Treatment after Accidental Injection with Epinephrine Autoinjector: A Systematic Review

Michael Wright

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-6121.1000175

2014-01-01

Abstract:Epinephrine (adrenaline) autoinjectors are increasingly prescribed for the emergency management

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Epinephrine autoinjectors for individuals with food allergy: Who, how many, and when to use

Julie Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2500/jfa.2024.6.240004

2024-07-01

Abstract:Background: Anaphylaxis is a serious allergic reaction that is effectively treated with epinephrine. Epinephrine autoinjectors are devices that contain fixed doses of medication that can be carried by patients at risk for anaphylaxis so that ready access to first line medication is available outside the medical setting. Methods: This review will discuss recent studies evaluating patient characteristics to consider when prescribing epinephrine autoinjectors. Results: Decisions regarding who should be prescribed epinephrine autoinjectors will depend on the type of allergy, as well as co-morbidities and other risk factors that can increase a patient's risk for poor outcomes. Conclusion: Shared decision-making is essential when developing guidance regarding post-epinephrine management. Regular education during routine follow-up visits can reinforce knowledge and skills for managing food allergy reactions.
Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evidence of adrenaline administered via auto-injector for anaphylactic reactions: A review of literature

James Moss,Yogini Jani,Brian Edwards,Stephen Tomlin,Asia N Rashed

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.14438

Abstract:Anaphylaxis is a severe allergic reaction that can lead to death if not treated quickly. Adrenaline (epinephrine) is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis and its prompt administration is vital to reduce mortality. Following a number of high-profile cases, serious concerns have been raised, both about the optimal dose of intramuscular adrenaline via an auto-injector and the correct needle length to ensure maximal penetration every time. To date, the public data are sparse on the pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of adrenaline administered via an auto-injector. The limited available literature showed a huge variation in the plasma concentrations of adrenaline administered through an auto-injector, as well as variations in the auto-injector needle length. Hence, delivering an effective dose during an anaphylaxis remains a challenge for both patients and healthcare professionals. Collaborative work between pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics experts, clinical triallists and licence holders is imperative to address this gap in evidence so that we can improve outcomes of anaphylaxis. In addition, we advise inclusion of expertise of human factors in usability studies given the necessity of carer or self-administration in the uniquely stressful nature of anaphylaxis.
Evidence-based use of epinephrine in anaphylaxis

Catherine Hammond,Jay Adam Lieberman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACI.0000000000001009

2024-10-01

Abstract:Purpose of review: Epinephrine is the first line treatment for anaphylaxis, however, there are limited data to support this. This review examines data surrounding evidence for the use of epinephrine in anaphylaxis, data on prescription for and use of epinephrine autoinjectors, and data examining newer routes of delivery of epinephrine; with a focus on recent publications over the past few years. Recent findings: With recent epidemiologic studies of anaphylaxis and new forms of epinephrine being studied, new data on the effects of epinephrine are aiding in the understanding of epinephrine's effects and the shortcomings of epinephrine both in its effect and utility in the real world. Summary: Epinephrine is still considered the first line therapy for anaphylaxis, and we are starting to have a better understanding of its effects in both healthy patients and those with anaphylaxis.
To the ER? Can Patients Treat Their Anaphylaxis at Home?

Marcus S. Shaker,Aikaterini Anagnostou,Matthew Greenhawt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11882-024-01174-6

2024-09-03

Current Allergy and Asthma Reports

Abstract:To discuss if all patients who use self-injectable epinephrine outside the hospital setting require immediate emergency care.

immunology,allergy
Adrenaline Auto‐Injectors for Preventing Fatal Anaphylaxis

Marcus Sim,Vibha Sharma,Karen Li,Mary H. Gowland,Tomaz Garcez,Cassandra Shilladay,Richard Pumphrey,Nandinee Patel,Paul J. Turner,Robert J. Boyle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cea.14565

