Make-up of the epinephrine autoinjector: the effect on its use by untrained users

Design as a quality improvement strategy: The case for design expertise

Bad design in safety-critical environments like healthcare can lead to users being frustrated, excluded or injured. In contrast, good design can make it easier to use a service correctly, with impacts on both the safety and efficiency of healthcare delivery, as well as the experience of patients and staff. The participative dimension of design as an improvement strategy has recently gained traction in the healthcare quality improvement literature. However, the role of design expertise and professional design has been much less explored. Good design does not happen by accident: it takes expertise and the specific reasoning that expert designers develop through practical experience and training. Here, we define design, show why poor design can be disastrous and illustrate the benefits of good design. We argue for the recognition of distinctive design expertise and describe some of its characteristics. Finally, we discuss how design could be better promoted in healthcare improvement.

Patient Ability to Use Old versus New/Modified Model Adrenaline Autoinjection Emergency Medical Devices for Anaphylaxis in Prehospital Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The goal of this study was to determine the individual's ability to use new/modified model AAI compared to old model AAIs devices for anaphylaxis.

METHODS

The protocol was established a priori and published on PROSPERO (CRD42021229691) and was conducted based on PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched until 31 January 2021. Only RCTs were included in this review. Primary studies comparing old model AAI to new/modified model AAI emergency medical devices were included. Primary outcomes included number of successful administrations, and number of individuals to complete all steps. Secondary outcomes included successful removal of device safety guards, placement of correct end of the device against the thigh and holding of the device in place for adequate time after administration; the frequency of an adverse event (digital injection); individual preferences in terms of size, individual preference in terms of ease for carrying, overall patient preference; and the mean time of delivery.

RESULTS

Overall, seven trials consisting of 1359 patients were analyzed. Reporting of adverse events was limited to digital injection, which was significantly higher in the old model AAI (RR 6.90, 95% CI 3.27 to 14.57; I2 statistic = 0%; p < 0.001; four trials, 610 participants; high quality evidence). No significant difference was found regarding successful administration between the old model AAI and new/modified model AAI (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.11; I2 statistic = 96%; p = 0.16; seven trials, 2196 participants; low quality evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

We cannot make any new recommendations on the effectiveness of different models of AAIs regarding successful administration. However, considering the aspect of safety, we think that mew/modified model AAI can be chosen as the old model AAI was associated with a higher frequency of the adverse event (digital injection).

Diagnosing, managing and preventing anaphylaxis: Systematic review

BACKGROUND

This systematic review used the GRADE approach to compile evidence to inform the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) anaphylaxis guideline.

METHODS

We searched five bibliographic databases from 1946 to 20 April 2020 for studies about the diagnosis, management and prevention of anaphylaxis. We included 50 studies with 18 449 participants: 29 randomized controlled trials, seven controlled clinical trials, seven consecutive case series and seven case-control studies. Findings were summarized narratively because studies were too heterogeneous to conduct meta-analysis.

RESULTS

It is unclear whether the NIAID/FAAN criteria or Brighton case definition are valid for immediately diagnosing anaphylaxis due to the very low certainty of evidence. There was also insufficient evidence about the impact of most anaphylaxis management and prevention strategies. Adrenaline is regularly used for first-line emergency management of anaphylaxis but little robust research has assessed its effectiveness. Newer models of adrenaline autoinjectors may slightly increase the proportion of people correctly using the devices and reduce time to administration. Face-to-face training for laypeople may slightly improve anaphylaxis knowledge and competence in using autoinjectors. We searched for but found little or no comparative effectiveness evidence about strategies such as fluid replacement, oxygen, glucocorticosteroids, methylxanthines, bronchodilators, management plans, food labels, drug labels and similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening condition but, due to practical and ethical challenges, there is a paucity of robust evidence about how to diagnose and manage it.

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.

A Review on Ingested Cyanide: Risks, Clinical Presentation, Diagnostics, and Treatment Challenges

Cyanide, a metabolic poison, is a rising chemial threat and ingestion is the most common route of exposure. Terrorist organizations have threatened to attack the USA and international food and water supplies. The toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics of oral cyanide are unique, resulting in high-dose exposures, severe symptoms, and slower onset of symptoms. There are no FDA-approved therapies tested for oral cyanide ingestions and no approved intramuscular or oral therapies, which would be valuable in mass casualty settings. The aim of this review is to evaluate the risks of oral cyanide and its unique toxicokinetics, as well as address the lack of available rapid diagnostics and treatments for mass casualty events. We will also review current strategies for developing new therapies. A review of the literature using the PRISMA checklist detected 7284 articles, screened 1091, and included 59 articles or other reports. Articles referenced in this review were specific to risk, clinical presentation, diagnostics, current treatments, and developing therapies. Current diagnostics of cyanide exposure can take hours or days, which can delay treatment. Moreover, current therapies for cyanide poisoning are administered intravenously and are not specifically tested for oral exposures, which can result in higher cyanide doses and unique toxicodynamics. New therapies developed for oral cyanide exposures that are easily delivered, safe, and can be administered quickly by first responders in a mass casualty event are needed. Current research is aimed at identifying an antidote that is safe, effective, easy to administer, and has a rapid onset of action.

Comparison of practical application steps of the previously used adrenaline auto injector in Turkey (EpiPen) and the currently available adrenaline auto injector (Penepin): a multi-center study

Aim

It has been shown by a great number of studies that the correct use of adrenaline auto injectors prescribed to patients with anaphylaxis is associated with the design of the auto injector, in addition to training. The aim of this study was to compare the skills of adults in using two different auto injectors prescribed to patients with anaphylaxis.

Material and Methods

Parents of patients aged between 1 and 18 years who referred to allergy outpatients were included in the study.

Results

A total of 630 volunteers from nine centers were included in the study. Four hundred fifty-seven (72.5%) of the participants were females and 235 (37.3%) were undergraduates. The rate of showing all the steps of auto injector trainers correctly by the participants was found as (60.2%) (n=379) for EpiPen and 42.9% (n=270) for Penepin (p<0.001). The most frequent mistake with both auto injector trainers was the step of "place appropriate injection tip into outer thigh/press the trigger so it clicks." When the preferences of the volunteers were asked after training and application, 527 (83.7%) chose EpiPen, stating that it was easier and simpler to use.

Conclusions

Our study showed that the correct usage rates of both adrenaline auto injectors were much lower than expected and there could be mistakes in the application of both. It could be appropriate to make improvements in the design of Penepin, which is still the only available adrenaline auto injector in Turkey, such that its application steps will be simpler and quicker.

Epinephrine Auto-Injector Versus Drawn Up Epinephrine for Anaphylaxis Management: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening event. Most clinical symptoms of anaphylaxis can be reversed by prompt intramuscular administration of epinephrine using an auto-injector or epinephrine drawn up in a syringe and delays and errors may be fatal. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and compare errors associated with use of epinephrine drawn up in a syringe versus epinephrine auto-injectors in order to assist hospitals as they choose which approach minimizes risk of adverse events for their patients.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched using terms agreed to a priori.

STUDY SELECTION

We reviewed human and simulation studies reporting errors associated with the use of epinephrine in anaphylaxis. There were multiple screening stages with evolving feedback.

DATA EXTRACTION

Each study was independently assessed by two reviewers for eligibility. Data were extracted using an instrument modeled from the Zaza et al instrument and grouped into themes.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Three main themes were noted: 1) ergonomics, 2) dosing errors, and 3) errors due to route of administration. Significant knowledge gaps in the operation of epinephrine auto-injectors among healthcare providers, patients, and caregivers were identified. For epinephrine in a syringe, there were more frequent reports of incorrect dosing and erroneous IV administration with associated adverse cardiac events. For the epinephrine auto-injector, unintentional administration to the digit was an error reported on multiple occasions.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review highlights knowledge gaps and a diverse set of errors regardless of the approach to epinephrine preparation during management of anaphylaxis. There are more potentially life-threatening errors reported for epinephrine drawn up in a syringe than with the auto-injectors. The impact of these knowledge gaps and potentially fatal errors on patient outcomes, cost, and quality of care is worthy of further investigation.

