Voluntarily reported unintentional injections from adrenaline auto-injectors

Department of Pediatrics and Child Health, Department of Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology (Impact Factor: 11.25). 02/2010; 125(2):419-423.e4. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2009.10.056
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Epinephrine auto-injectors provide life-saving prehospital treatment for individuals experiencing anaphylaxis in community settings.
To determine the number, demographics, and associated circumstances and outcomes of unintentional injections from epinephrine auto-injectors.
We searched the databases of the American Association of Poison Control Centers and the Food and Drug Administration's Safety Information and Adverse Event Report System for these incidents as reported by members of the public and by health care professionals.
From 1994 to 2007, a total of 15,190 unintentional injections from epinephrine auto-injectors were reported to US Poison Control Centers, 60% of them from 2003 to 2007. Those unintentionally injected had a median age of 14 years (interquartile range, 8-35), 55% were female, and 85% were injected in a home or other residence. Management was documented in only 4101 cases (27%), of whom 53% were observed without intervention, 29% were treated, 13% were neither held for observation nor treated, and 4% refused treatment. In contrast, from 1969 to 2007, only 105 unintentional injections from epinephrine auto-injectors were reported to MedWatch. Forty percent of these occurred during attempts to treat allergic reactions. Injuries resulting in permanent sequelae were rarely reported to either US Poison Control Centers or to MedWatch.
The number of reported unintentional injections from epinephrine auto-injectors increased annually from 1994 to 2007. To prevent these unintentional injections, improved epinephrine auto-injector design is needed, along with increased vigilance in training the trainers and in training and coaching the users, as well as efforts to increase public awareness of the role of epinephrine auto-injectors in the first-aid treatment of anaphylaxis in the community.

  • L Enc├ęphale 06/2006; 32(3):38-40. DOI:10.1016/S0013-7006(06)76177-2 · 0.60 Impact Factor
  • Article: Anaphylaxis
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Anaphylaxis occurs commonly in community settings. The rate of occurrence is increasing, especially in young people. Understanding potential triggers, mechanisms, and patient-specific risk factors for severity and fatality is the key to performing appropriate risk assessment in those who have previously experienced an acute anaphylactic episode. The diagnosis of anaphylaxis is based primarily on clinical criteria and is valid even if the results of laboratory tests, such as serum total tryptase levels, are within normal limits. Positive skin test results or increased serum specific IgE levels to potential triggering allergens confirm sensitization but do not confirm the diagnosis of anaphylaxis because asymptomatic sensitization is common in the general population. Important patient-related risk factors for severity and fatality include age, concomitant diseases, and concurrent medications, as well as other less well-defined factors, such as defects in mediator degradation pathways, fever, acute infection, menses, emotional stress, and disruption of routine. Prevention of anaphylaxis depends primarily on optimal management of patient-related risk factors, strict avoidance of confirmed relevant allergen or other triggers, and, where indicated, immunomodulation (eg, subcutaneous venom immunotherapy to prevent Hymenoptera sting-triggered anaphylaxis, an underused, potentially curative treatment). The benefits and risks of immunomodulation to prevent food-triggered anaphylaxis are still being defined. Epinephrine (adrenaline) is the medication of first choice in the treatment of anaphylaxis. All patients at risk for recurrence in the community should be equipped with 1 or more epinephrine autoinjectors; a written, personalized anaphylaxis emergency action plan; and up-to-date medical identification. Improvements in the design of epinephrine autoinjectors will help to optimize ease of use and safety. Randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic agents, such as antihistamines and glucocorticoids, are needed to strengthen the evidence base for treatment of acute anaphylactic episodes.
    The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 02/2010; 125(2 Suppl 2):S161-81. DOI:10.1016/j.jaci.2009.12.981 · 11.25 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Epinephrine is a life-saving medication in the treatment of anaphylaxis, in which it has multiple beneficial pharmacologic effects. Here, we examine the evidence base for its primary role in the treatment of anaphylaxis episodes in community settings. We review the practical pharmacology of epinephrine in anaphylaxis, its intrinsic limitations, and the pros and cons of different routes of administration. We provide a new perspective on the adverse effects of epinephrine, including its cardiac effects. We describe the evidence base for the use of epinephrine in anaphylaxis. We discuss the role of epinephrine auto-injectors for treatment of anaphylaxis in community settings, including identification of patients who need an auto-injector prescription, current use of auto-injectors, and advances in auto-injector design. We list reasons why physicians fail to prescribe epinephrine auto-injectors for patients with anaphylaxis, and reasons why patients fail to self-inject epinephrine in anaphylaxis. We emphasize the primary role of epinephrine in the context of emergency preparedness for anaphylaxis in the community. Epinephrine is the medication of choice in the first-aid treatment of anaphylaxis in the community. For ethical reasons, it is not possible to conduct randomized, placebo-controlled trials of epinephrine in anaphylaxis; however, continued efforts are needed towards improving the evidence base for epinephrine injection in this potentially fatal disease.
    Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology 08/2010; 10(4):354-61. DOI:10.1097/ACI.0b013e32833bc670 · 3.66 Impact Factor
Show more