.1186/1471-2458-7-357 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bertolote JM, Fleischmann A, Butchart A, Besbelli N. Suicide, suicide attempts and pesticides: a major hidden public health problem. Bull World Health Organ. 2006;84(4):260 10.2471/blt.06.030668 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wu MR, Hsiao CY, Cheng CH, Liao FC, Chao CL, Chen CY, et al. Is endotracheal intubation a non-beneficial treatment in patients with respiratory failure due to paraquat poisoning? PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0195071 10.1371/journal.pone.0195071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Li K, Cheng X, Jiang J, Wang J, Xie J, Hu X, et al. The toxic influence of paraquat on hippocampal neurogenesis in adult mice. Food Chem Toxicol. 2017;106(Pt A):356–66. 10.1016/j.fct.2017.05.067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dodge AD. The mode of action of the bipyridylium herbicides, paraquat and diquat. Endeavour. 1971;30(111):130–5. 10.1016/0160-9327(71)90039-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Suntres ZE. Role of antioxidants in paraquat toxicity. Toxicology. 2002;180(1):65–77. 10.1016/s0300-483x(02)00382-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kelner MJ, Bagnell R. Paraquat resistance associated with reduced NADPH reductase in an energy-dependent paraquat-accumulating cell line. Arch Biochem Biophys. 1989;274(2):366–74. 10.1016/0003-9861(89)90450-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bus JS, Gibson JE. Paraquat: model for oxidant-initiated toxicity. Environ Health Perspect. 1984;55:37–46. 10.1289/ehp.845537 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Saeed SA, Wilks MF, Coupe M. Acute diquat poisoning with intracerebral bleeding. Postgrad Med J. 2001;77(907):329–32. 10.1136/pmj.77.907.329 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Yang W, Tiffany-Castiglioni E. The bipyridyl herbicide paraquat induces proteasome dysfunction in human neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cells. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2007;70(21):1849–57. 10.1080/15287390701459262 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Castello PR, Drechsel DA, Patel M. Mitochondria are a major source of paraquat-induced reactive oxygen species production in the brain. J Biol Chem. 2007;282(19):14186–93. 10.1074/jbc.M700827200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bonneh-Barkay D, Reaney SH, Langston WJ, Di Monte DA. Redox cycling of the herbicide paraquat in microglial cultures. Brain Res Mol Brain Res. 2005;134(1):52–6. 10.1016/j.molbrainres.2004.11.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Adam A, Smith LL, Cohen GM. An assessment of the role of redox cycling in mediating the toxicity of paraquat and nitrofurantoin. Environ Health Perspect. 1990;85:113–7. 10.1289/ehp.85-1568326 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bus JS, Aust SD, Gibson JE. Paraquat toxicity: proposed mechanism of action involving lipid peroxidation. Environ Health Perspect. 1976;16:139–46. 10.1289/ehp.7616139 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Yasaka T, Ohya I, Matsumoto J, Shiramizu T, Sasaguri Y. Acceleration of lipid peroxidation in human paraquat poisoning. Arch Intern Med. 1981;141(9):1169–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Keeling PL, Smith LL. Relevance of NADPH depletion and mixed disulphide formation in rat lung to the mechanism of cell damage following paraquat administration. Biochem Pharmacol. 1982;31(20):3243–9. 10.1016/0006-2952(82)90557-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gawarammana IB, Buckley NA. Medical management of paraquat ingestion. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;72(5):745–57. 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2011.04026.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tawara T, Fukushima T, Hojo N, Isobe A, Shiwaku K, Setogawa T, et al. Effects of paraquat on mitochondrial electron transport system and catecholamine contents in rat brain. Arch Toxicol. 1996;70(9):585–9. 10.1007/s002040050316 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rio MJ, Velez-Pardo C. Paraquat induces apoptosis in human lymphocytes: protective and rescue effects of glucose, cannabinoids and insulin-like growth factor-1. Growth Factors. 2008;26(1):49–60. 10.1080/08977190801984205 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Denicola A, Radi R. Peroxynitrite and drug-dependent toxicity. Toxicology. 2005;208(2):273–88. 10.1016/j.tox.2004.11.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cappelletti G, Maggioni MG, Maci R. Apoptosis in human lung epithelial cells: triggering by paraquat and modulation by antioxidants. Cell Biol Int. 1998;22(9–10):671–8. 10.1006/cbir.1998.0305 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Smith P, Heath D. Paraquat. CRC Crit Rev Toxicol. 1976;4(4):411–45. 10.1080/10408447609164020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sevitt S. Diffuse and focal oxygen pneumonitis. A preliminary report on the threshold of pulmonary oxygen toxicity in man. J Clin Pathol. 1974;27(1):21–30. 10.1136/jcp.27.1.21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Pratt IS, Keeling PL, Smith LL. The effect of high concentrations of oxygen on paraquat and diquat toxicity in rats. Arch Toxicol Suppl. 1980;4:415–8. 10.1007/978-3-642-67729-8_95 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hoet PH, Demedts M, Nemery B. Effects of oxygen pressure and medium volume on the toxicity of paraquat in rat and human type II pneumocytes. Hum Exp Toxicol. 1997;16(6):305–10. 10.1177/096032719701600602 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gawarammana I, Buckley NA, Mohamed F, Naser K, Jeganathan K, Ariyananada PL, et al. High-dose immunosuppression to prevent death after paraquat self-poisoning—a randomised controlled trial. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2018;56(7):633–9. 10.1080/15563650.2017.1394465 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Yeh YT, Chen CK, Lin CC, Chang CM, Lan KP, How CK, et al. Does Hemoperfusion Increase Survival in Acute Paraquat Poisoning? A Retrospective Multicenter Study. Toxics. 2020;8(4). 10.3390/toxics8040084 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lin HY, Kang SC, Chen YC, Chang YC, Wang WS, Lo SS. Place of death for hospice-cared terminal patients with cancer: A nationwide retrospective study in Taiwan. J Chin Med Assoc. 2017;80(4):227–32. 10.1016/j.jcma.2016.10.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Nagata I, Abe T, Uchida M, Saitoh D, Tamiya N. Ten-year inhospital mortality trends for patients with trauma in Japan: a multicentre observational study. BMJ Open. 2018;8(2):e018635 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018635 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Weng CH, Hu CC, Lin JL, Lin-Tan DT, Huang WH, Hsu CW, et al. Sequential organ failure assessment score can predict mortality in patients with paraquat intoxication. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51743 10.1371/journal.pone.0051743 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Zyoud SH. Investigating global trends in paraquat intoxication research from 1962 to 2015 using bibliometric analysis. Am J Ind Med. 2018;61(6):462–70. 10.1002/ajim.22835 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Oghabian Z, Williams J, Mohajeri M, Nakhaee S, Shojaeepour S, Amirabadizadeh A, et al. Clinical Features, Treatment, Prognosis, and Mortality in Paraquat Poisonings: A Hospital-Based Study in Iran. J Res Pharm Pract. 2019;8(3):129–36. 10.4103/jrpp.JRPP_18_71 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hsu CW, Lin JL, Lin-Tan DT, Chen KH, Yen TH, Wu MS, et al. Early hemoperfusion may improve survival of severely paraquat-poisoned patients. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e48397 10.1371/journal.pone.0048397 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lin JL, Lin-Tan DT, Chen KH, Huang WH, Hsu CW, Hsu HH, et al. Improved survival in severe paraquat poisoning with repeated pulse therapy of cyclophosphamide and steroids. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37(6):1006–13. 10.1007/s00134-010-2127-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ko DR, Chung SP, You JS, Cho S, Park Y, Chun B, et al. Effects of Paraquat Ban on Herbicide Poisoning-Related Mortality. Yonsei Med J. 2017;58(4):859–66. 10.3349/ymj.2017.58.4.859 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Chang S-S, Gunnell DJTJoP. Banning paraquat would prevent nearly 200 deaths from suicide per year in Taiwan. 2019;33(3):119. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Weng CH, Hu CC, Lin JL, Lin-Tan DT, Hsu CW, Yen TH. Predictors of acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with paraquat intoxication. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e82695 10.1371/journal.pone.0082695 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lee Y, Lee JH, Seong AJ, Hong CK, Lee HJ, Shin DH, et al. Arterial lactate as a predictor of mortality in emergency department patients with paraquat intoxication. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2012;50(1):52–6. 10.3109/15563650.2011.639716 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Zhou CY, Kang X, Li CB, Li XH, Liu Y, Wang Z, et al. Pneumomediastinum predicts early mortality in acute paraquat poisoning. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2015;53(6):551–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kang X, Hu DY, Li CB, Li XH, Fan SL, Liu Y, et al. The volume ratio of ground glass opacity in early lung CT predicts mortality in acute paraquat poisoning. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0121691 10.1371/journal.pone.0121691 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kang C, Kim SC, Lee SH, Jeong JH, Kim DS, Kim DH. Absolute lymphocyte count as a predictor of mortality in emergency department patients with paraquat poisoning. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e78160 10.1371/journal.pone.0078160 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Chan BS, Lazzaro VA, Seale JP, Duggin GG. The renal excretory mechanisms and the role of organic cations in modulating the renal handling of paraquat. Pharmacol Ther. 1998;79(3):193–203. 10.1016/s0163-7258(98)00015-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Weng CH, Chen HH, Hu CC, Huang WH, Hsu CW, Fu JF, et al. Predictors of acute kidney injury after paraquat intoxication. Oncotarget. 2017;8(31):51345–54. 10.18632/oncotarget.17975 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Khazraei S, Marashi SM, Sanaei-Zadeh H. Ventilator settings and outcome of respiratory failure in paraquat-induced pulmonary injury. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):16541 10.1038/s41598-019-52939-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kehrer JP, Haschek WM, Witschi H. The influence of hyperoxia on the acute toxicity of paraquat and diquat. Drug Chem Toxicol. 1979;2(4):397–408. 10.3109/01480547909016033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Dinis-Oliveira RJ, Duarte JA, Sanchez-Navarro A, Remiao F, Bastos ML, Carvalho F. Paraquat poisonings: mechanisms of lung toxicity, clinical features, and treatment. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2008;38(1):13–71. 10.1080/10408440701669959 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Khosya S, Gothwal S. Two cases of paraquat poisoning from kota, rajasthan, India. Case Rep Crit Care. 2012;2012:652146 10.1155/2012/652146 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Gardiner AJ. Pulmonary oedema in paraguat poisoning. Thorax. 1972;27(1):132–5. 10.1136/thx.27.1.132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Muhammad Adrish