2024-10-11

Clinical & Experimental Allergy

Abstract:During 35 years of increasing Adrenaline Autoinjector prescribing, there has been no obvious reduction in numbers of fatal anaphylaxis cases. Animal and human studies suggest intravenous adrenaline infusion, with appropriate fluid resuscitation, prevents fatal anaphylaxis. Current Adrenaline Autoinjectors may have little impact on rates of fatal anaphylaxis due to a lack of sustained and sufficient plasma adrenaline concentration. Anaphylaxis affects up to 5% of people during their lifetime. Although anaphylaxis usually resolves without long‐term physical consequences, it can result in anxiety and quality of life impairment. Rarely and unpredictably, community anaphylaxis can cause rapid physiological decompensation and death. Adrenaline (epinephrine) is the cornerstone of anaphylaxis treatment, and provision of adrenaline autoinjectors (AAI) has become a standard of care for people at risk of anaphylaxis in the community. In this article, we explore the effectiveness of AAIs for preventing fatal outcomes in anaphylaxis, using information drawn from animal and human in vivo studies and epidemiology. We find that data support the effectiveness of intravenous adrenaline infusions for reversing physiological features of anaphylaxis, typically at doses from 0.05 to 0.5 μg/kg/min for 1–2 h, or ~ 10 μg/kg total dose. Intramuscular injection of doses approximating 10 μg/kg in humans can result in similar peak plasma adrenaline levels to intravenous infusions, at 100–500 pg/mL. However, these levels are typically short‐lived following intramuscular adrenaline, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic outcomes can be unpredictable. Epidemiological data do not support an association between increasing AAI prescriptions and reduced fatal anaphylaxis, although carriage and activation rates remain low. Taken together, these data suggest that current AAIs have little impact on rates of fatal anaphylaxis, perhaps due to a lack of sustained and sufficient plasma adrenaline concentration. Effects of AAI prescription on quality of life may be variable. There is a need to consider alternatives, which can safely deliver a sustained adrenaline infusion via an appropriate route.

immunology,allergy
Investigation of the underuse of adrenaline (epinephrine) and prognosis among patients with anaphylaxis at emergency department admission

Yen-Yue Lin,Hsin-An Chang,Yung-Hsi Kao,Chih-Pin Chuu,Wen-Fang Chiang,Ya-Chieh Chang,Yuan-Kuei Li,Chi-Ming Chu,Jenq-Shyong Chan,Po-Jen Hsiao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1163817

IF: 3.9

2023-07-07

Frontiers in Medicine

Abstract:Background Anaphylaxis is a potentially fatal condition; in severe cases of anaphylaxis, the cardiovascular system is often heavily involved. Adrenaline (epinephrine) is a cornerstone of the initial treatment of anaphylaxis. The use of epinephrine remains below expectations in clinical practice. Whether the underuse of epinephrine affects the prognosis of patients with anaphylaxis is still unclear. Materials and methods This retrospective study included patients with anaphylaxis between 2011 and 2020 who were admitted to an emergency department (ED) in Taiwan. All patients were divided into two groups based on the use of epinephrine (or not), and we compared the demographic characteristics, allergens, clinical manifestations, management, and patient outcomes. Results We reviewed the records of 314 subjects (216 males, 98 females; mean age: 52.78 ± 16.02 years) who visited our ED due to anaphylaxis; 107 (34.1%) and 207 (65.9%) patients were categorized into the epinephrine use group and the non-epinephrine use group, respectively. Arrival via ambulance ( p = 0.019), hypotension ( p = 0.002), airway compromise ( p < 0.001) and altered consciousness ( p < 0.001) were the deciding factors for epinephrine use among anaphylactic patients in the ED. The epinephrine use group had higher rates of other inotropic agent usage and fluid challenge. More than 90% of patients received bed rest, steroids, antihistamines, and monitoring. The epinephrine use group had a longer ED length of stay (387.64 ± 374.71 vs. 313.06 ± 238.99 min, p = 0.03) and a greater need of hospitalization. Among all severe symptoms, hypotension was the most tolerated decision factor for not using epinephrine. In this retrospective analysis, some patients with serious anaphylaxis did not experience adverse outcomes or death even without the use of epinephrine at ED admission. Emergent care focuses first on the airway, breathing, and circulation (ABC) and may compensate for the underusage of epinephrine. This could be the reason why epinephrine was underused among patients with anaphylaxis in the ED. Conclusion In summary, early ABC management continues to play an important role in treating patients with severe anaphylaxis, even when epinephrine is not immediately available in clinical scenarios.

medicine, general & internal
Adrenaline (epinephrine) microcrystal sublingual tablet formulation: enhanced absorption in a preclinical model

Mutasem Rawas-Qalaji,Ousama Rachid,Belacryst A Mendez,Annette Losada,F Estelle R Simons,Keith J Simons