Severe allergic-like contrast reactions: epidemiology and appropriate treatment

Epinephrine is the most important treatment for severe allergic-like contrast reactions. The signs and symptoms of a severe reaction and the dose and methods of epinephrine administration are important for all radiologists to master. In this review article, we review the epidemiology of severe allergic-like contrast reactions, their common clinical manifestations, and their appropriate treatment, with a focus on correct epinephrine administration. We also discuss systematic limitations in the training of current and future radiologists, and recommend strategies for improvement.

Effect of available intravenous access on accuracy and timeliness of epinephrine administration

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of available intravenous (IV) access on the accuracy and timeliness of epinephrine administration during a surprise mock severe contrast reaction.

METHODS

Informed consent was waived for this prospective randomized IRB-approved study. Radiology trainees with previous annual hands-on contrast reaction training (n = 46) were randomized to one of two surprise mock contrast reactions over a 23-month period: Group 1-severe laryngeal edema with IV access present (n = 27) or Group 2-severe laryngeal edema without IV access present (n = 19). Both intramuscular (IM, Epi-Pen(®)) and IV epinephrine were available in both scenarios. Time-to-treat and epinephrine administration error rates were compared by study group and by route of administration using two-tailed Student's t test or χ (2) test. Epinephrine administration errors were correlated with training experience using Pearson's correlation.

RESULTS

Mean time to epinephrine administration was significantly faster for scenarios without IV access (Group 2: 35 ± 16 s vs. Group 1: 62 ± 49 s, p = 0.03), and for intramuscular administrations overall (IM: 42 ± 34 s vs. IV: 98 ± 46 s, p < 0.001). Epinephrine administration errors were common: (63% [17/27, Group 1] vs. 61% [11/18, Group 2], p = 1.00), had no relationship with time to most recent hands-on training (r = 0.24, p = 0.11), and were not predicted by year of post-graduate training (r = 0.04, p = 0.79).

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of IV access is associated with a faster epinephrine administration time but no improvement in epinephrine administration error rate among radiology trainees responding to a surprise mock severe contrast reaction. Annual hands-on training appears to have little effect on epinephrine administration accuracy.

How far from correct is the use of adrenaline auto-injectors? A survey in Italian patients

Self-administered adrenaline through an auto-injector is the main out-of-hospital treatment for anaphylaxis, and patients should be trained to promptly and correctly use the device. The aim of the study was to verify the proper use of the device and the correct drug administration, and to identify possible misuse by patients. In seven Italian Allergy clinics, patients who were previously provided with self-injectable adrenaline were recruited at the follow-up visit required for the renewal of their prescription. All patients completed a questionnaire covering details of their allergic reactions, and knowledge of the device. The correct use was verified by the physician using a trainer with a four-step examination. 242 patients were included; 46 patients (18 %) did not always carry the auto-injector, and 35 patients (14 %) reported situations in which they were doubtful about whether to use adrenaline. Only 39 % of patients properly managed the device, while some patients (6 %) failed in all four steps. The majority of patients considered it appropriate to use adrenaline at the onset of respiratory symptoms (56 %). The factor most closely related to proper use of the device was the education of the patient (p = 0.03), while age and the time from first prescription did not affect the ability to properly use the auto-injector. Even though accurate training is conducted, many patients are still unable to properly use the adrenaline auto-injector in case of anaphylaxis. Allergists should review the instructions provided to the patients every time a renewal of the auto-injector is prescribed.

Demonstration of epinephrine autoinjectors (EpiPen and Anapen) by pharmacists in a randomised, simulated patient assessment: acceptable, but room for improvement

BACKGROUND

Successful treatment of anaphylaxis in the community relies on early and correct use of epinephrine autoinjectors. Community pharmacists supply these devices and have a crucial role teaching patients how to use them. Supply of epinephrine autoinjectors in Australia increased 70-fold in the past decade. New EpiPen and Anapen autoinjectors were launched in Australia in 2011 and 2012, with the potential to cause confusion. However there is no information about how pharmacists demonstrate epinephrine autoinjectors to patients. Therefore the aim of this study was to assess real-world community pharmacist demonstrations of EpiPen and Anapen. We also sought to identify consultation-based predictors of accurate demonstration.

