Is epinephrine administration by sublingual tablet feasible for the first‐aid treatment of anaphylaxis? A proof‐of‐concept study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In order to explore the feasibility of sublingual administration of epinephrine tablets as a non-invasive first-aid treatment for anaphylaxis, we studied epinephrine absorption from this dosage form in an animal model. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, four-way crossover study, six rabbits received epinephrine 2.5 or 10 mg as a sublingual tablet, epinephrine 0.03 mg (0.3 ml) by intramuscular (IM) injection (positive control), and 0.9% NaCl (0.3 ml) IM (negative control). Pre- and post-dose blood samples were obtained for measurement of plasma epinephrine concentrations by HPLC-EC. RESULTS: After administration of epinephrine 2.5 mg as a sublingual tablet, the mean (+/-SEM) C(max) was 2369+/-392 pg/ml, and the t(max) was 20.8+/-5.7 min. After administration of epinephrine 10 mg sublingually, the C(max) was 10836+/-2234 pg/ml, and the t(max) was 21.7+/-5.4 min. After IM epinephrine, the C(max) was 6445+/-4233 pg/ml, and the t(max) was 15.8+/-4.7 min. After IM 0.9% NaCl, the C(max) (endogenous epinephrine) was 518+/-142 pg/ml. The t(max) after both of the sublingual epinephrine tablet doses did not differ significantly from the t(max) after IM epinephrine, and the C(max) after the 10 mg sublingual epinephrine tablet dose did not differ significantly from the C(max) after IM epinephrine. CONCLUSIONS: In this proof-of-concept study, administration of epinephrine as a sublingual tablet formulation resulted in rapid achievement of peak plasma epinephrine concentrations. Absorption studies in humans are needed. DEFINITIONS: HPLC-high performance liquid chromatography; EC - electrochemical detection; C(max) - maximum plasma epinephrine concentration after dosing; t(max) - time of maximum plasma epinephrine concentration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".