International recommendations on epinephrine auto-injector doses often differ from standard weight-based guidance: a review and clinical proposals.

BACKGROUND: In anaphylaxis, the dosing of injectable epinephrine in medical settings has been arbitrarily recommended to be 0.01 mg/kg of body weight. For ethical reasons, there have been no dose-response studies or double-blind studies performed on patients with active anaphylaxis. Intramuscular delivery of epinephrine has been the standard. Auto-injectors for use in the treatment of anaphylaxis are available in four strengths (0.1, 0.15, 0.3, and 0.5 mg). However, in many countries, only the 0.15 and 0.3 mg strengths are available. Consequently, many adult, heavy patients are prescribed the 0.3 mg dose, which may result in only one-fifth to one-third of the recommended weight-based dose being administered in heavy patients experiencing anaphylaxis. Underdosing may have therefore contributed to mortality in anaphylaxis. OBJECTIVE: To review the doses of epinephrine recommended for the treatment of anaphylaxis in the community, and assess whether recommendations should be made to increase dosing for heavy adult patients in hopes of avoiding future deaths from anaphylaxis. METHODS: We reviewed multiple national and international recommendations for the dosing of epinephrine. We also reviewed the literature on adverse drug reactions from epinephrine, lethal doses of epinephrine, and epinephrine dose-finding studies. RESULTS: The majority of national and regional professional societies and authorities recommend epinephrine delivered by auto-injectors at doses far lower than the generally accepted therapeutic dose of 0.01 mg/kg body weight. Furthermore, we found that the recommendations vary even within regions themselves. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest prescribing more appropriate doses of epinephrine auto-injectors based on weight-based recommendations. There may be some exceptions, such as for patients with heart disease. We hypothesize that these recommendations will lead to improved outcomes of anaphylaxis.

The pharmacokinetics of epinephrine/adrenaline autoinjectors.

BACKGROUND: For a century, epinephrine has been the drug of choice for acute treatment of systemic allergic reactions/anaphylaxis. For 40 years, autoinjectors have been used for the treatment of anaphylaxis. Over the last 20 years, intramuscular epinephrine injected into the thigh has been recommended for optimal effect. OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on pharmacokinetics of epinephrine autoinjectors. RESULTS: Six studies assessing epinephrine autoinjector pharmacokinetics were identified. The studies, all on healthy volunteers, were completed by Simons, Edwards, Duvauchelle, Worm and Turner over the span of 2 decades. Simons et al. published two small studies that suggested that intramuscular injection was superior to subcutaneous injection. These findings were partially supported by Duvauchelle. Duvauchelle showed a proportional increase in Cmax and AUC0-20 when increasing the dose from 0.3 to 0.5 mg epinephrine intramuscularly. Turner confirmed these findings. Simons, Edwards and Duvauchelle documented the impact of epinephrine on heart rate and blood pressure. Turner confirmed a dose-dependent increase in heart rate, cardiac output and stroke volume. Based on limited data, confirmed intramuscular injections appeared to lead to faster Cmax. Two discernable Cmax's were identified in most of the studies. We identified similarities and discrepancies in a number of variables in the aforementioned studies. CONCLUSIONS: Intramuscular injection with higher doses of epinephrine appears to lead to a higher Cmax. There is a dose dependent increase in plasma concentration and AUC0-20. Most investigators found two Cmax's with Tmax 5-10 min and 30-50 min, respectively. There is a need for conclusive trials to evaluate the differences between intramuscular and subcutaneous injections with the epinephrine delivery site confirmed with ultrasound.

In-vivo diagnostic test allergens in Europe: A call to action and proposal for recovery plan-An EAACI position paper.

Diagnostic allergens are defined as medicinal products in the EU. Marketing authorization by national authorities is necessary; however, diagnostic allergens are not homogeneously regulated in different EU member states. Allergen manufacturers argue with increasing costs forcing them to continuously reduce the diagnostic allergen portfolios offered to allergists. In contrast, EAACI and national European Allergy Societies see the need for the availability of a wide range of high-quality diagnostic allergens for in vivo diagnosis of IgE-mediated allergies not only covering predominant but also less frequent allergen sources. In a recent EAACI task force survey, the current practice of allergy diagnosis was shown to rely on skin tests as first option in almost 2/3 of all types of allergic diseases and in 90% regarding respiratory allergies. With the need to ensure the availability of high-quality diagnostic allergens in the EU, an action plan has been set up by EAACI to analyse the current regulatory demands in EU member states and to define possible solutions stated in this document: (a) simplification of authorization for diagnostic allergens; (b) specific regulation of special types of diagnostic allergens; (c) new models beyond the current model of homologous groups; (d) simplification of pharmacovigilance reporting; (e) reduction of regulation fees for diagnostic allergens; (f) reimbursement for diagnostic allergens. Joining forces of allergists, manufacturers and authorities are of high importance to ensure remaining relevant allergens in the EU markets to facilitate a sustainable and comprehensive service for the diagnosis and treatment of allergic diseases.

