Article

Voluntarily reported unintentional injections from epinephrine 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.

0 Followers
 · 
111 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    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 findingsEpimean(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.
    10/2014; 67(1). DOI:10.1111/jphp.12312
  • Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology: official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology 12/2014; 113(6):599-608. DOI:10.1016/j.anai.2014.10.007 · 2.75 Impact Factor
  • Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings 09/2010; 54(12):929-931. DOI:10.1177/154193121005401226