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jphp.12312

Abstract:Objectives: For anaphylaxis treatment in community settings, adrenaline (epinephrine) administration using an auto-injector in the thigh is universally recommended. Despite this, many people at risk of anaphylaxis in community settings do not carry their prescribed auto-injectors consistently and hesitate to use them when anaphylaxis occurs.The objective of this research was to study the effect of a substantial reduction in adrenaline (Epi) particle size to a few micrometres (Epi microcrystals (Epi-MC)) on enhancing adrenaline dissolution and increasing the rate and extent of sublingual absorption from a previously developed rapidly disintegrating sublingual tablet (RDST) formulation in a validated preclinical model. Methods: The in-vivo absorption of Epi-MC 20 mg RDSTs and Epi 40 mg RDSTs was evaluated in rabbits. Epi 0.3 mg intramuscular (IM) injection in the thigh and placebo RDSTs were used as positive and negative controls, respectively. Key findings: Epimean (standard deviation) area under the plasma concentration vs time curves up to 60 min and Cmax from Epi-MC 20 mg and Epi 40 mg RDSTs did not differ significantly (P > 0.05) from Epi 0.3 mg IM injection. After adrenaline, regardless of route of administration, pharmacokinetic parameters were significantly higher (P < 0.05) than after placebo RDSTs administration (reflecting endogenous adrenaline levels). Conclusion: Epi-MC RDSTs facilitated a twofold increase in Epi absorption and a 50% reduction in the sublingual dose. This novel sublingual tablet formulation is potentially useful for the first-aid treatment of anaphylaxis in community settings.
Most People Use Adrenaline Autoinjectors and Asthma Inhalers Incorrectly, Study Warns.

Susan Mayor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7738

2014-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:Most people who are prescribed adrenaline (epinephrine) for severe allergic reactions use their autoinjectors incorrectly, says a US study that found similar levels of incorrect use of metered dose inhalers by people with asthma. Researchers asked 102 adults prescribed autoinjectable adrenaline to treat anaphylaxis caused by allergy either in themselves or in their children to demonstrate how they used the device, and then evaluated their technique against established standards.1 All participants were enrolled from …
Management of anaphylaxis after pre-hospital epinephrine use in children with food-induced anaphylaxis

Lauren Perlman,Sofianne Gabrielli,Ann E. Clarke,Luca Delli Colli,Marina Delli Colli,Judy Morris,Jocelyn Gravel,Rodrick Lim,Edmond S. Chan,Ran D. Goldman,Andrew O'Keefe,Jennifer Gerdts,Derek K. Chu,Julia Upton,Elana Hochstadter,Jocelyn Moisan,Adam Bretholz,Christine McCusker,Xun Zhang,Jennifer L.P. Protudjer,Elissa M. Abrams,Elinor Simons,Moshe Ben-Shoshan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2024.09.010

2024-10-05

Abstract:Background Previous guidelines recommend prompt epinephrine administration, followed by observation in the emergency department (ED). The need for transfer in all cases of anaphylaxis has recently been challenged. Objective To evaluate the need for additional ED treatment among children with anaphylaxis who received prehospital epinephrine. Methods Between 2011 and 2023, data were collected on symptoms, triggers, comorbidities, and prehospital and in-hospital management from children (<18 years) with food-induced anaphylaxis who received at least 1 dose of prehospital epinephrine presenting at 7 pediatric EDs. Multivariable logistic regression assessed factors associated with the use of 2 or more prehospital epinephrine autoinjectors (EAIs), epinephrine use in the ED, and hospital admission. Results Of the 1127 children (mean 8.1 ± 5.3 years; 60.6% male sex) with food-induced anaphylaxis who used at least 1 EAI prehospital, the most common trigger was peanuts (25.3%). There were 209 (18.5%) children who received additional epinephrine in the ED, most of whom (88.0%) received 1 dose. A total of 30 (2.7%) patients were admitted to hospital. Among all patients, severe reactions (cardiovascular instability/cyanosis/loss of consciousness) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.22; 95% CI 1.12-1.33) and reactions to tree nuts (aOR 1.09; 95% CI 1.03-1.16) were associated with increased odds of in-hospital epinephrine use. Prehospital inhaled β-agonists (aOR 1.08; 95% CI 1.01-1.16) use and severe reactions (aOR 1.13; 95% CI 1.05-1.22) were associated with the use of 2 or more EAI prehospital. Conclusion A minority of anaphylaxis cases that used prehospital EAIs required additional treatment, supporting that shared decision making about transfer to ED works for most patients.

