Importance Asthma is a common chronic disease with significant morbidity and mortality. Objectives To assess the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous epinephrine in addition to the standard first-line treatment of acute asthma in children. Data source and study selection The following databases were inspected from 1966 to 22 June 2025: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Only randomised controlled trials were included. Data extraction and synthesis One study out of 197 citations was included in this review. Main outcomes The outcome measures were morbidity, escalation of care, length of hospital stay, adverse events, mortality due to exacerbation and change in lung function. Results We included one study with a total number of participants (n)=43. Participants who received subcutaneous epinephrine showed no significant difference in the asthma clinical score postintervention (3.3 compared with 4.0, respectively), as well as in the hospitalisation rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.38, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.40, p=0.39, n=43) and the need for additional intravenous medications (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.81, p=0.16, n=43), or predicted increase in peak expiratory flow (PEF) percentage at 2 hours (mean difference −1.00, 95% CI −8.21 to 6.21, p=0.79, n=31). Conclusion This review demonstrated very low certainty of evidence based on a single paper indicating that subcutaneous epinephrine does not benefit children with acute asthma in terms of asthma clinical score, hospitalisation rate and the need for additional intravenous medications. No significant improvement in PEF percentage was observed after the intervention. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023405407.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mudawi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: