ReviewAllergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology2022
International recommendations on epinephrine auto-injector doses often differ from standard weight-based guidance: a review and clinical proposals.
Review in Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Needle-to-bone safety margin of adrenaline auto-injectors in Japanese children: Impact of injection site variation.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2026Article
- Adrenaline Auto-Injector Prescribing in Primary Care in England: An Analysis of Non-Standard Dosing.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2026Article
- Alternatives to Injectable Adrenaline for Treating Anaphylaxis.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 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.
objectiveTo 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionsWe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.