22 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-21510

The association between liberal oxygen therapy and mortality in patients with paraquat poisoning: a multi-center retrospective cohort study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chuang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

I have received the comments of the reviewers on your manuscript. The specific comments of the reviewers are included below. Please provide point by point response in your revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by due date. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Muhammad Adrish

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thanks to the authors for preparing this manuscript on paraquat toxicity and oxygen exposure.

Minor comments:

Abstract – results – can remove the word totally.

28 day – not days.

Introduction : However, there was no clinical evidence …. – there are many publications, back to the 1970s, outlining oxygen toxicity in paraquat exposure. Many of the early papers are in animals. There are multiple publications in humans. Do the authors mean, no previous RCTs looking at oxygen? I do note prior RCTs on therapies (immunosuppression) in paraquat.

Ethics statement - 2. The reason that consent was not obtained (e.g. the data were analyzed

anonymously). ??

Was a waiver of consent provided due to de-identified data being used?

Methods: we used the multivariate analysis, Binary Logistic Regression.

- We carried out a multivariate logistic regression.

Variableswith a p-value <0.2 between the survival and mortality groups were included in the logistic regression analysis.

- Variables with a p-value <0.2 in the univariate analysis ….

Covariates that did not seem to have been considered by the authors, are potentially other patient factors that could make the patient more at risk of hypoxia – such as current smoker, or concurrent background lung disease. Do the authors have these variables available and could put them into the model?

