This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Alex Silverglade, MD
Northridge, Calif

JAMA. 1970;214(4):763.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

THE MEDICAL NEWS section of THE JOURNAL (213:27, 1970) carried an account of a study by Hoehne et al in which the absorption of epinephrine administered as an aerosol was compared with the absorption of the compound when given subcutaneously. Urine levels of epinephrine excreted during different time periods were employed to indicate the amounts of the adrenergic stimulant absorbed. On this basis the report concluded that "inhaling from pressurized cartridge proves to be one-tenth as effective in adding epinephrine to the bloodstream as subcutaneous injections" which inspired the headline "Shots, not spray, may be best for insect sting reaction."

The validity of the conclusion is questioned. The object of treatment of insect stings is to alleviate symptoms and to prevent or correct anaphylactic reactions. What is important, then, is that the amount absorbed be sufficient to accomplish these ends. That achieved, excess amounts serve no . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?