MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310783148 · doi:10.1186/s13223-022-00736-5

International recommendations on epinephrine auto-injector doses often differ from standard weight-based guidance: a review and clinical proposals

2022· review· en· W4310783148 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sten Dreborg, Graham Walter, Harold Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueAllergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnaphylaxisEpinephrineDosingMedicineAdverse effectAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineInternal medicineAllergy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In 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. OBJECTIVE: To 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: We 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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAllergy Asthma and Clinical ImmunologySame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207