Epinephrine auto-injector needle length: The impact of winter clothing.

BACKGROUND: Epinephrine auto-injectors are expected to deliver the drug intramuscularly. OBJECTIVE: To study whether injection through clothing influences the frequency of subcutaneous and intraosseous/periosteal deposition of epinephrine. METHODS: Skin to muscle and skin to bone distances were measured for 303 children and adolescents and 99 adults. Distance was determined by ultrasound, with high or low pressure on the ultrasound probe. The risk/percentage of subcutaneous and intraosseous/periosteal injections was calculated using the lower and upper limits for the authority-approved length of EAI needles as provided by two high pressure EAI manufacturers and one low pressure EAI manufacturer. The addition winter clothing on the delivery of epinephrine was illustrated by comparing drug delivery fissue depth with no clothes. Furthermore, the riof non-intramuscular delivery for the shortest and longest approved needle length was calculated. RESULTS: When using EpipenJr® in children < 15 kg the risk of intraosseous/periostal injection was reduced from 1% and 59% for the shortest and longest approved needle length to 0 and 15% with winter clothes. The Auvi-Q® 0.1 mg had no risk of intraosseous/periosteal injection. However, the subcutaneous deposition risk increased from 94% and 28% to 100% and 99% with winter clothes. The risk of subcutaneous injection using EpipenJr® in the youngest children increased from 13% and 0% to 81% and 1% with winter clothes, and with Epipen® in adults from 45% and 17% to 60% and 38%. Emerade®, had a risk of subcutaneous injection in adults increasing from 14% and 10% to 28% and 21% adding winter clothes. CONCLUSION: The risk of intraosseous/periosteal injections decreases and the risk of subcutaneous injection increases when injecting through winter clothes for all EAIs.

Standardization of Allergen Extracts.

Allergens are molecules with the capacity to elicit IgE responses in humans. When stimulated with allergens, most allergic patients respond with production of IgE specific for several proteins/allergens in the source material. The standardization of allergen extracts is essential in order to control variability and to achieve consistency and reproducibility in a clinical setting.Because the IgE binding capacity of an allergen extract is related to the content of one or a few major allergens, it is important that the standardization procedure ensures consistency, not only in the overall IgE binding potency, but also in the content and ratio of individual major allergens. Owing to the complexity of allergen extracts, a key element in standardization of allergen extracts is the use of standards.This chapter describes the principles for standardization of allergen extracts to be used by research laboratories. Other chapters in this volume describe in vitro methods in detail.

Implications of variation of epinephrine auto-injector needle length.

BACKGROUND: The variation of needle lengths of epinephrine auto-injectors (EAIs) has not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of the variation of the needle length of EAIs. METHODS: Skin-to-muscle (STMD) and skin-to-bone distances (STBD) were measured for 303 children and adolescents and 99 adults. Distance was determined by ultrasound, applying high or low pressure on the probe. The risk of subcutaneous and periosteal/intraosseous injection was calculated using the lower and upper acceptance limits for length of EAI needles as provided for 3 high-pressure EAIs (HPEAI) and 1 low-pressure EAI (LPEAI). RESULTS: The variation in needle length of the HPEAIs are for Epipen Jr/Epipen 5 mm, for Jext 2 mm, for Auvi-Q 2.5 mm, and for the LPEAI, Emerade, 1.5 mm. When using the longest acceptable needles for Epipen Jr, the risk of intraosseous/periosteal penetration was highest in children weighing less than 15 kg at 60% and for Jext at 43%. The risk was low for Auvi-Q and Emerade. The risk of subcutaneous injection was greatest with the shortest needles of the Auvi-Q 0.1 mg at 94% in children weighing less than 15 kg. In adults, the risk of subcutaneous injection using the shortest needles was for Epi-Pen at 41%, Jext at 36%, Auvi-Q at 38%, and Emerade at 12%. CONCLUSION: The variation in needle length of EAIs influences the risk of subcutaneous and intraosseous/periosteal injections. Compared with Epipen Jr, the Auvi-Q 0.1 mg for children weighing less than 15 kg had a low risk of intraosseous/periosteal injection but a very high risk of subcutaneous injection. For adults, there is a significant risk of subcutaneous injection.