immunology,allergy
A potentially lifesaving error: unintentional high-dose adrenaline administration in anaphylaxis-induced cardiac arrest; a case report

Felix Patricius Hans,Leo Benning,Jan-Steffen Pooth,Hans-Jörg Busch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12245-024-00663-9

2024-06-28

Abstract:Background: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is a crucial skill for emergency medical services. As high-risk-low-frequency events pose an immense mental load to providers, concepts of crew resource management, non-technical skills and the science of human errors are intended to prepare healthcare providers for high-pressure situations. However, medical errors occur, and organizations and institutions face the challenge of providing a blame-free error culture to achieve continuous improvement by avoiding similar errors in the future. In this case, we report a critical medical error during an anaphylaxis-associated cardiac arrest, its handling and the unexpected yet favourable outcome for the patient. Case presentation: During an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to chemotherapy-induced anaphylaxis, a patient received a 10-fold dose of epinephrine due to shortcomings in communication and standardization via a central venous port catheter. The patient converted from a non-shockable rhythm into a pulseless ventricular tachycardia and subsequently into ventricular fibrillation. The patient was cardioverted and defibrillated and had a return of spontaneous circulation with profound hypotension only 6 min after the administration of 10 mg epinephrine. The patient survived without any residues or neurological impairment. Conclusions: This case demonstrates the potential deleterious effects of shortcomings in communication and deviation from standard protocols, especially in emergencies. Here, precise instructions, closed-loop communication and unambiguous labelling of syringes would probably have avoided the epinephrine overdose central to this case. Interestingly, this serious error may have saved the patient's life, as it led to the development of a shockable rhythm. Furthermore, as the patient was still in profound hypotension after administering 10 mg of epinephrine, this high dose might have counteracted the severe vasoplegic state in anaphylaxis-associated cardiac arrest. Lastly, as the patient was receiving care for advanced malignancy, the likelihood of termination of resuscitation in the initial non-shockable cardiac arrest was significant and possibly averted by the medication error.
Use of Epinephrine in Patients with Drug-Induced Anaphylaxis: an Analysis of the Beijing Pharmacovigilance Database

Tiansheng Wang,Xiang Ma,Yan Xing,Shusen Sun,Hua Zhang,Til Strumer,Bin Wang,Xiaotong Li,Huilin Tang,Ligong Jiao,Suodi Zhai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000475498

2017-01-01

International Archives of Allergy and Immunology

Abstract:Background: Few studies assessing the use of epinephrine in drug-induced anaphylaxis (DIA) in the hospital setting are available. We utilized the Beijing Pharmacovigilance Database (BPD) to evaluate the appropriateness of epinephrine for DIA management. Methods: DIA cases collected in the BPD from January 2004 to December 2014 were adjudicated and analyzed for demographics, causative drugs, clinical signs, outcomes, initial treatment, route, dosing, and cardiovascular adverse events (CAE) of epinephrine. Results: DIA was primarily caused by antibiotics (38.4%), radiocontrast agents (11.9%), traditional Chinese medicine injections (10.9%), and chemotherapeutic drugs (10.3%). Only 708 (59.5%) patients received epinephrine treatment. Patients who received epinephrine were more likely to experience wheezing (p < 0.001) and respiratory arrest (p < 0.001). Among 518 patients with a complete record of the epinephrine administration route, the percentage of patients receiving it by intramuscular (IM) injection, subcutaneous (SC) injection, intravenous (IV) bolus injection, or IV continuous infusion was 16.9, 31.5, 43.5, and 8.1%, respectively. Among the 427 patients with a record of both the administration route and the dosing, an overdose was more likely with IV bolus (94.1%) in contrast to IM injection (56.6%; p < 0.001) or SC injection (43.7%; p < 0.001). Among the patients analyzed for CAE (n = 349), 17 patients accounted for 19 CAE, and 13 (76.5%) of these patients were overdosed with epinephrine. Conclusion: Underuse, inappropriate IV bolus use, and overdosing were the 3 major problems with epinephrine use in DIA in China. Educational training for health care professionals on the appropriate use of epinephrine in managing anaphylactic reactions is suggested.
Temporal Changes in Epinephrine Dosing in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Review of EMS Protocols across the United States