METHODS

Demonstration accuracy was assessed in simulated patient visits to 300 randomly selected pharmacies. Pharmacists were asked by the simulated patient how to use original EpiPen, new-look EpiPen or Anapen, and assessed against the relevant Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy (ASCIA) Action Plan for Anaphylaxis. Other anaphylaxis advice provided by the pharmacist was also recorded. Accuracy was analysed descriptively. Binary logistic regression was used to identify predictors of accurate demonstration.

RESULTS

All 300 pharmacies were visited. Of 250 pharmacist demonstrations, 46 (18.4%) accurately demonstrated all four steps on ASCIA Action Plan. Failure to state 'do not touch the needle' (74.8%) or 'massage injection site' (68.8%) reduced accuracy. However 163 (65.2%) accurately demonstrated the three steps required to inject epinephrine (no difference by device, p = 0.15). Associations with accurate demonstration were: checking if the patient had an anaphylaxis action plan (odds ratio, OR = 16.1; 95% CI: 3.86-67.3); stating to call an ambulance after use (OR = 4.0; 95% CI: 1.44-11.1); or explaining side effects of epinephrine (OR = 4.5; 95% CI: 1.48-13.4).

CONCLUSIONS

It is critical that anaphylaxis patients know how to use their prescribed epinephrine autoinjector correctly. Pharmacists have acceptable rates of EpiPen and Anapen demonstration accuracy, although more is needed to improve this. Those who pay attention to the need for action plans, emergency care after epinephrine use, and informing patients about the side effects of epinephrine may have better knowledge about anaphylaxis, and in turn significantly improve demonstration accuracy.

Comparison of adrenaline auto-injector devices: ease of use and ability to recall use

BACKGROUND

A limited number of adrenaline auto-injectors are currently available. Epipen and Anapen are available in Australia, New Zealand, UK and parts of Europe and Asia. Few studies have compared the performance of these devices.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the intuitiveness of use of these devices. A secondary aim was to compare the ability to recall the use of each device after a period of 3 months.

METHOD

A random sample of 100 subjects naïve to both the EpiPen and Anapen were recruited from staff and families attending Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne Australia. Subjects were randomized to Anapen (n = 53) or EpiPen (n = 47) and asked to demonstrate use of a 'trainer' device (i) prior to and (ii) after receiving training in its correct use. A subset (n = 32) participated in a follow-up study to evaluate (iii) the ability to recall correct use of each device.

RESULTS

Most subjects correctly demonstrated all steps in use of the EpiPen and Anapen both prior to (89% vs. 79%, p = 0.17) and after training on use (100% vs. 100%). However, after 3 months, significantly more participants correctly demonstrated use of EpiPen (87%) compared to Anapen (35%) (p = 0.003) and critical errors that would likely result in failure to administer adrenaline were more common with Anapen (59% vs. 13%, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Most study participants correctly demonstrated the use of both devices without prior training. There was greater attrition in correct use of Anapen compared to EpiPen over time. Critical errors in administration were more likely with Anapen than EpiPen.

Anaphylaxis treatment: ergonomics of epinephrine autoinjector design

Epinephrine administration is a critical component of individualized emergency action plans for patients at risk for anaphylaxis. Fundamental ergonomic principles can be used to facilitate rapid and effective use of an epinephrine autoinjector when appropriate. Specific patient characteristics, including age and strength, that impact physical and cognitive capabilities, should be considered when choosing an epinephrine autoinjector. Considerations in the optimal functioning of an autoinjector include the device being portable, identifiable, safe, and effective. Size, shape, coloring, and labeling of the device all contribute to the device being portable and identifiable. Trigger-lock features, designs resistant to physical perturbations, and safety technology to prevent injury after use contribute to safety and reliability. Optimal grip designs, tailored in size and/or shape to specific patient types, contribute to reliability and effectiveness. After selection of the most appropriate autoinjector, hands-on training, practice, and drills should be implemented.

