Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25264449›Full record

ArticleAllergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology2014

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

Sandra M Salter, Richard Loh, Frank M Sanfilippo, Rhonda M Clifford

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. A case of suicide by self-injection of adrenaline.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sandra M SalterPharmacy Program, Centre for Optimization of Medicines, School of Medicine and Pharmacology, The University of Western Australia, M315, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009 Australia.
Richard LohThe Australasian Society of Clinical Allergy and Immunology (ASCIA), Sydney, NSW Australia ; School of Paediatrics and Child Health, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA Australia.
Frank M SanfilippoSchool of Population Health, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA Australia.
Rhonda M CliffordPharmacy Program, Centre for Optimization of Medicines, School of Medicine and Pharmacology, The University of Western Australia, M315, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009 Australia.
University of Western Australia · AUAustralasian Society of Clinical and Experimental Pharmacologists and Toxicologists · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSuccessful 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.

methodsDemonstration 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.

resultsAll 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).

conclusionsIt 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.

Indexed as

AdrenalineAnapenAnaphylaxisEpiPenPharmacy practicePrimary careSelf-injectable epinephrineSimulated patientTechnique

Identifiers

PMID25264449
PMCPMC4177155
OpenAlexW2131197810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.