I am interested in the authors choice to compare the survival and mortality groups. Usually you would compare the exposure variable – ie conservative or liberal oxygen. What does table 2 look like done in this way?

Intubation and reduced 3 day mortality – this is probably self fulfilling rather than an actual finding – ie patients sick enough to need intubation, can be maintained early on, but progressive fibrosis gets them later, regardless of intubation. Not sure I would make anything of this result.

Discussion – DNR orders sentence doesn’t seem to be discussing anything and I would remove.

Again, the DNR part of the result, probably reflects a bias whereby those patients not likely to do well (as expected by clinicians) are asked about treatment goals. Interesting, but I wouldn’t stress these results.

Due to the retrospective nature of the study, we can’t ignore selection bias at work here. Patients might have looked sicker, and received oxygen “liberal oxygen”, even if their SaO2 was ok. Thus they end up doing worse.

The intubation effect seen is interesting. You would expect intubated patients to subsequently need more oxygen – as respiratory failure was the reason for intubation. Do the authors have the FiO2 provided to patients who were intubated? It might be interesting to look at the 60 odd intubated patients, and divide them into – low and high FiO2 (><40%) and see if any effect difference seen there.

Reviewer #2: REVIEWER COMMENTS

The authors conducted a retrospective study to determine the relationship between oxygen therapy and the outcomes of paraquat poisoning.

ABSTRACT

1. “Paraquat intoxication-related mortality mainly results from lung injury, which may be associated with oxygen therapy.” This statement in Abstract means what authors sought to investigate is already known.

2. “This study aimed to identify the risk of using oxygen therapy for paraquat poisoning.” The aim is NOT clear.

3. “Totally, 416 patients were enrolled.” Grammatically wrong.

INTRODUCTION

4. “Around 300 000 people die from herbicide or pesticide poisoning each year throughout Asia”. 300,000 should be written well. This statement has no link with previous statement.

5. “The toxicity of paraquat, which induces nonspecific cellular necrosis, results from the generation of reactive oxygen species.” …results from… should be changed to …occurs as a result of…….. The statement should have reference(s).

6. “Reactive oxygen species are potent cytotoxins………….” Uncertain if ROS can be said to be a cytotoxin.

7. “In previous in vivo studies, supplemental oxygen enhanced the toxicity of the paraquat, which resulted in damage to alveolar cells, particularly the type II pneumocytes.” Reference(s) required.

8. “However, there was no clinical evidence that oxygen therapy would worsen the prognosis in patients with paraquat poisoning.” If this statement can be clarified. Pratt et al (1980), Bateman & Leach (1998), and others, have shown that oxygen therapy enhances the toxic effects of paraquat poisoning.

METHODS

9. …………..or exhibited marked hypoxia (SpO2 < 90%) at initial presentation were excluded. Explain this statement; as some patients in the study had SpO2 <90%.

10. ……………..were extracted from the CGRD database. I believe D is acronym is database.

11. Under measurements: last line; ………hemoperfusion, intubation, and signed DNR. Write DNR in full.

12. The Student’s t test and Mann-Whitney u test were used to analyze the data. Which data? And what was the use of these inferential statistics?

RESULTS

13. Table 1 has a number of issues;

• Title needs to be improved (include sample size)

• Body temperature needs to be at 1 d.p

• Urine paraquat concentration cannot be 50 + 0.0 for the 2 groups. The p value is erroneous

• Table needs to show SpO2 for the two groups

• How can one differentiate between mean (SD) and median (quartile deviation)

14. Table 2 has some few isssues;

• Body temperature needs to be at 1 d.p

• Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS): p < 0.001? How is that possible?

15. Why didn’t the adjusted odds ratio include DNR? Indeed; the highest OR was with DNR: could that be determinant for mortality vis-à-vis oxygen therapy?