A randomized maternal evaluation of epinephrine autoinjection devices

BACKGROUND

Intramuscular epinephrine (adrenaline) is the first-line therapy for anaphylaxis and prompt administration improves outcome. In 2011, two epinephrine autoinjectors existed in the United Kingdom, differing in their users' administration method: EpiPen(®) and Anapen(®) . We routinely train all families who receive these devices.

AIM

To evaluate: Maternal competence in using epinephrine autoinjectors following our standard anaphylaxis training package. Which device mothers found easier to use.

METHODS

Mothers with no previous epinephrine autoinjector experience were approached to participate. One clinician provided a standardized demonstration on using a randomly assigned autoinjector device. She immediately evaluated the mothers' performance using ten predetermined criteria. Four criteria were device specific and six were common criteria to both devices.

RESULTS

One hundred mothers participated: 50 EpiPen(®) and 50 Anapen(®) . A substantial proportion of mothers (15% overall) were not able to successfully 'fire' these training devices: Anapen(®) 4% and EpiPen(®) 26% (OR 8.43, p = 0.005). Only 22% of mothers overall were able to perform all ten procedures completely successfully: Anapen(®) 32% and EpiPen(®) 12%. Chi-squared analysis showed a significantly higher proportion of mothers correctly performing all Anapen(®) specific procedures than EpiPen(®) (OR 14.24, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

It is concerning that 15% of mothers overall could not 'fire' these devices correctly despite a one-to-one demonstration, identifying a need for more user friendly devices and training. Mothers found the Anapen(®) device significantly easier to use, which may have implications for future prescribing. Evaluation of the next generation of autoinjectors and their training packages needs to be performed as important practical differences may be found.

Food allergy and anaphylaxis in pediatrics: update 2010-2012

This review highlights the progress made in food allergy (FA) and anaphylaxis research in pediatrics published in the journal Pediatric Allergy and Immunology since 2010. Putative risk factors for FA are as follows: a family history of allergic disease, particularly in the mother, low birth order, season of birth, and severe atopic eczema. Obstetric practices, antibiotic use, and home environment are factors deserving further research. Diagnostic decision levels and component-specific IgE are useful in the diagnosis of FA; however, oral food challenges remain the gold standard and may also be a means to reduce parental anxiety and to improve education. Oral immunotherapy studies show promise in increasing the threshold of reactivity of allergic patients and therefore improving their quality of life. In single-nut-allergic patients, introduction of other nuts allows broadening the diet and thus reducing the psychological impact of allergen avoidance. Nutritional deficiencies are not uncommon in food-allergic children and should be specifically assessed. The prescription of injectable adrenaline is still insufficient and not consistent among practitioners, requiring improved training and implementation of guidelines. Current research into the epidemiology and immunological mechanisms of FA and tolerance will enable us to devise strategies to both prevent and treat food allergies.

Part 2

Management of food allergy on a daily basis is multifaceted, time consuming, costly, and becomes compounded when multiple food allergies are involved. Allergen avoidance methodologies, monitoring of signs/symptoms of allergic reactions, handling serious medication needs, and planning ahead for a potential emergency due to an accidental exposure can be demanding concerns to the patient/family. Due to the complexity of this diagnosis, its implications to health-related quality of life, and extensive patient/family informational needs, it was necessary to divide this article into a 2-part series. This is the second article of the series. The content of Part 1 of the series focused on patient education associated with common food allergens, food allergy avoidance (eg, allergen identification, ingredient label reading, hidden allergens, cross-contact, precautionary labeling, potential routes of accidental exposures) and the food allergy action plan. Part 2 of the series reviews food-induced anaphylaxis and associated patient educational interventions (eg, use of self-injectable epinephrine, medical identification). Both parts of the series consider developmental concerns of the food allergic young child and adolescent. Parts 1 and 2 should be read collectively to acquire a complete view of suggested patient education for the newly diagnosed food hypersensitive pediatric patient and the role of a food allergy educator in an ambulatory care setting.