MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382701705 · doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2023.06.044

Fast Acting, Dry Powder, Needle-Free, Intranasal Epinephrine Spray: A Promising Future Treatment for Anaphylaxis

2023· article· en· W4382701705 on OpenAlexaff
Yuval Tal, Yaarit Ribak, Limor Rubin, Aviv Talmon, Oded Shamriz, Alon Y. Hershko, Simcha Blotnick, Mohammed Bouhajib, Galia Temtsin Krayz, Carolina Abrutzky, Dalia Megiddo, Tair Lapidot, Yoseph Caraco

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsPharma Medica Research (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNasal administrationEpinephrineNasal sprayPharmacokineticsPharmacodynamicsAnaphylaxisAnesthesiaAdverse effectAllergenAllergyPharmacologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Epinephrine intramuscular (IM) autoinjector is a life-saving drug for the emergency treatment of immediate-type allergic reactions (type I). Nevertheless, it is sometimes applied incorrectly or underused because of short shelf life, high costs, fear of use, or inconvenience of carrying. FMXIN002, a nasal powder spray of epinephrine, was developed as a needle-free alternative. OBJECTIVE: To compare epinephrine pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety after the administration of the FMXIN002 nasal spray versus autoinjector. METHODS: An open-label trial was performed in 12 adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis without asthma. Epinephrine pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety were compared between FMXIN002 (1.6 mg and 3.2 mg) administered intranasally with/without a nasal allergen challenge and IM (0.3 mg) EpiPen. RESULTS: FMXIN002 3.2 mg, administered after a nasal allergen challenge, displayed a shorter Tmax than EpiPen (median: 2.5 minutes vs 9.0 minutes, statistically nonsignificant [NS]) and a significantly shorter time when the measured analyte concentration is 100 pg/mL during the absorption phase pg/mL (median: 1.0 minutes vs 3.0 minutes for FMXIN002, P < .02). Moreover, FMXIN002 3.2 mg administered after the challenge test has resulted in a doubling of the maximal measured plasma analyte concentration over the sampling period (1110 vs 551 pg/mL, NS); area under the curve from 0 to 8 hours was 56% higher (672 vs 431 hours pg/mL, compared with EpiPen, NS). Pharmacodynamic response was comparable at all treatments. FMXIN002 was well tolerated, and treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were mild, local, and resolved spontaneously. No AEs were reported after the administration of EpiPen in our study. FMXIN002 was stable for 2 years at room temperature conditions. However, variability in the pharmacokinetics (expressed in coefficient of variation) is high. Having a prior nasal allergen challenge results in a substantial increase and speed of absorption. CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal absorption of dry powder epinephrine is faster than EpiPen offering a clinical advantage in the short therapeutic window for the treatment of anaphylaxis. The FMXIN002 product offers a needle-free, pocket-size, safe, user-friendly, and stable alternative to epinephrine autoinjectors.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.345 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In PracticeSame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207