16. Legend for Figure 1 needs to be improved (more details; retrospective data, period, etc)

17. Figure 1: Explain in box using SpO2 “conservative oxygen therapy” and “liberal oxygen therapy”

DISCUSSION

18. “Mortality rates are 87.8% and 73.7% in liberal and conservative oxygen therapy groups, respectively (Table 1).” Mortality rates were……

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 15;16(1):e0245363. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245363.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


13 Nov 2020

Dear Academic Editor: Muhammad Adrish

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit the revision of “The association between liberal oxygen therapy and mortality in patients with paraquat poisoning: a multi-center retrospective cohort study” for your consideration for publishing in the PLOS ONE.

Thanks to the reviewers for their careful review. The reviewers’ comments have been carefully read and responded to as following.

We hope the finding and conclusion described in our manuscript may benefit patients who got paraquat intoxication worldwide, and we also hope the precious readers of PLOS ONE will find this study interesting. We are hopeful that this manuscript will meet the standards of your prestigious journal and be favorably reviewed.

We look forward to hearing from you again soon.

Sincerely yours,

Corresponding author:

Dr. Po-Chun Chuang, MD

Department of Emergency Medicine

Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital

No. 123, Dapi Rd., Niaosong Dist. Kaohsiung 833, Taiwan, R.O.C.

E-mail: zhungboqun@gmail.com.

Dear reviewer #1:

1. Abstract – results – can remove the word totally.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The sentence has been rewritten to make it clearer. In order to make the article much smoother, we sent the manuscript to the language editing service.

2. 28 day – not days.

Response: Thank you for your kind reminder. We have corrected this grammatical mistake.

3. Introduction: However, there was no clinical evidence …. – there are many publications, back to the 1970s, outlining oxygen toxicity in paraquat exposure. Many of the early papers are in animals. There are multiple publications in humans. Do the authors mean, no previous RCTs looking at oxygen? I do note prior RCTs on therapies (immunosuppression) in paraquat.

Response: Thank you for recommendation. No previous RCTs looking at liberal and conservative oxygen therapy was founded. Probably because oxygen therapy is considered harmful. Therefore, we try to constructive a retrospective study to analyze the association. The sentence was re-written as below.

“Previous clinical studies have focused on the effects of immunotherapy and hemoperfusion to patients suffering from paraquat poisoning [26, 27]. However, the association between liberal oxygen therapy and prognosis in patients with PQ poisoning is still unclear. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective study to analyze the association between liberal oxygen therapy and the outcomes of PQ poisoning.”

4. Ethics statement - 2. The reason that consent was not obtained (e.g. the data were analyzed anonymously)?

Was a waiver of consent provided due to de-identified data being used?

Response: Thank you for your friendly reminder. Yes, the data were analyzed anonymously. The Chang Gung Research Database (CGRD), the multi‐institutional electronic medical records collection in Taiwan. Because all data converted from the original electronic medical records were anonymized, the study protocol was approved, and informed consents were exempted by the Institutional Review Board of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (IRB No: 201901558B0).

5. Methods: we used the multivariate analysis, Binary Logistic Regression.

- We carried out a multivariate logistic regression.

Variables with a p-value <0.2 between the survival and mortality groups were included in the logistic regression analysis.

- Variables with a p-value <0.2 in the univariate analysis ….

Response: Thank you for your recommendation. The sentence has been rewritten to make it clearer.

6. Covariates that did not seem to have been considered by the authors, are potentially other patient factors that could make the patient more at risk of hypoxia – such as current smoker, or concurrent background lung disease. Do the authors have these variables available and could put them into the model?

Response: Thank you for your kind reminder. Current smoker, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and malignant neoplasms of lung were added as variables and put into the logistic regression model.

7. I am interested in the authors choice to compare the survival and mortality groups. Usually you would compare the exposure variable – ie conservative or liberal oxygen. What does table 2 look like done in this way?

Response: Thank you for your kind reminder. We compared the exposure variable in table 1. We compared the survival and mortality groups in table 2 because we want to see if there are variables that significantly affect mortality rate.

8. Intubation and reduced 3-day mortality – this is probably self fulfilling rather than an actual finding – ie patients sick enough to need intubation, can be maintained early on, but progressive fibrosis gets them later, regardless of intubation. Not sure I would make anything of this result.