Mind the gaps: Clinical trial concepts to address unanswered questions in aeroallergen immunotherapy-An NIAID/AHRQ Workshop.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases organized a workshop to develop trial concepts that could improve the use and effectiveness of aeroallergen immunotherapy (AAIT). Expert groups were formed to accomplish the following tasks: (1) propose a study design to compare the effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous versus sublingual AAIT; (2) propose a study design to compare the effectiveness and safety of AAIT by using 1 or a few allergens versus all or most allergens to which a patient is sensitized; (3) propose a study design to determine whether AAIT can alter the progression of childhood allergic airways disease; and (4) propose a study design to determine the optimal dose and duration of AAIT to achieve maximal effectiveness with acceptable safety. Study designs were presented by the workgroups, extensively discussed at the workshop, and revised for this report. The proposed trials would be of long duration and require large highly characterized patient populations. Scientific caveats and feasibility matters are discussed. These concepts are intended to help the development of clinical trials that can address some of the major questions related to the practice of AAIT for the management and prevention of allergic airways disease.

Epinephrine auto-injector needle lengths: Can both subcutaneous and periosteal/intraosseous injection be avoided?

BACKGROUND: Epinephrine should be administered intramuscularly in the anterolateral aspect of the thigh. The length of the epinephrine auto-injector (EAI) needle should ensure intramuscular injection. OBJECTIVE: To discuss suitable EAI needle lengths based on ultrasound measurements related to weight. METHODS: The skin-to-muscle distance (STMD) and skin-to-bone distance (STBD) were measured by ultrasound in the mid-third of the anterolateral area of the right thigh when applying high pressure (8 lb; high-pressure EAI [HPEAI]) or low pressure (low-pressure EAI [LPEAI]) on the ultrasound probe. The study included 302 children and adolescents and 99 adults. The maximum and minimum STMD and the maximum and minimum STBD were estimated. RESULTS: Using HPEAIs, the risk of periosteal or intraosseous penetration was 32% in children weighing less than 15 kg. The risk of subcutaneous injection was 12% in adolescents and 33% in adults. With LPEAIs, there was no risk of periosteal or intraosseous injection and the risk of subcutaneous injections in adolescents and adults was lower at 2% and 10%, respectively. A new EAI for injection in small children would have no risk of periosteal or intraosseous injection but would have 71% chance of subcutaneous deposit of epinephrine. CONCLUSION: Common HPEAIs have a high risk of periosteal or intraosseous penetration in children and subcutaneous injections in overweight and obese adults. LPEAIs have some risk of subcutaneous injection in adults. HPEAIs with 0.1 mg of epinephrine and shorter needles have no risk of periosteal or intraosseous injection but have a high risk of subcutaneous deposit. For adult or overweight or obese patients, HPEAIs and LPEAIs should have longer needles. Future studies should focus on triggering pressures and variations in needle length.

Erratum to: Do epinephrine auto-injectors have an unsuitable needle length in children and adolescents at risk for anaphylaxis from food allergy?

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13223-016-0110-8.].

Current Evidence on Safety and Practical Considerations for Administration of Sublingual Allergen Immunotherapy (SLIT) in the United States.

Liquid sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) has been used off-label for decades, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved grass and ragweed SLIT tablets have been available in the United States since 2014. Potentially life-threatening events from SLIT do occur, although they appear to be very rare, especially for FDA-approved products. Practice guidelines that incorporate safety precautions regarding the use of SLIT in the United States are needed. This clinical commentary attempts to address unresolved issues including controversy regarding the FDA mandate for the prescription of epinephrine autoinjectors for patients on SLIT; how to approach polysensitized patients; optimal timing and duration of SLIT administration; how to address gaps in therapy; whether antihistamines can prevent local reactions, if certain patient populations (such as persistent asthmatics) should not receive SLIT; and when to instruct patients to self-administer epinephrine. Key points are that physicians should focus on educating patients regarding: (1) when not to administer SLIT; (2) how to recognize a potentially serious allergic reaction to SLIT; and (3) when to administer epinephrine and seek emergency care.

Do epinephrine auto-injectors have an unsuitable needle length in children and adolescents at risk for anaphylaxis from food allergy?

BACKGROUND: Food allergy is the most common cause of anaphylaxis in children. Intramuscular delivery of epinephrine auto-injectors (EAI) is the standard of care for the treatment of anaphylaxis. We examined if children and adolescents at risk of anaphylaxis weighing 15-30 kg and >30 kg would receive epinephrine into the intramuscular space with the currently available EAI in North America and Europe. METHODS: The distance from skin to muscle (STMD) and skin to bone (STBD) on the mid third anterolateral area of the right thigh was measured by ultrasound applying either high pressure (max) or slight pressure (min) in 102 children weighing 15-30 kg (group 1) and 100 children and adolescents, weighing more than 30 kg (group 2). RESULTS: Using a high pressure EAI (HPEAI), Epipen Jr(®) and Auvi-Q(®)/Allerject(®) 0.15 mg, 11/102 (11 %) children in group 1 and 38/102 (38 %) using another HPEAI, Jext(®), had a STMDmax that showed a risk of intraosseous injection. There was a 1 % risk of subcutaneous injection with these devices. There was no risk of intraosseous injection using a low pressure EAI (LPEAI), Emerade(®). In group 2, the risk of intraosseous injection using a HPEAI was 3 % and no risk using a LPEAI. However, the risk of subcutaneous injection using HPEAI was 9 % and using LPEAI was 2 %. CONCLUSION: There is a risk of intraosseous injection using HPEAI (Epipen(®)/Epipen Jr(®), Auvi-Q(®)/Allerject(®) and especially Jext(®)) in children at risk of anaphylaxis. There was also a risk of subcutaneous injection using the currently available HPEAI in children and adolescents.

