Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Feb;104(2):172-7.
doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2009.11.023.

A comparison of 4 epinephrine autoinjector delivery systems: usability and patient preference

Stephanie Guerlain  1 , Akilah Hugine, Lu Wang
Affiliations
Comparative Study

A comparison of 4 epinephrine autoinjector delivery systems: usability and patient preference

Stephanie Guerlain et al. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2010 Feb.

Abstract

Background: Prefilled epinephrine autoinjectors are sometimes improperly used by patients, caregivers, and physicians. A user-centered design process led to the development of 2 prototype epinephrine autoinjectors (INT01 and INT02) that have a unidirectional perceived injection end, a self-retracting needle, and, with INT02, voice instructions to assist in guiding users through administration.

Objective: To compare the usability and patient preference among 4 epinephrine autoinjectors: EpiPen, TwinJect, INT01, and INT02.

Methods: A total of 48 participants were divided equally among 3 age groups: 7 to 10, 11 to 15, and 16 to 55 years. In each group, half had prior TwinJect or EpiPen training. In 1-hour sessions, without training, participants performed simulated-use testing under observation for all 4 epinephrine delivery systems. Usability (i.e., the ability to perform the manufacturer's labeled instructions), task completion time, and preferences were assessed and analyzed based on device, age, previous experience, sex, device malfunction, and testing order.

Results: More participants correctly followed all device instructions with INT02 (22 [46%]) than with INT01 (13 [27%]), EpiPen (6 [12%]), or TwinJect (0 [0%]). The difference among devices was significant (P < .01) after adjusting for device malfunctions and age group (the youngest age group [those aged 7-10 years] performed significantly worse than the other 2 groups). Prior experience, sex, and testing order did not significantly affect this measure. The first choice of overall preference was greater (P < .001) for INT02 (35 participants [73%]) vs. INT01 (7 participants [15%]), EpiPen (5 participants [10%]), and TwinJect (1 participant [2%]).

Conclusion: The user-centered device design may have a significant impact on correct epinephrine autoinjector use and patient preference.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study devices: 4 tested devices, with protective cases removed, shown to scale.
Figure 2
Figure 2
User device preference. Percentage of respondents (n = 48) who ranked each device first (tie allowed, sum could be more than 100%).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Decker WW, Campbell RL, Luke A, et al. The etiology and incidence of anaphylaxis in Rochester, Minnesota: a report from the Rochester Epidemiology Project. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;122:1161–1165. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gosbee LL. Nuts! I can’t figure out how to use my life-saving epinephrine auto-injector! Jt Comm J Qual Saf. 2004;30:220–223. - PubMed
    1. Mehr S, Robinson M, Tang M. Doctor: how do I use my EpiPen? Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2007;18:448–452. - PubMed
    1. Sicherer S, Forman J, Noone S. Use assessment of self-administered epinephrine among food-allergic children and pediatricians. Pediatrics. 2000;105:359–362. - PubMed
    1. Sicherer S, Simons F. Self-injectable epinephrine for first-aid management of anaphylaxis. Pediatrics. 2007;119:638–646. - PubMed

Publication types