Response: Thank you for this recommendation. After adjusting more variables (current smoker, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and malignant neoplasms of lung), intubation is not associated with 3-day mortality.

9. Discussion – DNR orders sentence doesn’t seem to be discussing anything and I would remove.

Again, the DNR part of the result, probably reflects a bias whereby those patients not likely to do well (as expected by clinicians) are asked about treatment goals. Interesting, but I wouldn’t stress these results.

Response: Thank you for your recommendation. The paragraph of DNR in discussion was removed.

10. Due to the retrospective nature of the study, we can’t ignore selection bias at work here. Patients might have looked sicker, and received oxygen “liberal oxygen”, even if their SaO2 was ok. Thus, they end up doing worse.

Response: Thank you for this important and professional recommendation. This point is added in limitation to make the retrospective study clearer.

Below sentences was added in limitation.

“Second, due to the retrospective nature of the study, selection bias cannot be ignored. Patients might have looked much sicker (e.g., shallow breathing or breathing with accessory muscle use), and received “liberal oxygen” even if their oxygen saturation was above 90%. Thus, they ended up having worse conditions.”

11. The intubation effect seen is interesting. You would expect intubated patients to subsequently need more oxygen – as respiratory failure was the reason for intubation. Do the authors have the FiO2 provided to patients who were intubated? It might be interesting to look at the 60 odd intubated patients and divide them into – low and high FiO2 (><40%) and see if any effect difference seen there.

Response: Thanks for this great recommendation. The subgroup analysis for intubated patients was done. Among 65 intubated patients, 55 patients had been recorded FiO2 data and 10 patients had not been recorded FiO2 data due to rapid expired after intubation. The finding was added in result and discussion.

Dear reviewer #2:

ABSTRACT

1. “Paraquat intoxication-related mortality mainly results from lung injury, which may be associated with oxygen therapy.” This statement in Abstract means what authors sought to investigate is already known.

Response: Thanks for recommendation. This sentence is deleted.

2. “This study aimed to identify the risk of using oxygen therapy for paraquat poisoning.” The aim is NOT clear.

Response: Thank you for your kind reminder. Although the pathophysiology of paraquat has been studied, there are only a few studies researching on human being. The aim of our study is to find if the liberal oxygen therapy in patients who were got paraquat intoxication is consistent with the previous animal studies. The sentence has been rewritten as below to make it clearer.

“This study aimed to identify the risk of using liberal oxygen therapy in patients with PQ poisoning.”

3. “Totally, 416 patients were enrolled.” Grammatically wrong.

Response: Thank you for your recommendation. The sentence has been rewritten to make it clearer.

INTRODUCTION

4. “Around 300 000 people die from herbicide or pesticide poisoning each year throughout Asia”. 300,000 should be written well. This statement has no link with previous statement.

Response: Thank you for your kind reminder. The sentence has been rewritten to make it clearer.

5. “The toxicity of paraquat, which induces nonspecific cellular necrosis, results from the generation of reactive oxygen species.” …results from… should be changed to …occurs as a result of…….. The statement should have reference(s).

Response: Thank you for your recommendation. The sentence has been rewritten and reference has also been cited.

6. “Reactive oxygen species are potent cytotoxins………….” Uncertain if ROS can be said to be a cytotoxin.

Response: Thank you for your kind reminder. The sentence has been rewritten as “Reactive oxygen species has the characteristic of cytotoxicity that causes oxidative stress.”.

7. “In previous in vivo studies, supplemental oxygen enhanced the toxicity of the paraquat, which resulted in damage to alveolar cells, particularly the type II pneumocytes.” Reference(s) required.

Response: Thank you for your recommendation. The reference has also been cited.

8. “However, there was no clinical evidence that oxygen therapy would worsen the prognosis in patients with paraquat poisoning.” If this statement can be clarified. Pratt et al (1980), Bateman & Leach (1998), and others, have shown that oxygen therapy enhances the toxic effects of paraquat poisoning.

