Patient Carrying Time, Confidence, and Training with Epinephrine Autoinjectors: The RACE Survey

Randomized trial of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of 13.2 mg intranasal epinephrine treatment in congestion

BACKGROUND

Nasal congestion could affect the absorption of an epinephrine nasal spray (ENS).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the pharmacokinetics of 13.2 mg ENS with nasal congestion vs without congestion and vs intramuscular (IM) treatments.

METHODS

This phase I, open-label, 4-period randomized crossover study enrolled 51 healthy adults with seasonal allergies into cohorts that received a single dose of 13.2 mg ENS (NDS1C; Bryn Pharma, Lebanon, New Jersey) administered as 2 consecutive sprays in either opposite nostrils (cohort 1) or the same nostril (cohort 2). Both cohorts received 13.2 mg ENS with and without nasal allergen challenge (NAC), 0.3 mg IM epinephrine by autoinjector, and 0.5 mg IM epinephrine by manual syringe (MS).

RESULTS

The ENS after NAC resulted in higher extent and peak exposures and more rapid time to maximum plasma concentration vs ENS without NAC and IM treatments. In cohort 1, the maximum observed baseline-adjusted epinephrine plasma concentration (pg/mL) of ENS with NAC, IM autoinjector, IM MS, or ENS without NAC was 458.0, 279.0, 364.2, and 270.1, respectively, and in cohort 2 was 436.3, 228.2, 322.3, and 250.8, respectively. The maximum observed baseline-adjusted epinephrine plasma concentration geometric mean ratio (90% CI) for ENS with NAC vs without NAC in cohort 1 was 170% (123%-234%), and in cohort 2 was 174% (115%-263%). In cohort 1, the time to maximum plasma concentration was 15, 21, 45, and 25 minutes, respectively, and in cohort 2 was 18, 20, 45, and 20 minutes, respectively (P < .01 for ENS with NAC vs IM MS). The postdose mean heart rate and blood pressure remained stable and relatively similar to predose values regardless of plasma epinephrine concentration. Mild nausea and headache were the most common adverse events with ENS.

CONCLUSION

The 13.2 mg ENS with congestion exhibited enhanced absorption vs IM treatments and ENS without congestion and seemed to be well tolerated. There was no clinically impactful relationship between pharmacodynamic effects and plasma epinephrine concentration.

Current situation of anaphylaxis in Japan: Data from the anaphylaxis registry of training and teaching facilities certified by the Japanese Society of Allergy - secondary publication

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is a potentially fatal severe systemic hypersensitivity reaction that causes symptoms in multiple organs such as the skin, respiratory tract, and gastrointestinal tract; however, no nationwide epidemiological survey on anaphylaxis has been conducted in Japan. This survey aimed to elucidate the triggers and treatment of anaphylaxis in Japan.

METHODS

Between February 2015 and October 2017, we prospectively collected clinical data on the triggers and treatment of patients who developed anaphylaxis or were admitted to the emergency room with anaphylaxis in the training and teaching facilities of the Japanese Society of Allergology.

RESULTS

This study included 79 of the 451 affiliated facilities (18%), and a total of 767 patients were enrolled; 73% of them were aged <18 years and 7% had in-hospital triggers. The most common triggers were food (68%), drugs (12%), food-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis (5%), insects (4%), and oral immunotherapy (3%), with drugs being the most common in-hospital trigger and food being the most common out-of-hospital trigger. Intramuscular injection of adrenaline was administered therapeutically to 38% of the patients, with 10% requiring multiple doses. Adrenaline auto-injectors were used in 12% of out-of-hospital patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The present survey revealed the most common triggers and treatments for anaphylaxis in Japan. Self-management and adrenaline administration as first-line treatment may not be done sufficiently. Therefore, it is necessary to thoroughly educate and train patients and physicians about anaphylaxis.

Improving epinephrine autoinjector usability and carriage frequency among patients at risk of anaphylaxis: a quality improvement initiative

Although epinephrine autoinjectors (EAIs) are crucial for the management of anaphylaxis, patient carriage frequency of EAI is as low as 57% and usage of EAIs is erroneous 35%–43% of the time. Our objective was to improve patient carrying frequency of EAI and understanding of EAI usage.

