ReviewClinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology2025
Alternatives to Injectable Adrenaline for Treating Anaphylaxis.
Review in Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- New Adrenaline Devices for Treating Anaphylaxis: Results of a Joint Survey From the European Anaphylaxis Registry and the Allergy-Vigilance Network.Clinical and translational allergy · 2026Article
- Overview of allergic disease: Anaphylaxis - WAO White Book on Allergy 2026 - 2.11.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2026Review
- Global disparities in adrenaline access: A World Allergy Organization call for equity in anaphylaxis care.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2025Article
- Recent Insights into the Epidemiology and Management of AnaphylaxisBalkan medical journal · 2025Review
- Adrenaline nasal spray in emergency management: An initial expert opinion.Allergologie select · 2025Review
- Post-marketing safety assessment of epinephrine: an analysis of the US FDA adverse event reporting system.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adrenaline is the first line treatment for anaphylaxis and adrenaline auto-injectors (AAI) allow reliable, safe and ergonomic administration in the community. However, AAIs have significant limitations and adrenaline is often not used in anaphylaxis. Innovations to administer adrenaline via alternative routes may potentially improve usage rates and treatment effectiveness. Here, we describe the known limitations and barriers to AAI use in anaphylaxis. We then summarise current data for adrenaline devices which use alternative routes of administration for treating anaphylaxis. Several novel devices are in development, which deliver adrenaline via nasal, sublingual or transcutaneous routes. Pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety studies have compared these treatments with AAI or intramuscular adrenaline via needle and syringe. The first non-injectable adrenaline delivery device for emergency treatment of anaphylaxis was approved in Europe and the United States. Neffy, an adrenaline nasal spray, is licensed for use in adult and paediatric patients who weigh at least 30 kg. In the near future, multiple alternatives to injectable adrenaline may be available for managing anaphylaxis, overcoming some, but not all of the limitations of AAIs.
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.