ArticleThe journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global2024
A 13.2 mg epinephrine intranasal spray demonstrates comparable pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety to a 0.3 mg epinephrine autoinjector.
Article in The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of a Provincial Law to Improve Epinephrine Use for Anaphylaxis in Schools in Alberta, Canada: A Pre-Post Study.International archives of allergy and immunology · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Use of Nasal Epinephrine in Anaphylaxis: Current Status.Turkish archives of pediatrics · 2025Review
- Advances in Nasal Biopharmaceutics to Support Product Development and Therapeutic Needs.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- Alternatives to Injectable Adrenaline for Treating Anaphylaxis.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2025Review
- Development ofPharmaceutics · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recent acute anaphylaxis guideline updates have identified remaining unmet needs based on currently available therapeutic options as a critical focus. Objective: We compared the pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, safety, and tolerability profiles of intranasal epinephrine with intramuscular epinephrine administered by autoinjector and manual syringe. Methods: An open-label, 3-period crossover study was conducted in 116 healthy adult volunteers to assess the bioavailability of a single 13.2 mg intranasal dose of epinephrine compared to a 0.3 mg intramuscular autoinjector and a 0.5 mg manual syringe. Patients with epinephrine concentrations of 50, 100, and 200 pg/mL at 10, 20, 30, and 60 minutes after dosing were also evaluated. Results: Pharmacokinetic parameters for the 13.2 mg intranasal dose exceeded those of the 0.3 mg autoinjector with a rapid and higher maximum observed concentration (intranasal, 429.4 pg/mL; autoinjector, 328.6 pg/mL) and greater systemic exposure (AUC Conclusions: Bidose epinephrine spray addresses the unmet medical and patient needs for a needle-free, convenient, and effective dose-delivery system for self-administration of epinephrine that is as good as or better than the 0.3 mg autoinjector.
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.