Eric Garfinkel,Katelyn Michelsen,Benjamin Johnson,Asa Margolis,Matthew Levy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X22001418

Abstract:Background: Administration of epinephrine has been associated with worse neurological outcomes for survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The publication of the 2018 PARAMEDIC-2 trial, a randomized and double-blind study of epinephrine in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, provides the strongest evidence to date that epinephrine increases return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) but not neurologically intact survival. This study aims to determine if Emergency Medical Services (EMS) cardiac arrest protocols have changed since the publication of PARAMEDIC-2. Methods: States in the US utilizing mandatory or model state-wide EMS protocols, including Washington DC, were included in this study. The nontraumatic cardiac arrest protocol as of January 1, 2018 was compared to the protocol in effect on January 1, 2021 to determine if there was a change in the administration of epinephrine. Protocols were downloaded from the relevant state EMS website. If a protocol could not be obtained, the state medical director was contacted. Results: A 2021 state-wide protocol was found for 32/51 (62.7%) states. Data from 2018 were available for 21/51 (41.2%) states. Of the 11 states without data from 2018, all follow Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) guidelines in the 2021 protocol. Five (15.6%) of the states with a state-wide protocol made a change in the cardiac arrest protocols. Maximum cumulative epinephrine dose was limited to 4mg in Maryland and 3mg in Vermont. Rhode Island changed epinephrine in shockable rhythms to be administered after three cycles of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and an anti-arrhythmic. Rhode Island also added an epinephrine infusion as an option. No states removed epinephrine administration from their cardiac arrest protocol. Simple statistical analysis was performed with Microsoft Excel. Conclusion: Several states have adjusted cardiac arrest protocols since 2018. The most frequent change was limiting the maximum cumulative dosage of epinephrine. One state changed timing of epinephrine dosing depending on the rhythm and also provided an option of an epinephrine infusion in place of bolus dosing. While the sample size is small, these changes may reflect the future direction of prehospital cardiac arrest protocols. Significant limitations apply, including the exclusion of local and regional protocols which are more capable of quickly adjusting to new research. Additionally, this study is only focused on EMS in the United States.
Bioavailability and Stability of an Epinephrine Nasal Powder Formulation for Treatment of Anaphylaxis

Martin Jönsson,Jonas Sävmarker,Robert Coburn,Jonas Rudén,David Öhlund,Robert Rönn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2023.11.877

IF: 14.29

2024-02-07

Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Abstract:Treatment options for anaphylaxis are currently limited to parenteral autoinjectors, with limitations including: a) intimidating needle based administration that may deter timely use; b) poor stability requiring storage conditions incompatible with many activities. To address shortcomings of current autoinjectors, nasal powder formulations of epinephrine were developed, and bioavailability was evaluated in healthy volunteers.

immunology,allergy
Global disparities in availability of epinephrine auto-injectors

Luciana Kase Tanno,Margitta Worm,Motohiro Ebisawa,Ignacio J Ansotegui,Gianenrico Senna,Stanley Fineman,Mario Geller,Alexei Gonzalez-Estrada,Dianne E Campbell,Agnes Leung,Antonella Muraro,Michael Levin,Jose Antonio Ortega Martell,Marco Caminati,Pavel Kolkhir,Duy Le Pham,Razvigor Darlenski,Ignacio Esteban-Gorgojo,Manuel Rial,Ivana Filipovic,Sergio E Chiarella,Lyda Cuervo-Pardo,Christina Kwong,Cezar Fireth Pozo-Beltran,Tu Hk Trinh,Paul A Greenberger,Paul J Turner,Bernard Yu-Hor Thong,Bryan Martin,Victoria Cardona,WAO Anaphylaxis Committee and the WAO Junior Members Steering Group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.waojou.2023.100821