We implemented a quality improvement initiative using consistent closed-loop education, redesigned clinic workflow, electronic medical record reminder-based interventions, and educational materials to improve patient EAI carriage compliance and understanding of EAI indications and proper technique.

The percentage of our patients who carried the EAI at all times increased from 55% to 93% in 6 months. Participants knowledge of EAI indications also improved from 22% to 91%. Patient demonstration scores of the EAI device improved from 21% to 91% as well.

Our quality improvement interventions demonstrated a significant improvement>80% in EAI carriage frequency, knowledge of indications, and proper device technique.

Epinephrine in anaphylaxis: too little, too late

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Epinephrine is the agreed-upon first line treatment for anaphylaxis, yet it continues to be underused by patients/caregivers and providers alike.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are unfortunately limited data on how epinephrine can best be utilized in anaphylaxis, which hinders how best to inform patients and providers. Studies reporting underuse suggest various barriers and themes on why this may happen.

SUMMARY

Continued education of patients, caregivers, and providers is needed; however, is not likely to be enough to close the gap. Thus, novel studies on how to increase use; increase availability in a cost-effective manner; and newer, effective delivery routes are still needed.

Update on food allergy

Food allergy is a major public health issue with growing prevalence in the urbanized world and significant impact on the lives of allergic patients and their families. Research into the risk factors that have contributed to this increase and their underlying immune mechanisms could lead us to definitive ways for treatment and prevention of food allergy. For the time being, introduction of peanut and other allergenic foods in the diet at the time of weaning seems to be an effective way to prevent the development of food allergy. Improved diagnosis and appropriate management and support of food allergic patients are central to patient care with food immunotherapy and biologics making the transition to clinical practice. With the new available treatments, it is becoming increasingly important to include patients' and family preferences to provide a management plan tailored to their needs.

Community Use of Epinephrine for the Treatment of Anaphylaxis: A Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Community use of epinephrine for the treatment of anaphylaxis is low. Knowledge of rates of epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting along with identification of barriers to its use will contribute to the development of policies and guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

A search was conducted on PubMed and Embase in April 2020. Our systematic review focused on 4 domains: (1) epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting; (2) barriers to epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting; (3) cost evaluation and cost-effectiveness of epinephrine use; and (4) programs and strategies to improve epinephrine use during anaphylaxis.

METHODS

Two meta-analyses with logit transformation were conducted to: (1) calculate the pooled estimate of the rate of epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting among cases of anaphylaxis and (2) calculate the pooled estimate of the rate of biphasic reactions among all cases of anaphylaxis.

RESULTS

Epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting was significantly higher for children compared with adults (20.98% [95% confidence interval (CI): 16.38%, 26.46%] vs 7.17% [95% CI: 2.71%, 17.63%], respectively, P = .0027). The pooled estimate of biphasic reactions among all anaphylaxis cases was 3.92% (95% CI: 2.88%, 5.32%). Our main findings indicate that pre-hospital use of epinephrine in anaphylaxis remains suboptimal. Major barriers to the use of epinephrine were identified as low prescription rates of epinephrine autoinjectors and lack of stock epinephrine in schools, which was determined to be cost-effective. Finally, in reviewing programs and strategies, numerous studies have engineered effective methods to promote adequate and timely use of epinephrine.

CONCLUSION

The main findings of our study demonstrated that across the globe, prompt epinephrine use in cases of anaphylaxis remains suboptimal. For practical recommendations, we would suggest considering stock epinephrine in schools and food courts to increase the use of epinephrine in the community. We recommend use of pamphlets in public areas (ie, malls, food courts, etc.) to assist in recognizing anaphylaxis and after that with prompt epinephrine administration, to avoid the rare risk of fatality in anaphylaxis cases.

Self-injectable epinephrine: doctors' attitude and patients' adherence in real-life

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Epinephrine is the only life-saving treatment of anaphylaxis. Prescription and administration rates of self-injectable epinephrine are generally low. It is unclear whether this is because of availability, low prescription rates, fear of using epinephrine, or a combination of these issues.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review focuses on what self-injectable epinephrine devices (SIED), such as auto-injectors and prefilled syringes, are preferred by patients and healthcare professionals (HCP). Our findings suggest that a device's ease to use, proper and frequent training on its operability, and availability have an impact on preferences and adherence to treatment with SIEDs. After prescribing a patient with a SIED, clinicians should emphasize its use in anaphylaxis, educate patients/caregivers to identify anaphylaxis and on how to use the SIED, and encourage constant practicing with training devices.

SUMMARY

Epinephrine is the sole recommended anaphylaxis treatment and SIEDs are of critical usefulness in the community setting. Further studying of these devices is needed to optimize education for HCPs and patients and their accessibility to SIEDs.

Intranasal epinephrine effects on epinephrine pharmacokinetics and heart rate in a nasal congestion canine model

BACKGROUND

Histamine release and vasodilation during an allergic reaction can alter the pharmacokinetics of drugs administered via the intranasal (IN) route. The current study evaluated the effects of histamine-induced nasal congestion on epinephrine pharmacokinetics and heart rate changes after IN epinephrine.

METHODS

Dogs received 5% histamine or saline IN followed by 4 mg epinephrine IN. Nasal restriction pressure, epinephrine concentration, and heart rate were assessed. Maximum concentration (Cmax), area under plasma concentration-time curve from 1 to 90 min (AUC1-90), and time to reach Cmax (Tmax) were measured. Clinical observations were documented.

RESULTS

In the 12 dogs in this study, nasal congestion occurred at 5-10 min after IN histamine administration versus no nasal congestion after IN saline. After administration of IN epinephrine, IN histamine-mediated nasal congestion was significantly reduced to baseline levels at 60, 80, and 100 min. There were no significant differences in Cmax and AUC1-90 between histamine and saline groups after IN epinephrine delivery (3.5 vs 1.7 ng/mL, p = 0.06, and 117 vs 59 ng/mL*minutes, p = 0.09, respectively). After receiving IN epinephrine, the histamine group had a significantly lower Tmax versus the saline group (6 vs 70 min, respectively; p = 0.02). Following IN epinephrine administration, the histamine group showed rapidly increased heart rate at 5 min, while there was a delayed increase in heart rate (occurring 30-60 min after administration) in the saline group. Clinical observations included salivation and emesis.

CONCLUSION

IN histamine led to more rapid epinephrine absorption and immediately increased heart rate compared with IN saline. IN epinephrine decreased histamine-induced nasal congestion.

Intranasal epinephrine in dogs: Pharmacokinetic and heart rate effects

Epinephrine is the standard of care for the treatment of severe allergy and anaphylaxis. Epinephrine is most often administered through the intramuscular (IM) route via autoinjector. The current study aimed to evaluate an alternative method of epinephrine treatment through intranasal (IN) delivery in dogs. The pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ), time to reach maximum plasma concentration (Tmax ), and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 90 minutes (AUC0-90 ) were observed after IN epinephrine (2, 3, 4, 5, 10, and 20 mg) and IM epinephrine via autoinjector (0.15 and 0.3 mg) for 90 minutes. Heart rate effects were measured after IN (2 and 5 mg) and IM (0.15 and 0.3 mg) epinephrine administration. IN epinephrine (5 mg) demonstrated significantly greater plasma epinephrine concentration at 1 minute as compared with IM epinephrine (0.3 mg) (1.68 ± 0.65 ng/mL vs 0.21 ± 0.08 ng/mL, P = .03). There were no significant differences in Cmax , Tmax , and AUC0-90 between 2-mg IN and 0.15-mg IM epinephrine or between 5-mg IN and 0.3-mg IM epinephrine. IN epinephrine reduced heart rate increases, as compared to IM epinephrine. IN and IM epinephrine were both well-tolerated. Overall, IN epinephrine demonstrated advantages over IM epinephrine, including the rapid increase in plasma epinephrine and lack of increased heart rate over time.

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice 2019 Highlights

This article provides highlights of the clinically impactful original studies and reviews published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice in 2019 on the subjects of anaphylaxis, asthma, dermatitis, drug allergy, food allergy, immunodeficiency, immunotherapy, rhinitis/sinusitis, and urticaria/angioedema/mast cell disorders. Within each topic, practical aspects of diagnosis and management are emphasized. Treatments discussed include lifestyle modifications, allergen avoidance therapy, positive and negative effects of pharmacologic therapy, and various forms of immunologic and desensitization management. We designed this review to help readers consolidate and use this extensive and practical knowledge for the benefit of their patients.