A human factors usability study was completed to validate the 0.1 mg EAI user interface. Methods This study was conducted with parents of severely allergic children to evaluate simulated use of the ...0.1 mg EAI by the intended user group.
Despite the importance of prompt epinephrine auto-injector (EAI) treatment during anaphylaxis, proper administration technique is often lacking among patients and caregivers.
To compare usability and ...participant preference of Auvi-Q and EpiPen Jr EAIs in a simulated life-threatening allergic emergency-use scenario.
In this randomized, crossover, human-factors usability study, untrained adults (18-65 years) were tasked with using 0.15 mg Auvi-Q and EpiPen Jr trainers to simulate epinephrine administration to a child-sized manikin. Only written instructions on the device label and/or device voice instructions were available to participants. Endpoints included completing injection tasks per device instructions (primary endpoint), completing key injection tasks, and participant preference/ratings of devices. Completion of injection tasks were evaluated using a McNemar test for paired dichotomous data.
Ninety-six adults were included in study analyses. Significantly more participants completed all injection tasks per device instructions with Auvi-Q (85.4%) vs EpiPen Jr (19.8%; P < .001). Significant differences were also observed for completion of key injection tasks (Auvi -Q, 94.8%; EpiPen Jr, 72.9%; P < .001). No digital/hand injection errors were seen with Auvi-Q, whereas 14 participants (14.6%) would have accidentally received a digital/hand injection with EpiPen Jr (P < .001). Overall, significantly more participants preferred Auvi-Q over EpiPen Jr (91.7% vs 6.3%; P < .001 2.1% no preference). Median scores for 8 EAI characteristics were also higher for Auvi-Q vs EpiPen Jr.
In this study, untrained adults preferred and were more likely to use Auvi-Q correctly vs EpiPen Jr, highlighting the importance of device design for successful epinephrine administration during a life-threatening allergic emergency.
Despite the importance of prompt epinephrine auto-injector (EAI) treatment during anaphylaxis, proper administration technique is often lacking among patients and caregivers.
To compare usability and ...participant preference of Auvi-Q and EpiPen Jr EAIs in a simulated life-threatening allergic emergency-use scenario.
In this randomized, crossover, human-factors usability study, untrained adults (18-65 years) were tasked with using 0.15 mg Auvi-Q and EpiPen Jr trainers to simulate epinephrine administration to a child-sized manikin. Only written instructions on the device label and/or device voice instructions were available to participants. Endpoints included completing injection tasks per device instructions (primary endpoint), completing key injection tasks, and participant preference/ratings of devices. Completion of injection tasks were evaluated using a McNemar test for paired dichotomous data.
Ninety-six adults were included in study analyses. Significantly more participants completed all injection tasks per device instructions with Auvi-Q (85.4%) vs EpiPen Jr (19.8%; P < .001). Significant differences were also observed for completion of key injection tasks (Auvi -Q, 94.8%; EpiPen Jr, 72.9%; P < .001). No digital/hand injection errors were seen with Auvi-Q, whereas 14 participants (14.6%) would have accidentally received a digital/hand injection with EpiPen Jr (P < .001). Overall, significantly more participants preferred Auvi-Q over EpiPen Jr (91.7% vs 6.3%; P < .001 2.1% no preference). Median scores for 8 EAI characteristics were also higher for Auvi-Q vs EpiPen Jr.
In this study, untrained adults preferred and were more likely to use Auvi-Q correctly vs EpiPen Jr, highlighting the importance of device design for successful epinephrine administration during a life-threatening allergic emergency.
During severe hypoglycemic episodes, people with diabetes depend on others to help with treatment. We compared needle-free nasal glucagon and commercially available injectable glucagon for ease of ...use by caregivers of people with diabetes and by others in treating simulated episodes of severe hypoglycemia.
Sixteen instructed caregivers and 15 noninstructed acquaintances administered nasal and injectable glucagon to manikins, simulating unconscious people with diabetes during severe hypoglycemia episodes.
With nasal glucagon, 15 caregivers (94%) and 14 acquaintances (93%) administered a full dose (mean time 0.27 and 0.44 min, respectively). One caregiver and one acquaintance did not administer nasal glucagon because they did not fully depress the plunger on the device. Two caregivers deliberately administered both insulin and nasal glucagon, believing that insulin would also help the patient. With injectable glucagon, eight caregivers (50%) injected glucagon (mean time 1.89 min), but only two (13%) administered the full dose. Three acquaintances (20%) injected a partial dose of injectable glucagon (mean time 2.40 min); none gave a full dose. Errors included injecting diluent only, bending the needle, and injecting with an empty syringe. Two caregivers and one acquaintance injected insulin because they confused insulin with injectable glucagon.
More than 90% of participants delivered full doses of nasal glucagon, while 13% and 0% of caregivers and acquaintances delivered full doses of injectable glucagon, indicating that nasal glucagon is easier for nonmedically trained people to administer. Thus, nasal glucagon has the potential to substantially improve treatment for patients experiencing a life-threatening episode of severe hypoglycemia.
PDF