2023-10-20

Abstract:Background: Anaphylaxis is the most severe clinical presentation of acute systemic allergic reactions and can cause death. Given the prevalence of anaphylaxis within healthcare systems, it is a high priority public health issue. However, management of anaphylaxis - both acute and preventative - varies by region. Methods: The World Allergy Organization (WAO) Anaphylaxis Committee and the WAO Junior Members Steering Group undertook a global online survey to evaluate local practice in the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis across regions. Results: Responses were received from WAO members in 66 countries. While intramuscular epinephrine (adrenaline) is first-line treatment for anaphylaxis, some countries continue to recommend alternative routes in contrast to guidelines. Epinephrine auto-injector (EAI) devices, prescribed to individuals at ongoing risk of anaphylaxis in the community setting, are only available in 60% of countries surveyed, mainly in high-income countries. Many countries in South America, Africa/Middle-East and Asian-Pacific regions do not have EAI available, or depend on individual importation. In countries where EAIs are commercially available, national policies regarding the availability of EAIs in public settings are limited to few countries (16%). There is no consensus regarding the time patients should be observed following emergency treatment of anaphylaxis. Conclusion: This survey provides a global snapshot view of the current management of anaphylaxis, and highlights key unmet needs including the global availability of epinephrine for self-injection as a key component of anaphylaxis management.
A Health Economic Analysis of Non-injectable Epinephrine Compared with Intramuscular Epinephrine

Marcus S Shaker,John Oppenheimer,Nicholas L. Rider,David BK Golden,Aikaterini Anagnostou,Matthew Greenhawt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2024.11.025

2024-12-05

Abstract:Background Non-injectable epinephrine to treat allergic reactions addresses an unmet need. Intranasal epinephrine is approved and a sublingual form is under development. Inhaled epinephrine is poorly studied for anaphylaxis. These forms have unknown cost-effectiveness. Objective The aim of this research was to evaluate cost-effectiveness of commercially available non-injectable epinephrine compared with intramuscular epinephrine for treatment of anaphylaxis. Methods Markov cohort analyses evaluated the cost-effectiveness of non-injectable epinephrine forms. The base-case assumed exaggerated anaphylaxis fatality rates (50-fold increase) for using inhaled epinephrine given low certainty evidence in anaphylaxis, and deliberately reduced fatality risk for nasal or sublingual forms (10-fold reduction) theorizing higher adherence and early use during an allergic reaction. Results In the base-case scenario, assuming a 10-fold decreased risk in peanut allergy fatality associated with intranasal or sublingual epinephrine treatment for a severe allergic reaction (net monetary benefit [NMB] 83,748/QALY), but only at a marginal annual cost of 17,900/QALY) vs. inhaled epinephrine (NMB, 100,000/QALY]) if associated fatality risk fell below 2.5-fold. Substituting a single non-injectable form of epinephrine for a second injectable device (in patients prescribed two autoinjectors already) would be cost-effective; however, adding a supplemental non-injectable device was not cost-effective, even assuming a 10-fold risk reduction with multiple device carriage (ICER $858,462). Conclusion Non-injectable routes of epinephrine can be cost-effective options provided fatality risk is not significantly elevated. Carriage of redundant epinephrine autoinjectors with non-injectable forms is not cost-effective if associated with excess cost of redundant device packs.

immunology,allergy
The Need for Required Stock Epinephrine in All Schools: A Work Group Report of the AAAAI Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee

Anne F Russell,Theresa A Bingemann,Abigail Tarr Cooke,Punita Ponda,Michael Pistiner,Tiffany Jean,Anil Nanda,Jennifer Jobrack,Alice E W Hoyt,Michael C Young

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2022.12.047

Abstract:Epinephrine is the first line of treatment for anaphylaxis that can occur outside a medical setting in community environments such as schools. Patients with diagnosed IgE-mediated food allergy at risk of anaphylaxis are prescribed self-injectable epinephrine and given an individualized anaphylaxis action plan. As students, such patients/families provide their school with completed medication forms, a copy of their anaphylaxis plan, and additional student-specific epinephrine. However, students approved to self-carry prescribed self-injectable epinephrine may forget to do so or have other reasons for lacking prescribed epinephrine such as familial inability to fill the prescription due to cost or other access barriers. Undiagnosed students lacking prescribed epinephrine may also experience anaphylaxis at school. The presence of non-student-specific school stock epinephrine allows school nurses and other staff the ability to treat anaphylaxis onsite while awaiting Emergency Medical Services. Notably, not all states legally mandate K-12 schools to stock epinephrine. In states with laws only voluntarily allowing schools to stock epinephrine, it provides the ability to opt-out. Herein, we present a comprehensive review of barriers to school stock epinephrine, related improvement strategies, and workgroup recommendations supporting the need for mandated stock epinephrine in all schools in every state. Proposed solutions include ensuring legal immunity from liability for prescribers; advocacy for legislation to stabilize cost of self-injectable epinephrine; educational initiatives to schools promoting merits and safety of epinephrine and related anaphylaxis training; and partnerships between patient advocacy groups, medical and nursing organizations, public health departments and other health professionals to promote laws and district policies addressing need for stock epinephrine and school nurses to train and supervise school staff.
Development of neffy, an Epinephrine Nasal Spray, for Severe Allergic Reactions

Anne K. Ellis,Thomas B. Casale,Michael Kaliner,John Oppenheimer,Jonathan M. Spergel,David M. Fleischer,David Bernstein,Carlos A. Camargo, Jr.,Richard Lowenthal,Sarina Tanimoto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics16060811

IF: 6.525

2024-06-15

Pharmaceutics

Abstract:Epinephrine autoinjectors (EAIs) are used for the treatment of severe allergic reactions in a community setting; however, their utility is limited by low prescription fulfillment rates, failure to carry, and failure to use due to fear of needles. Given that delayed administration of epinephrine is associated with increased morbidity/mortality, there has been a growing interest in developing needle-free, easy-to-use delivery devices. neffy (epinephrine nasal spray) consists of three Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved components: epinephrine, Intravail A3 (absorption enhancer), and a Unit Dose Spray (UDS). neffy's development pathway was established in conjunction with the FDA and the European Medicines Agency and included multiple clinical trials to evaluate pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic responses under a variety of conditions, such as self-administration and allergic and infectious rhinitis, as well as an animal anaphylaxis model of severe hypotension, where neffy demonstrated a pharmacokinetic profile that is within the range of approved injection products and a pharmacodynamic response that is as good or better than injections. The increased pulse rate (PR) and blood pressure (BP) observed even one minute following the administration of neffyconfirm the activation of α and β adrenergic receptors, which are the key components of epinephrine's mechanism of action. The results suggest that neffy will provide a safe and effective needle-free option for the treatment of severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Adrenaline intravenous therapy persistence grade I severe allergic reaction: A case report and literature review

Wei Wang,Ying Zhang,Li Tao,Tong-Xue Jiang,Ning Wang,Wen-Hui Zhai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000039193

2024-08-02

Abstract:Rationale: At present, there is still insufficient understanding of the progression from persistent allergic reactions to severe reactions. Adrenaline remains the preferred medication for severe allergic reactions, and intramuscular injection of adrenaline can also be considered for patients with grade I reactions that are difficult to alleviate gastrointestinal symptoms. It is worth further discussing whether it is possible to break the conventional intramuscular injection recommended by the guidelines when the effect of intramuscular injection is not ideal for persistent grade I severe allergic reactions. Patient concerns: A young male, 20 years of age, was admitted to emergency department because of repeated rash for 3 days and abdominal pain for 6 hours after taking traditional Chinese medicine. After hormone therapy, the rash continued to recur and secondary gastrointestinal symptoms occurred on the 3th day. Adrenaline intramuscular injection was given to temporarily relieve the rash and abdominal pain, but symptoms still persisted. Diagnosis: The patient was diagnosed with persistent severe allergic reaction (grade I). Interventions: Continuous intravenous infusion of low-dose adrenaline under electrocardiographic monitoring, real-time monitoring of heart rate and blood pressure, and routine treatment with methylprednisolone, diphenhydramine, calcium gluconate, and cetirizine. During this period, adrenaline intramuscular injection is temporarily added when abdominal pain symptoms are obvious. The entire treatment process used a total of 6.8 mg of adrenaline. Outcomes: During the entire period of adrenaline intervention, the patient did not experience any new discomfort, and there were no abnormal fluctuations in heart rate, rhythm, or blood pressure. The symptoms of rash and abdominal pain gradually improved. Lessons: For patients with persistent grade I severe allergic reactions, intravenous administration of low-dose adrenaline under close vital sign monitoring is safe, feasible, and highly effective in preventing biphasic, persistent, or worsening allergic reactions.
Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling of epinephrine administered using a mobile inhaler

Sebastian Frechen,Ahmed Abbas Suleiman,Ali Mohammad Nejad Sigaroudi,Bertil Wachall,Uwe Fuhr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dmpk.2015.08.002

Abstract:Inhaled epinephrine is a potential alternative to self-administered intramuscular epinephrine in imminent anaphylactic reactions. The objective was to develop a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model describing exposure and effects on heart rate of inhaled epinephrine. Data from a 4-phase cross-over clinical trial in 9 healthy volunteers including 0.3 mg intramuscular epinephrine, two doses of inhaled epinephrine (4 mg/mL solution administered during [mean] 18 and 25 min, respectively) using a mobile pocket inhaler, and an inhaled placebo were analyzed using mixed-effects modeling. Inhaled epinephrine was available almost immediately and more rapidly than via the intramuscular route (absorption half-live 29 min). Epinephrine plasma concentrations declined rapidly after terminating inhalation (elimination half-life 4.1 min) offering the option to stop exposure in case of adverse events. While the expected maximum concentration was higher for inhaled epinephrine, this was not associated with safety concerns due to only moderate additional hemodynamic effects compared to intramuscular administration. Bioavailability after inhalation (4.7%) was subject to high interindividual and interoccasional variability highlighting that training of inhalation would be essential for patients. The proposed model suggests that the use of a highly concentrated epinephrine solution via inhalation may offer an effective treatment option in anaphylaxis, while efficacy in patients remains to be shown.
Impact of Treatment on Rate of Biphasic Reaction in Children with Anaphylaxis

William Bonadio,Connor Welsh,Brad Pradarelli,Yunfai Ng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.18555

2024-10-31

Western Journal of Emergency Medicine

Abstract:Objective: Our goal was to characterize a large group of children presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute anaphylaxis, treated with intramuscular epinephrine (IM EPI) and a corticosteroid (CS), and to determine the impact of pharmacologic intervention on the rate and timing of biphasic reactions (BPR). Methods: We reviewed consecutive children diagnosed with acute anaphylaxis managed in three EDs during a six-year period. All received IM EPI and CS, followed by monitoring for 4–6 hours post-treatment. We analyzed the rate and timing of BPR, comparing the intervals of 0–4vs4–48 hours after initiating therapy. Results: During the study period, there were 371 cases of anaphylaxis, of which 357 (94%) received both IM EPI and CS. Of these, 49 (14%) manifested BPR [84% had received prehospital IM EPI] requiring at least one additional dose of IM EPI [14% required ≥2 additional doses]. All BPR episodes occurred within the 0–4 hour interval after initiating therapy, whereas no patient manifested a BPR requiring an additional dose of IM EPI during the 4–48 hours after initiating therapy (P = 4 hours vs <4 hours after initiating therapy.

emergency medicine

Treatment after Accidental Injection with Epinephrine Autoinjector: A Systematic Review

Epinephrine autoinjectors for individuals with food allergy: Who, how many, and when to use

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evidence of adrenaline administered via auto-injector for anaphylactic reactions: A review of literature

Evidence-based use of epinephrine in anaphylaxis

To the ER? Can Patients Treat Their Anaphylaxis at Home?

Adrenaline Auto‐Injectors for Preventing Fatal Anaphylaxis

Investigation of the underuse of adrenaline (epinephrine) and prognosis among patients with anaphylaxis at emergency department admission

Adrenaline (epinephrine) microcrystal sublingual tablet formulation: enhanced absorption in a preclinical model

Most People Use Adrenaline Autoinjectors and Asthma Inhalers Incorrectly, Study Warns.

Management of anaphylaxis after pre-hospital epinephrine use in children with food-induced anaphylaxis

A potentially lifesaving error: unintentional high-dose adrenaline administration in anaphylaxis-induced cardiac arrest; a case report

Use of Epinephrine in Patients with Drug-Induced Anaphylaxis: an Analysis of the Beijing Pharmacovigilance Database

Temporal Changes in Epinephrine Dosing in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Review of EMS Protocols across the United States

Bioavailability and Stability of an Epinephrine Nasal Powder Formulation for Treatment of Anaphylaxis

Global disparities in availability of epinephrine auto-injectors

A Health Economic Analysis of Non-injectable Epinephrine Compared with Intramuscular Epinephrine

The Need for Required Stock Epinephrine in All Schools: A Work Group Report of the AAAAI Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee

Development of neffy, an Epinephrine Nasal Spray, for Severe Allergic Reactions

Adrenaline intravenous therapy persistence grade I severe allergic reaction: A case report and literature review

Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling of epinephrine administered using a mobile inhaler

Impact of Treatment on Rate of Biphasic Reaction in Children with Anaphylaxis