Response: Thank you for your recommendation. The sentence has been rewritten as below.

“However, the association between liberal oxygen therapy and prognosis in patients with PQ poisoning is still unclear.”

METHODS

9. …………..or exhibited marked hypoxia (SpO2 < 90%) at initial presentation were excluded. Explain this statement; as some patients in the study had SpO2 <90%.

Response: Thank you for your kind reminder.

In our study, we excluded the patients who got the severe hypoxia (SpO2<90%) at “initial presentation” (such as in the triage). In our study, patients with severe hypoxia (SpO2 <90%) during hospitalization were initially saturated with greater than 90%.

10. ……………..were extracted from the CGRD database. I believe D is acronym is database.

Response: Thank you for your friendly reminder. The repeated word “database” has been deleted.

11. Under measurements: last line; ………hemoperfusion, intubation, and signed DNR. Write DNR in full.

Response: Thank you for your kind reminder. The abbreviation has been rewritten as “Do Not Resuscitation”

12. The Student’s t test and Mann-Whitney u test were used to analyze the data. Which data? And what was the use of these inferential statistics?

Response: Thanks for recommendation. To make it clear, the sentences was rewritten as below.

“For continuous variables with normal distribution: age was summarized as mean ± standard deviation. For continuous variables with non-normal distribution: vital signs, paraquat concentrations, and blood creatinine levels were expressed as medians and first quartiles to third quartiles (Q1-Q3). The distributions of categorical data were presented as numbers and percentages. Student’s t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used to analyze continuous variables with normal and non-normal distributions, respectively. The chi-square test was used to analyze categorical data.”

RESULTS

13. Table 1 has a number of issues;

• Title needs to be improved (include sample size)

Response: Thank you for your kind reminder. The sample size is added in title.

• Body temperature needs to be at 1 d.p

Response: Thank you for your kind reminder. The table has been corrected.

• Urine paraquat concentration cannot be 50 + 0.0 for the 2 groups. The p value is erroneous

Response: Thank you for your kind reminder. In Chang Gung Memorial Hospital system, the urine paraquat concentration is semi-quantitative analysis and the upper limit of this analysis is 50(ppm). If the concentration is above 50 ppm, the accurate value cannot be quantified and shown as 50 ppm in result. To make it clear, below sentence will be added in method paragraph.

“The paraquat concentration is semi-quantitatively analyzed and the upper limit of this analysis is 50 ppm in urine and 10 ppm in blood.”

• Table needs to show SpO2 for the two groups

Response: OK thanks for recommendation.

• How can one differentiate between mean (SD) and median (quartile deviation)

Response: Thanks for this important recommendation. The non-normal distribution continuous variables are expressed in median (Q1-Q3) to make it clearer.

14. Table 2 has some few isssues;

• Body temperature needs to be at 1 d.p

Response: Thank you for your kind reminder. The table has been corrected.

• Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS): p < 0.001? How is that possible?

Response: Thank you for your friendly reminder. To make it clear, the non- continuous variables are expressed in median (Q1-Q3). GCS will be expressed as 15 (15-15) in survival group and 15 (10-15) in mortality group. I think it is the reason that the p-value is <0.001. Thanks again for the wonderful recommendation.

15. Why didn’t the adjusted odds ratio include DNR? Indeed; the highest OR was with DNR: could that be determinant for mortality vis-à-vis oxygen therapy?

Response: Thank you for your recommendation.

Thank you for your recommendation. The adjusted odds ratios are included DNR and other variables. Therefore, the table 3 was rewritten.

16. Legend for Figure 1 needs to be improved (more details; retrospective data, period, etc)

Response: Thanks for recommendation. Figure 1 has been improved.

17. Figure 1: Explain in box using SpO2 “conservative oxygen therapy” and “liberal oxygen therapy”

Response: Thanks for recommendation. Figure 1 has been improved.