Debates in allergy medicine: food intolerance does not exist.

BACKGROUND: The term "intolerance" is not mentioned in the World Allergy Organization (WAO) document on allergy nomenclature. "Intolerance" has been used to describe some non-immunological diseases. However, pediatric gastroenterologists mix allergy and intolerance, e.g. by using the term "cow's milk protein allergy/intolerance (CMPA/I)", lumping together all types of mechanisms for not tolerating cow's milk. The basis for this mix is the fact that double-blind oral food challenges are time-consuming and expensive. Therefore, cow's milk exclusion and reintroduction is proposed to be used in primary care for the diagnosis of CMPA in children with common gastrointestinal (GI) problems such as colic and constipation. This may lead to a widespread use of hypoallergenic formulas in children without proven CMPA. In lay language, intolerance describes "not tolerating". OBJECTIVE: To discuss the reasons why the term "intolerance" should not be used in the area of allergy. RESULTS: Presently, intolerance is not part of the allergy nomenclature. It is used by lay persons to describe "not tolerating". Pediatricians use intolerance to describe non-immunological hypersensitivity such as lactose intolerance which is acceptable. However, using the mixed term CMPA/I describing a variety of gastrointestinal symptoms in children, should be avoided. The WAO Nomenclature does not clearly distinguish between non-IgE-mediated allergy and non-allergic hypersensitivity. CONCLUSION: The term "intolerance" should not be used within the area of allergy. Intolerance should be better defined and the term restricted to some non-immunological/non-allergic diseases and not mixed with allergy, e.g. by using the term CMPA/I. A revision of the WAO nomenclature is proposed.

Evaluation of methods for the estimation of threshold concentrations by the skin prick test.

BACKGROUND: The allergen dose-response curve is flat; thus, small changes in wheal size reflect large differences in skin sensitivity. The sensitivity as measured by provocation tests is given by the threshold concentration that causes symptoms and/or objective signs. The threshold concentrations differ by several magnitudes between the most and the least sensitive individuals clinically allergic to the same allergen. Variation in technique can be minimized by relating allergen responses to that to histamine. The aim here is to present and validate simple methods for estimation of the skin sensitivity given as the concentration inducing a wheal of the same size as that with the positive reference, 10 mg/ml of histamine HCl, in the same patient. METHODS: Data from previously reported trials on the biological equilibration of allergen extracts were used to document a method to calculate the concentration of allergen required to induce a wheal of the same size as that with 10 mg/ml of histamine dihydrochloride in the same patient, and to validate the methods using the parallel line bioassay as the gold standard. RESULTS: The validated methods correlated well with the results obtained using the gold standard method and provide results of skin prick testing based on threshold concentrations of allergen. CONCLUSIONS: The validated methods reduce the error of differences in testing techniques and make it possible to report skin sensitivity at threshold concentrations. A simple method to be used in clinical practice and a method suitable to describe changes in skin reactivity over time or during treatment are proposed.

Allergen skin prick test should be adjusted by the histamine reactivity.

BACKGROUND: Skin prick test results are mostly reported as mean wheal diameter obtained with one concentration of allergen. Differences in technique between personnel causes variation in wheal size. The research question was whether the influence of differences in skin prick test technique among assistants and centers can be reduced by relating the allergen wheal response to that of histamine. METHODS: Two methods for estimating skin reactivity, the method of Nordic Guidelines using histamine as a reference and the method of Brighton et al. [Clin Allergy 1979;9:591-596] not using histamine as a reference, were applied to data from two biological standardization trials, using the same batch of freeze-dried timothy pollen preparation. RESULTS: The concentration defining the Nordic biological unit, defined as a concentration of allergen eliciting a wheal of the same size as that of histamine dihydrochloride 10 mg/ml, did not differ between the centers. When not using histamine as a reference, applying the method of Brighton et al., there was a 15-fold difference in the estimate of the biological activity between the trials that was eliminated by adjusting the allergen response to that of the histamine reference. CONCLUSIONS: To reduce the influence of differences in test technique among assistants and centers responses to allergen-induced skin prick tests should be compared to that of histamine.