DISCUSSION

18. “Mortality rates are 87.8% and 73.7% in liberal and conservative oxygen therapy groups, respectively (Table 1).” Mortality rates were……

Response: Thank you for your kind reminder. The sentence has been rewritten.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Muhammad Adrish

25 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-21510R1

Association between liberal oxygen therapy and mortality in patients with paraquat poisoning: a multi-center retrospective cohort study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chuang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please see attached comments by the reviewers. Kindly provide point by point response in your revised manuscript.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by 12-25-2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Muhammad Adrish

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thanks to the authors for their revisions.

I note you still present the fact that no association between liberal oxygen and outcome in paraquat poisoning has been presented before. I do not think this is true and both reviewers provided multiple references to show this.

Line 183 - signing DNR consents, - this should be something like "patients with DNR status"

Suggest changing throughout

Line 228 - pulmonary function (not s) by causing cytotoxic reactions.

Line 231 - Conclusion: Oxygen therapy should be administered with caution and should be reserved for those with hypoxia (SpO2 < 90 %)."

Isn't that what happened???

Oxygen requirement is a signal for poor outcome.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 15;16(1):e0245363. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245363.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


5 Dec 2020

Response to the Editor and the Reviewer

Dear Academic Editor: Muhammad Adrish

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit the revision of “The association between liberal oxygen therapy and mortality in patients with paraquat poisoning: a multi-center retrospective cohort study” for your consideration for publishing in the PLOS ONE.

Thanks to the reviewers for their careful review. The reviewers’ comments have been carefully read and responded as following.

We hope the finding and conclusion described in our manuscript may benefit patients who got paraquat intoxication worldwide, and we also hope the precious readers of PLOS ONE will find this study interesting. We are hopeful that this manuscript will meet the standards of your prestigious journal and be favorably reviewed.

We look forward to hearing from you again soon.

Sincerely yours,

Corresponding author:

Dr. Po-Chun Chuang, MD

Department of Emergency Medicine

Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital

No. 123, Dapi Rd., Niaosong Dist. Kaohsiung 833, Taiwan, R.O.C.

E-mail: zhungboqun@gmail.com.

Dear reviewer #1:

1. I note you still present the fact that no association between liberal oxygen and outcome in paraquat poisoning has been presented before. I do not think this is true and both reviewers provided multiple references to show this.

Response: Thank you for your kind reminder. The sentence has been removed.

2. Line 183 - signing DNR consents, - this should be something like "patients with DNR status" Suggest changing throughout

Response: Thank you for your kind reminder. There are thee “signing DNR consents” in our article and we have changed them to “patients with DNR status”.

3. Line 228 - pulmonary function (not s) by causing cytotoxic reactions.

Response: Thank you for your friendly reminder. The sentence has been rewritten to make it clearer.

4. Line 231 - Conclusion: Oxygen therapy should be administered with caution and should be reserved for those with hypoxia (SpO2 < 90 %)." Isn't that what happened??? Oxygen requirement is a signal for poor outcome.

Response: Thank you for your kind reminder. It is true that oxygen requirement is a signal for poor outcome. In addition, this study revealed the association between the liberal oxygen therapy and mortality in patients with paraquat poisoning. However, this study could only reveal the correlation, not causation. The causation between liberal oxygen therapy and mortality need to be proved by further prospective studies and randomized control trials. However, the ethical and legal issues restrict the conduction of prospective studies since oxygen therapy are harmful for paraquat poisoning patients. To make it clear, the conclusion was rewritten as “Unless the evidence of hypoxia (SpO2 < 90%) is clear, oxygen therapy should be avoided because it is associated with increased mortality.”

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Muhammad Adrish

29 Dec 2020

Association between liberal oxygen therapy and mortality in patients with paraquat poisoning: a multi-center retrospective cohort study

PONE-D-20-21510R2

Dear Dr. Chuang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Muhammad Adrish

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

You have addressed all the queries raised by the reviewers.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Acceptance letter

Muhammad Adrish

7 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-21510R2

Association between liberal oxygen therapy and mortality in patients with paraquat poisoning: a multi-center retrospective cohort study

Dear Dr. Chuang:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Muhammad Adrish

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES