Hubbry Logo
Injection (medicine)Injection (medicine)Main
Open search
Injection (medicine)
Community hub
Injection (medicine)
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Injection (medicine)
Injection (medicine)
Injection (medicine)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A syringe being prepared for injection of medication

An injection (often and usually referred to as a "shot" in US English, a "jab" in UK English, or a "jag" in Scottish English and Scots) is the act of administering a liquid, especially a drug, into a person's body using a needle (usually a hypodermic needle) and a syringe.[1] An injection is considered a form of parenteral drug administration; it does not involve absorption in the digestive tract. This allows the medication to be absorbed more rapidly and avoid the first pass effect. There are many types of injection, which are generally named after the body tissue the injection is administered into. This includes common injections such as subcutaneous, intramuscular, and intravenous injections, as well as less common injections such as epidural, intraperitoneal, intraosseous, intracardiac, intraarticular, and intracavernous injections.

Injections are among the most common health care procedures, with at least 16 billion administered in developing and transitional countries each year.[2] Of these, 95% are used in curative care or as treatment for a condition, 3% are to provide immunizations/vaccinations, and the rest are used for other purposes, including blood transfusions.[2] The term injection is sometimes used synonymously with inoculation, but injection does not only refer to the act of inoculation. Injections generally administer a medication as a bolus (or one-time) dose, but can also be used for continuous drug administration.[3] After injection, a medication may be designed to be released slowly, called a depot injection, which can produce long-lasting effects.

An injection necessarily causes a small puncture wound to the body, and thus may cause localized pain or infection. The occurrence of these side effects varies based on injection location, the substance injected, needle gauge, procedure, and individual sensitivity. Rarely, more serious side effects including gangrene, sepsis, and nerve damage may occur. Fear of needles, also called needle phobia, is also common and may result in anxiety and fainting before, during, or after an injection. To prevent the localized pain that occurs with injections the injection site may be numbed or cooled before injection and the person receiving the injection may be distracted by a conversation or similar means. To reduce the risk of infection from injections, proper aseptic technique should be followed to clean the injection site before administration. If needles or syringes are reused between people, or if an accidental needlestick occurs, there is a risk of transmission of bloodborne diseases such as HIV and hepatitis.

Unsafe injection practices contribute to the spread of bloodborne diseases, especially in less-developed countries. To combat this, safety syringes exist which contain features to prevent accidental needlestick injury and reuse of the syringe after it is used once. Furthermore, recreational drug users who use injections to administer the drugs commonly share or reuse needles after an injection. This has led to the development of needle exchange programs and safe injection sites as a public health measure, which may provide new, sterile syringes and needles to discourage the reuse of syringes and needles. Used needles should ideally be placed in a purpose-made sharps container which is safe and resistant to puncture. Some locations provide free disposal programs for such containers for their citizens.

Types

[edit]
Needle insertion angles for 4 types of injection: intramuscular, subcutaneous, intravenous, and intradermal

Injections are classified in multiple ways, including the type of tissue being injected into, the location in the body the injection is designed to produce effects, and the duration of the effects. Regardless of classification, injections require a puncture to be made, thus requiring sterile environments and procedures to minimize the risk of introducing pathogens into the body. All injections are considered forms of parenteral administration, which avoids the first pass metabolism which would potentially affect a medication absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract.

Systemic

[edit]

Many injections are designed to administer a medication which has an effect throughout the body. Systemic injections may be used when a person cannot take medicine by mouth, or when the medication itself would not be absorbed into circulation from the gastrointestinal tract. Medications administered via a systemic injection will enter into blood circulation, either directly or indirectly, and thus will have an effect on the entire body.

Intravenous

[edit]
Main article: Intravenous therapy

Intravenous injections, abbreviated as IV, involve inserting a needle into a vein, allowing a substance to be delivered directly into the bloodstream.[4] An intravenous injection provides the quickest onset of the desired effects because the substance immediately enters the blood, and is quickly circulated to the rest of the body.[5] Because the substance is administered directly into the bloodstream, there is no delay in the onset of effects due to the absorption of the substance into the bloodstream. This type of injection is the most common and is used frequently for administration of medications in an inpatient setting.

Another use for intravenous injections includes for the administration of nutrition to people who cannot get nutrition through the digestive tract. This is termed parenteral nutrition and may provide all or only part of a person's nutritional requirements. Parenteral nutrition may be pre-mixed or customized for a person's specific needs.[6] Intravenous injections may also be used for recreational drugs when a rapid onset of effects is desired.[7][8]

Intramuscular

[edit]
Main article: Intramuscular injection

Intramuscular injections, abbreviated as IM, deliver a substance deep into a muscle, where they are quickly absorbed by the blood vessels into systemic circulation. Common injection sites include the deltoid, vastus lateralis, and ventrogluteal muscles.[9] Medical professionals are trained to give IM injections, but people who are not medical professionals can also be trained to administer medications like epinephrine using an autoinjector in an emergency.[10] Some depot injections are also administered intramuscularly, including medroxyprogesterone acetate among others.[11] In addition to medications, most inactivated vaccines, including the influenza vaccine, are given as an IM injection.[12]

Subcutaneous

[edit]
Main article: Subcutaneous injection

Subcutaneous injections, abbreviated as SC or sub-Q, consist of injecting a substance via a needle under the skin.[13] Absorption of the medicine from this tissue is slower than in an intramuscular injection. Since the needle does not need to penetrate to the level of the muscle, a thinner and shorter needle can be used. Subcutaneous injections may be administered in the fatty tissue behind the upper arm, in the abdomen, or in the thigh. Certain medications, including epinephrine, may be used either intramuscularly or subcutaneously.[14] Others, such as insulin, are almost exclusively injected subcutaneously. Live or attenuated vaccines, including the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps, rubella), varicella vaccine (chickenpox), and zoster vaccine (shingles) are also injected subcutaneously.[15]

Intradermal

[edit]
Main article: Intradermal injection
A tuberculin sensitivity test being administered intradermally

Intradermal injections, abbreviated as ID, consist of a substance delivered into the dermis, the layer of skin above the subcutaneous fat layer, but below the epidermis or top layer. An intradermal injection is administered with the needle placed almost flat against the skin, at a 5 to 15 degree angle.[16] Absorption from an intradermal injection takes longer than when the injection is given intravenously, intramuscularly, or subcutaneously. For this reason, few medications are administered intradermally. Intradermal injections are most commonly used for sensitivity tests, including tuberculin skin tests and allergy tests, as well as sensitivity tests to medications a person has never had before. The reactions caused by tests which use intradermal injection are more easily seen due to the location of the injection, and when positive will present as a red or swollen area. Common sites of intradermal injections include the forearm and lower back.[16]

Intraosseous

[edit]
Main article: Intraosseous infusion

An intraosseous injection or infusion is the act of administering medication through a needle inserted into the bone marrow of a large bone. This method of administration is only used when it is not possible to maintain access through a less invasive method such as an intravenous line, either due to frequent loss of access due to a collapsed vessel, or due to the difficulty of finding a suitable vein to use in the first place.[17] Intraosseous access is commonly obtained by inserting a needle into the bone marrow of the humerus or tibia, and is generally only considered once multiple attempts at intravenous access have failed, as it is a more invasive method of administration than an IV.[17] With the exception of occasional differences in the accuracy of blood tests when drawn from an intraosseous line, it is considered to be equivalent in efficacy to IV access. It is most commonly used in emergency situations where there is not ample time to repeatedly attempt to obtain IV access, or in younger people for whom obtaining IV access is more difficult.[17][18]

Localized

[edit]

Injections may be performed into specific parts of the body when the medication's effects are desired to be limited to a specific location, or where systemic administration would produce undesirable side effects which may be avoided by a more directed injection.

Injections to the corpus cavernosum of the penis, termed intracavernous injections, may be used to treat conditions which are localized to the penis. They can be self-administered for erectile dysfunction prior to intercourse or used in a healthcare setting for emergency treatment for a prolonged erection with an injection to either remove blood from the penis or to administer a sympathomimetic medication to reduce the erection.[19] Intracavernosal injections of alprostadil may be used by people for whom other treatments such as PDE5 inhibitors are ineffective or contraindicated. Other medications may also be administered in this way, including papaverine, phentolamine, and aviptadil.[20] The most common adverse effects of intercavernosal injections include fibrosis and pain, as well as hematomas or bruising around the injection site.[20]

Medications may also be administered by injecting them directly into the vitreous humor of the eye. This is termed an intravitreal injection, and may be used to treat endophthalmitis (an infection of the inner eye), macular degeneration, and macular edema.[21] An intravitreal injection is performed by injecting a medication through the pupil into the vitreous humor core of the eye after applying a local anesthetic drop to numb the eye and a mydriatic drop to dilate the pupil. They are commonly used in lieu of systemic administration to both increase the concentrations present in the eye, as well as avoid systemic side effects of medications.[21]

When an effect is only required in one joint, a joint injection (or intra-articular injection) may be administered into the articular space surrounding the joint. These injections can range from a one-time dose of a steroid to help with pain and inflammation to complete replacement of the synovial fluid with a compound such as hyaluronic acid.[22] The injection of a steroid into a joint is used to reduce inflammation associated with conditions such as osteoarthritis, and the effects may last for up to 6 months following a single injection.[22] Hyaluronic acid injection is used to supplement the body's natural synovial fluid and decrease the friction and stiffness of the joint.[22] Administering a joint injection[23] generally involves the use of an ultrasound or other live imaging technique to ensure the injection is administered in the desired location, as well as to reduce the risk of damaging surrounding tissues.[24]

Long-acting

[edit]

Long-acting injectable (LAI) formulations of medications are not intended to have a rapid effect, but instead release a medication at a predictable rate continuously over a period of time. Both depot injections and solid injectable implants are used to increase adherence to therapy by reducing the frequency at which a person must take a medication.[25]: 3 

Depot

[edit]
Main article: Depot injection

A depot injection is an injection, usually subcutaneous, intradermal, or intramuscular, that deposits a drug in a localized mass, called a depot, from which it is gradually absorbed by surrounding tissue. Such injection allows the active compound to be released in a consistent way over a long period.[26] Depot injections are usually either oil-based or an aqueous suspension. Depot injections may be available as certain salt forms of a drug, such as decanoate salts or esters. Examples of depot injections include haloperidol decanoate, medroxyprogesterone acetate,[26] and naltrexone.[27]

Implant

[edit]
Main article: Implant (medicine)

Injections may also be used to insert a solid or semi-solid into the body which releases a medication slowly over time. These implants are generally designed to be temporary, replaceable, and ultimately removed at the end of their use or when replaced. There are multiple contraceptive implants marketed for different active ingredients, as well as differing duration of action - most of these are injected under the skin.[28] A form of buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid dependence is also available as an injectable implant.[29] Various materials can be used to manufacture implants including biodegradable polymers, osmotic release systems, and small spheres which dissolve in the body.[25]: 4, 185, 335 

Adverse effects

[edit]

Pain

[edit]

The act of piercing the skin with a needle, while necessary for an injection, also may cause localized pain. The most common technique to reduce the pain of an injection is simply to distract the person receiving the injection. Pain may be dampened by prior application of ice or topical anesthetic, or pinching of the skin while giving the injection. Some studies also suggest that forced coughing during an injection stimulates a transient rise in blood pressure which inhibits the perception of pain.[30] For some injections, especially deeper injections, a local anesthetic is given.[30] When giving an injection to young children or infants, they may be distracted by giving them a small amount of sweet liquid, such as sugar solution,[31] or be comforted by breastfeeding[32] during the injection, which reduces crying.

Infection

[edit]

A needle tract infection, also called a needlestick infection, is an infection that occurs when pathogens are inadvertently introduced into the tissues of the body during an injection. Contamination of the needle used for injection, or reuse of needles for injections in multiple people, can lead to transmission of hepatitis B and C, HIV, and other bloodstream infections.[33][34][35] Injection drug users have high rates of unsafe needle use including sharing needles between people.[36] The spread of HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C from injection drug use is a common health problem,[37] in particular contributing to over half of new HIV cases in North America in 1994.[7]

Other infections may occur when pathogens enter the body through the injection site, most commonly due to improper cleaning of the site before injection. Infections occurring in this way are mainly localized infections, including skin infections, skin structure infections, abscesses, or gangrene.[38] An intravenous injection may also result in a bloodstream infection (termed sepsis) if the injection site is not cleaned properly prior to insertion. Sepsis is a life-threatening condition which requires immediate treatment.[16]: 358, 373 

Others

[edit]

Injections into the skin and soft tissue generally do not cause any permanent damage, and the puncture heals within a few days. However, in some cases, injections can cause long-term adverse effects. Intravenous and intramuscular injections may cause damage to a nerve, leading to palsy or paralysis. Intramuscular injections may cause fibrosis or contracture.[39] Injections also cause localized bleeding, which may lead to a hematoma. Intravenous injections may also cause phlebitis, especially when multiple injections are given in a vein over a short period of time.[40] Infiltration and extravasation may also occur when a medication intended to be injected into a vein is inadvertently injected into surrounding tissues.[41] Those who are afraid of needles may also experience fainting at the sight of a needle, or before or after an injection.[42]

Technique

[edit]

Proper needle use is important to perform injections safely,[43] which includes the use of a new, sterile needle for each injection. This is partly because needles get duller with each use and partly because reusing needles increases risk of infection. Needles should not be shared between people, as this increases risk of transmitting blood-borne pathogens. The practice of using the same needle for multiple people increases the risk of disease transmission between people sharing the same medication.[43] In addition, it is not recommended to reuse a used needle to pierce a medication bag, bottle, or ampule designed to provide multiple doses of a medication, instead a new needle should be used each time the container must be pierced. Aseptic technique should always be practiced when administering injections. This includes the use of barriers including gloves, gowns, and masks for health care providers. It also requires the use of a new, sterile needle, syringe and other equipment for each injection, as well as proper training to avoid touching non-sterile surfaces with sterile items.[13]

To help prevent accidental needlestick injury to the person administering the injection, and prevent reuse of the syringe for another injection, a safety syringe and needle may be used.[44] The most basic reuse prevention device is an "auto-disable" plunger, which once pressed past a certain point will no longer retract. Another common safety feature is an auto-retractable needle, where the needle is spring-loaded and either retracts into the syringe after injection, or into a plastic sheath on the side of the syringe. Other safety syringes have an attached sheath which may be moved to cover the end of the needle after the injection is given.[44] The World Health Organization recommends the use of single-use syringes with both reuse prevention devices and a needlestick injury prevention mechanism for all injections to prevent accidental injury and disease transmission.[44]

Novel injection techniques include drug diffusion within the skin using needle-free micro-jet injection (NFI) technology.[45][46]

Disposal of used needles

[edit]

Used needles should be disposed of in specifically designed sharps containers to reduce the risk of accidental needle sticks and exposure to other people.[47] In addition, a new sharps container should be begun once it is 3⁄4 full. A sharps container which is 3⁄4 filled should be sealed properly to prevent re-opening or accidental opening during transportation.[48] Some locations offer publicly accessible "sharps take-back" programs where a sharps container may be dropped off to a public location for safe disposal at no fee to the person. In addition, some pharmaceutical and independent companies provide mail-back sharps programs, sometimes for an additional fee.[48] In the United States, there are 39 states that offer programs to provide needle or syringe exchange.[49]

Over half of non-industrialized countries report open burning of disposed or used syringes. This practice is considered unsafe by the World Health Organization.[2]

Aspiration

[edit]

The aspiration is the technique of pulling back on the plunger of a syringe prior to the actual injection. If blood flows into the syringe it signals that a blood vessel has been hit.[50]

Society and culture

[edit]

Due to the prevalence of unsafe injection practices, especially among injection drug users, many locations have begun offering supervised injection sites and needle exchange programs, which may be offered separately or colocated. These programs may provide new sterile needles upon request to mitigate infection risk, and some also provide access to on-site clinicians and emergency medical care if it becomes required. In the event of an overdose, a site may also provide medications such as naloxone, used as an antidote in opioid overdose situations, or other antidotes or emergency care. Safe injection site have been associated with lower rates of death from overdose, less ambulance calls, and lower rates of new HIV infections from unsafe needle practices.[51]

As of 2024, at least ten countries currently offer safe injection sites, including Australia, Canada, the United States, Denmark, France, Germany, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Switzerland. In total, there are at least 120 sites operating.[52][53]

Plants and animals

[edit]

Many species of animals use injections for self-defence or catching prey. This includes venomous snakes which inject venom when they bite into the skin with their fangs. Common substances present in snake venom include neurotoxins, toxic proteins, and cytotoxic enzymes. Different species of snakes inject different formulations of venom, which may cause severe pain and necrosis before progressing into neurotoxicity and potentially death.[54] The weever is a type of fish which has venomous spines covering its fins and gills and injects a venom consisting of proteins which cause a severe local reaction which is not life-threatening.[55] Sting rays use their spinal blade to inject a protein-based venom which causes localized cell death but is not generally life-threatening.[56]

Some types of insects also utilize injection for various purposes. Bees use a stinger located in their hind region to inject a venom consisting of proteins such as melittin, which causes a localized painful and itching reaction.[57] Leeches can inject an anticoagulant peptide called hirudin after attaching to prevent blood from clotting during feeding. This property of leeches has been used historically as a natural form of anticoagulation therapy, as well as for the use of bloodletting as a treatment for various ailments.[58] Some species of ants inject forms of venom which include compounds which produce minor pain such as the formic acid, which is injected by members of the Formicinae subfamily.[59] Other species of ants, including Dinoponera species, inject protein-based venom which causes severe pain but is still not life-threatening.[60] The bullet ant (Paraponera clavata) injects a venom which contains a neurotoxin named poneratoxin which causes extreme pain, fever, and cold sweats, and may cause arrhythmias.[61]

Plants may use a form of injection which is passive, where the injectee pushes themselves against the stationary needle. The stinging nettle plant has many trichomes, or stinging hairs, over its leaves and stems which are used to inject a mix of irritating chemicals which includes histamine, serotonin, and acetylcholine. This sting produces a form of dermatitis which is characterized by a stinging, burning, and itching sensation in the area.[62] Dendrocnide species, also called stinging trees, use their trichomes to inject a mix of neurotoxic peptides which causes a reaction similar to the stinging nettle, but also may result in recurring flares for a much longer period after the injection.[63] While some plants have thorns, spines, and prickles, these generally are not used for injection of any substance, but instead it is the act of piercing the skin which causes them to be a deterrent.[64]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Injection (medicine)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In medicine, an injection is the administration of a medication or other substance directly into the body via a hypodermic needle and syringe, bypassing the gastrointestinal tract to enable rapid systemic absorption or localized effects. This parenteral route, which includes tissues or the circulatory system, is widely used for therapeutic, prophylactic, and diagnostic purposes, such as delivering vaccines, insulin, antibiotics, and contrast agents. Developed in the mid-19th century with the invention of the modern hypodermic syringe by figures including Alexander Wood and Charles Pravaz around 1853, injections revolutionized pharmacology by allowing precise dosing of potent drugs like morphine that could not be effectively taken orally.08101-1/fulltext) Common types encompass intravenous (into veins for immediate bloodstream entry), intramuscular (into muscle for sustained release), subcutaneous (into fatty tissue under the skin for slower absorption), and intradermal (into the for diagnostic tests like tuberculosis screening). While injections provide benefits such as high and avoidance of first-pass , they carry risks including local pain, tissue damage, and if aseptic techniques are not followed, as evidenced by historical outbreaks from reused needles. Proper adherence to safe injection practices—sterile equipment, single-use needles, and correct site selection—minimizes these hazards and underpins their routine safety in clinical settings.

History

Early Concepts and Pre-Modern Practices

The practice of introducing medicinal substances directly into the body, bypassing the oral route, originated in ancient civilizations through rectal enemas, recognized as an early form of injection for therapeutic evacuation and drug delivery. In , around 1550 BCE, the documents the use of rectal infusions of herbal mixtures, oils, and honey-based solutions to treat ailments like and parasites, often employing animal bladders or gourds as reservoirs connected to reeds or tubes. Similar clyster devices, powered by bellows or manual pressure, were employed in ancient Sumeria, , , and by the first millennium BCE for purgative and nutritive purposes, reflecting an empirical understanding of rapid absorption via mucosal surfaces. These methods, while effective for localized effects, carried risks of and due to crude apparatus and unrefined fluids. By the first century CE, Greco-Roman surgeons advanced proto-injection techniques using animal bladders and s as rudimentary syringes to irrigate wounds or deliver antidotes, as described in texts by and , who advocated direct fluid administration for faster action compared to ingestion. However, systemic vascular injection remained unexplored until the 17th century, spurred by anatomical discoveries of circulation by in 1628. In 1656, English scientist , assisted by , pioneered intravenous experiments by inserting a goose into a dog's , attaching it to a pig's filled with dissolved in alcohol, wine, or ale, and squeezing to inject; the animal exhibited rapid without immediate lethality, demonstrating circulatory drug distribution. These trials, repeated on multiple dogs, confirmed dose-dependent effects like and intoxication, though from quill fragments and often proved fatal. Human applications followed cautiously amid high mortality. In 1662, German physician Johann Major administered the first recorded intravenous injection to a human—a young woman receiving opium, sulfur, and sal ammoniac—intending therapeutic relief, but she died hours later from likely air embolism or toxicity. Earlier unverified reports cite a 1642 experiment by a German servant using a similar quill-and-bladder setup for intravenous wine infusion, but documentation is sparse and outcomes unknown. Pre-modern practitioners, lacking antisepsis and refined needles, viewed such injections as experimental hazards, primarily confined to animal studies or desperate cases, foreshadowing modern parenteral therapy's potential while underscoring infection and mechanical risks.

Invention of the Hypodermic Syringe

The development of the hypodermic syringe in the mid-19th century enabled precise subcutaneous delivery of medications, building on earlier rudimentary injection attempts. In 1844, Irish physician Francis Rynd devised the first hollow needle for continuous subcutaneous infusion, treating in a by inserting a connected to a reservoir of morphia solution, though it lacked a mechanism for controlled administration.08101-1/fulltext) The modern hypodermic syringe emerged independently in 1853 through the work of Scottish physician Alexander Wood and French surgeon Charles Gabriel Pravaz. Wood constructed a device with a barrel, , and attached hollow needle, initially to inject sulfate subcutaneously for pain relief, reportedly administering the first such dose to his wife. Pravaz, seeking to treat aneurysms, created a silver syringe fitted with a lancet-pointed needle to deliver hemostatic agents like extract directly into vascular lesions in animal models.08101-1/fulltext) Wood's syringe represented the first practical integration of a syringe and needle for therapeutic drug injection, facilitating localized effects without gastrointestinal absorption, and is widely regarded as the foundational hypodermic device due to its application in pharmacology. Pravaz's contemporaneous innovation emphasized surgical utility, but both advanced the principle of hypodermic administration, with Wood's version gaining prominence for human medicinal use by 1855. The term "hypodermic" was later formalized in 1858 by Charles Hunter to distinguish subcutaneous injection from intravenous methods. Early limitations included imprecise dosing and risks from non-sterile materials, but these inventions laid the groundwork for widespread adoption in by the late 1850s.

Expansion in the 19th and 20th Centuries

The hypodermic , introduced by Scottish physician Alexander Wood in 1853, enabled subcutaneous injection of for localized pain relief, marking the initial expansion of injection therapy beyond rudimentary methods. This innovation, independently developed around the same time by Charles Pravaz with a , facilitated precise under the skin, reducing systemic side effects compared to . By the late , became more refined, with the all-glass Luer model patented in , improving accuracy and sterilization. During the (1861–1865), hypodermic gained limited military use for injecting opiates to manage battlefield injuries, though widespread adoption lagged due to supply constraints and practitioner unfamiliarity. In civilian medicine, injections proliferated for various analgesics and stimulants, including and , as syringe production scaled in and the . The advent of in the 1880s–1890s further propelled expansion, with subcutaneous administration of antitoxins for (developed by in 1890) and Koch's test in 1890 demonstrating injections' role in . The 20th century saw injections transform into indispensable therapies, beginning with the 1922 clinical use of injected insulin by Frederick Banting and Charles Best to treat type 1 diabetes, enabling survival where none had existed before. World War I accelerated intravenous and intramuscular techniques for rapid delivery of anesthetics and prophylactics like tetanus antitoxin. The 1940s breakthrough with penicillin, mass-produced from Alexander Fleming's 1928 discovery and administered via injection, revolutionized infection control, saving countless lives in World War II through intramuscular and intravenous routes. Concurrently, vaccine development expanded injection's public health impact, with BCG tuberculosis vaccine introduced in 1921 and inactivated polio vaccine in 1955, alongside routine immunization programs scaling intramuscular shots for diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus by mid-century.

Post-WWII Developments and Standardization

Following World War II, wartime mass production of hypodermic needles and syringes for administering penicillin and morphine continued to influence civilian medicine, enabling broader availability and scalability in healthcare settings. The shift from reusable glass syringes, which necessitated time-consuming sterilization via boiling or autoclaving, accelerated with the introduction of disposable designs to mitigate infection risks from inadequate cleaning. In the late 1940s, inventor Arthur E. Smith secured multiple U.S. patents for disposable glass syringes, marking an early step toward single-use devices. The pivotal advancement came in 1956 when pharmacist Colin Murdoch patented the first fully disposable syringe, constructed with a barrel, plunger, and attached metal needle, facilitating inexpensive and inherent sterility for each use. This innovation, commercialized in the mid-1950s, rapidly supplanted reusable systems in hospitals and clinics, coinciding with expanded injection-based therapies such as the 1955 Salk campaigns that administered millions of doses. Concurrently, needle manufacturing improved with alloys, yielding sharper, more corrosion-resistant tips that enhanced penetration and reduced tissue trauma compared to earlier silver or steel variants. Standardization emerged through refined specifications for volumes, needle gauges, and fittings, building on the 19th-century Birmingham wire gauge system—formally recognized in Britain by 1884—which defined needle diameters inversely by gauge number (higher numbers indicating thinner needles). Post-war medical bodies and manufacturers adopted consistent Luer-lock connectors for secure needle-syringe attachment, minimizing leaks and disconnections during administration. These protocols, coupled with growing emphasis on aseptic techniques, laid groundwork for later international guidelines, though formal WHO injection safety standards, including auto-disable syringes, did not materialize until the 1990s amid campaigns. By the 1960s, disposable plastic syringes dominated, supporting precise dosing in intravenous, intramuscular, and subcutaneous routes while curbing nosocomial infections.

Definition and Principles

Fundamental Mechanisms

Injection delivers a liquid of a directly into body tissues, cavities, or the vascular system using a and , enabling rapid or controlled entry into the bloodstream while circumventing gastrointestinal barriers and hepatic first-pass . The process begins with mechanical penetration of the skin or tissue by the needle, creating a temporary pathway, followed by application of pressure via the to deposit the solution into the targeted compartment, such as interstitial space or a . This direct deposition results in higher compared to oral routes, as the avoids degradation by or enzymatic breakdown in the gut, with absorption rates varying by injection site and properties. Pharmacokinetically, the core mechanism post-injection involves absorption, where drug molecules diffuse from the injection site across concentration gradients into capillaries or lymphatics, governed by passive processes like simple for lipophilic compounds or facilitated for others. For intravenous injections, absorption is instantaneous as the drug enters the bloodstream directly, achieving immediate peak plasma concentrations, whereas extravascular routes (e.g., intramuscular or subcutaneous) rely on local and tissue barriers, leading to slower, rate-limited uptake proportional to blood flow—muscle tissue absorbs faster than subcutaneous fat due to greater vascular . Factors influencing this include drug in aqueous or phases, molecular , ionization state at physiological pH (typically 7.4), and formulation additives like that enhance or stability. Depot formulations, such as oil-based suspensions, prolong release by slowing dissolution, extending the absorption phase over hours to days. Once absorbed, distribution follows, with the drug binding to plasma proteins (e.g., ) or partitioning into tissues based on and , while primarily occurs via hepatic enzymes like , and via renal filtration or biliary routes. This framework underscores injection's efficiency for emergencies or labile drugs, but risks include from air or particulates in intravenous delivery and local irritation from pH mismatches or osmolarity exceeding tissue norms (ideally 280–300 mOsm/L). Empirical studies confirm that injection yield predictable plasma profiles, with nearing 100% for intravenous routes versus 70–90% for intramuscular in aqueous solutions.

Pharmacokinetic Advantages Over Other Routes

Intravenous (IV) administration achieves 100% by delivering the drug directly into the systemic circulation, bypassing gastrointestinal absorption barriers and hepatic first-pass that can reduce oral drug by 20-90% depending on the compound. This direct entry ensures predictable , with plasma concentrations rising immediately upon injection, enabling rapid therapeutic effects critical for emergencies such as or , where oral routes would delay onset by 30-60 minutes or more due to dissolution and absorption variability. Parenteral routes like intramuscular (IM) and subcutaneous (SC) injections offer bioavailability typically ranging from 60-100%, superior to many oral formulations affected by pH-dependent degradation, enzymatic breakdown in the gut, or interactions with that can halve absorption rates for drugs like penicillin G. These routes avoid the first-pass effect, preserving active drug moieties that would otherwise undergo extensive liver —e.g., morphine's oral bioavailability is only about 20-30% versus near-complete via IM due to . Moreover, injections enable sustained release through depot formulations, maintaining steady-state levels over days or weeks, as seen with long-acting antipsychotics where adherence is improved over daily oral dosing prone to missed intakes. Compared to topical, inhaled, or alternatives, injections provide more consistent distribution for hydrophilic or high-molecular-weight drugs that poorly penetrate or mucosal barriers, reducing interpatient variability in absorption influenced by factors like thickness or . For instance, IV insulin achieves precise glycemic control faster than subcutaneous absorption variability in diabetics, avoiding delays from subcutaneous tissue differences. While non-IV injections may introduce minor absorption delays (e.g., 15-30 minutes for versus instantaneous IV), they still outperform enteral routes in scenarios requiring reliable dosing amid or gastrointestinal dysfunction, such as postoperative care.

Comparison to Oral and Other Administration Methods

![FlattenedRoundPills.jpg][float-right] Injections provide pharmacokinetic advantages over primarily by bypassing the and first-pass hepatic metabolism, enabling higher and more rapid for many medications. Intravenous injections achieve nearly 100% , whereas oral routes often result in lower due to incomplete absorption, enzymatic degradation, or extensive first-pass effects, with some drugs exhibiting as little as 20-30% . For instance, subcutaneous and intramuscular injections typically yield 60-100% , contrasting with oral forms where variability from intake or can reduce predictability. This makes injections preferable for drugs unstable in or requiring precise dosing, such as insulin or certain antibiotics. The onset of therapeutic effects is significantly faster with injections compared to oral , which must undergo dissolution, absorption, and distribution processes delaying peak plasma levels by 30 minutes to several hours. Parenteral routes, especially intravenous, can produce immediate effects, critical in emergencies like or . Oral administration, while convenient for self-use and non-invasive, suits chronic conditions where rapid action is unnecessary but patient compliance is prioritized. Despite these benefits, injections entail higher risks including at the site, formation, and the need for sterile technique and trained personnel, unlike oral methods which pose minimal procedural hazards beyond gastrointestinal upset. Oral routes also allow easier long-term adherence without medical supervision, though they may require higher doses to compensate for lower . Compared to other non-oral routes, injections offer broader systemic delivery than topical applications, which primarily provide localized effects with limited absorption (often <10% for intact skin), or inhalation, which achieves rapid pulmonary uptake but is confined to respiratory-targeted drugs like bronchodilators. Rectal administration serves as an enteral alternative to oral for patients with vomiting, partially avoiding first-pass metabolism via inferior rectal veins, yet it yields variable absorption and lower patient acceptance than injections for systemic needs. Overall, route selection balances efficacy, speed, and safety, with injections favored when oral or alternative methods fail to deliver adequate plasma concentrations.
Administration RouteTypical BioavailabilityOnset of ActionKey AdvantagesKey Disadvantages
Intravenous Injection~100%ImmediateRapid, precise dosing; bypasses absorption barriersRisk of embolism, infection; requires venous access
OralVariable (20-100%)30 min - 2 hoursConvenient, self-administrableFirst-pass effect, GI variability
InhalationHigh for lungs (50-100% pulmonary)Rapid (minutes)Targeted respiratory deliveryLimited systemic use; device dependency
TopicalLow systemic (<10%)Slow for systemicLocalized effect, minimal side effectsPoor penetration for most drugs
Rectal50-100%15-30 minAlternative to oral in nauseaVariable absorption, discomfort

Routes of Administration

Intravenous Injection

Intravenous (IV) injection delivers medications, fluids, electrolytes, blood products, or nutrients directly into a , enabling rapid systemic distribution via the bloodstream. This route is indicated for scenarios requiring immediate therapeutic effects, such as emergencies, severe dehydration, or when gastrointestinal absorption is impaired or bypassed for first-pass metabolism. It supports administration of larger volumes and irritant substances that could damage other tissues. Pharmacokinetically, IV injection achieves 100% bioavailability, as the entire dose enters circulation without losses from absorption barriers or hepatic metabolism. Onset is instantaneous for bolus injections, with plasma concentrations controllable via infusion rates, allowing precise titration to patient needs. Compared to oral routes, it avoids variability from gut pH, motility, or food interactions, ensuring consistent delivery. Techniques distinguish peripheral from central access. Peripheral IV cannulation targets superficial veins in the antecubital fossa, forearm, or hand for short-term use (typically under 96 hours), using 18-22 gauge catheters. Central venous access, via catheters like peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) or non-tunneled central lines, reaches larger veins near the heart for prolonged therapy, vesicant drugs, or when peripheral veins are inaccessible. PICCs are inserted peripherally but advanced to the superior vena cava. Administration follows aseptic protocols: prepare equipment sterilely, select site, apply tourniquet, insert bevel-up at 15-30 degrees, advance until flashback, secure catheter, and flush with saline before drug delivery. Bolus injections are pushed slowly over 2-5 minutes to prevent rapid peaks; infusions use gravity or pumps for steady rates. Monitoring includes site inspection for patency and vital signs during infusion. Complications arise from mechanical, infectious, or pharmacological factors. Local issues include phlebitis (vein inflammation, incidence 20-80% in peripherals), infiltration (fluid leakage causing swelling), and extravasation (vesicant tissue damage). Systemic risks encompass bacteremia, thrombosis, air embolism (from bubbles >0.5 mL), and . Risk factors include poor technique, prolonged dwell time, and patient factors like or ; mitigation involves site rotation, securement, and prompt removal.

Intramuscular Injection

An intramuscular injection delivers directly into the muscular tissue, leveraging the rich vascular supply of muscles for absorption. This route is selected for drugs requiring rapid onset without the need for intravenous access, such as certain vaccines, antibiotics, and hormones. Common administration sites include the of the upper arm for adults, the vastus lateralis of the thigh, and the ventrogluteal region of the hip, with the dorsogluteal site increasingly avoided due to higher risk of injury. The procedure involves inserting the needle at a 90-degree angle to ensure penetration into the muscle belly, with needle lengths typically ranging from 25 (1 inch) for deltoid injections in adults to longer gauges (up to 38 or 1.5 inches) for larger patients or alternative sites to reach sufficient depth. Maximum volumes vary by site: up to 2-3 mL in the deltoid, 5 mL in the , and 1-2 mL in the vastus lateralis for infants. The Z-track technique, involving lateral displacement of the skin before insertion, is recommended to minimize medication leakage along the tract. Aspiration to check for blood is traditional but often omitted for vaccine administration per guidelines from bodies like the CDC, as it does not reduce complications and may increase pain. Pharmacokinetically, intramuscular injections provide faster and more uniform absorption than subcutaneous routes due to greater in muscle tissue, leading to quicker onset compared to oral or subcutaneous methods, though slower than intravenous delivery. This makes IM suitable for aqueous solutions needing prompt action, with absorption rates influenced by factors like and muscle mass. Potential complications include localized pain, redness, or swelling at the site, as well as rarer issues like , , or if improper sites or techniques are used. Guidelines emphasize site selection based on patient age, , and sex to optimize depth and minimize risks, with ultrasound studies indicating that standard 25 mm may insufficiently reach muscle in some obese individuals.

Subcutaneous Injection

Subcutaneous injection delivers medication into the hypodermis, the layer beneath the and above the muscle . This route leverages the relatively low of for sustained drug release and absorption rates slower than those achieved via intramuscular or intravenous administration, typically resulting in peak plasma concentrations delayed by hours rather than minutes. Absorption variability arises from factors such as injection site blood flow, drug , and patient-specific tissue characteristics, with rates generally ranging from erratic to predictable for hydrophilic compounds. The technique employs fine-gauge needles, commonly 25- to 31-gauge with lengths of 4-12.7 mm, to minimize tissue trauma. is pinched to elevate the subcutaneous layer, and the needle is inserted at a 45-degree angle for patients with limited or 90 degrees when sufficient fat allows perpendicular entry without risking intramuscular deposition. Aspiration is not routinely required, as vascular penetration is unlikely, and injection proceeds slowly to reduce discomfort. Standard maximum volume per site is 1-1.5 mL to avoid excessive pressure and pain, though clinical studies have demonstrated tolerability for volumes up to 4-5 mL in select applications with extended infusion times. Preferred sites include the (at least 5 cm from the umbilicus), anterior thighs, and upper arms, selected for adequate thickness and ease of access while avoiding areas with scars, bruises, or . Rotation of sites prevents , a localized accumulation from repeated insulin administration that can impair absorption. Indications encompass medications benefiting from depot-like release, such as insulin analogs, low-molecular-weight heparins for anticoagulation, epinephrine auto-injectors for , and certain vaccines like measles-mumps-rubella. This route suits chronic therapies requiring patient self-administration due to simplicity and reduced risk of vascular complications compared to deeper injections. Adverse effects include localized pain, , and swelling, with incidence varying by drug viscosity and injection speed; biological agents may provoke injection-site reactions in up to 20-30% of cases. risk is minimized by sterile technique, but improper site selection or reuse can lead to abscesses or erratic .

Intradermal Injection

Intradermal injection involves administering a small volume of fluid into the layer of the skin, immediately beneath the . This route targets the dense network of antigen-presenting cells, such as Langerhans cells and dendritic cells, in the skin to elicit localized immune responses. Typical volumes range from 0.01 to 0.1 mL, using a syringe with a 25- to 27-gauge needle inserted at a 5- to 15-degree angle to form a visible wheal or bleb approximately 6 to 10 mm in diameter. The technique requires precise shallow insertion to avoid deeper penetration into , with common sites including the inner for tuberculin testing or the deltoid region for vaccines like BCG. Successful administration is confirmed by the immediate formation of a pale, dome-shaped bleb at the injection site, which disperses if deeper layers are inadvertently reached. Primary indications include diagnostic tests such as the Mantoux tuberculin skin test for exposure, intradermal testing for identifying specific allergens, and certain vaccines including post-exposure prophylaxis and fractional doses of inactivated poliovirus vaccine. Advantages of intradermal injection stem from the skin's immunological potency, potentially requiring lower doses to achieve immune responses comparable to intramuscular administration, as evidenced by studies showing similar titers in adults aged 18-60 years for certain . This efficiency can reduce costs and conserve supplies during shortages, with modeling indicating economic benefits for scalable programs. However, the method demands skilled execution due to the shallow depth and small volume, limiting its use to applications where local reactions are diagnostic or immunogenic. Complications are generally minimal but include localized pain, , bruising, or bleeding at the site, with rare instances of , formation, or scarring. Unlike deeper injections, systemic absorption is slow, reducing risks of rapid adverse reactions but also restricting it to non-emergency, low-volume therapeutics.

Intraosseous Injection

Intraosseous injection, also known as , delivers medications, fluids, or blood products directly into the cavity via a specialized needle inserted into a long bone's medullary space, leveraging the marrow's vascular network for systemic distribution comparable to intravenous access. This route was first described in 1922 by Harvard physician Cecil K. Drinker for accessing noncollapsible venous plexuses in animal models, with human therapeutic use reported in 1933 for sternal injections of liver extract in uremic patients. Its application expanded during for battlefield resuscitation but waned post-war with intravenous advancements, reviving in the 1980s via powered devices amid recognition of its efficacy in pediatric emergencies. Indicated primarily in acute settings where peripheral intravenous access fails or delays threaten outcomes, such as , , trauma, or severe , intraosseous access proves particularly valuable in infants and children due to smaller veins but cancellous bone structure facilitating entry. Guidelines from organizations like the endorse it for rapid vascular access within minutes when intravenous attempts exceed 90-120 seconds, with first-attempt success rates reaching 87-96% using devices like the EZ-IO system, often surpassing peripheral intravenous efforts in prehospital trauma ( for success: 2.98). Common insertion sites include the proximal (anteromedial surface, 1-3 cm distal to tibial tuberosity), proximal , or distal , selected based on patient and clinical stability to minimize risk in osteoporotic or elderly individuals. The procedure entails skin disinfection, local anesthesia if feasible, perpendicular needle advancement with a twisting motion (manual) or powered until loss of resistance signals cortical penetration, followed by aspiration of marrow for confirmation, a 5-10 mL saline to clear the needle, and securement with dressings. Flow rates approximate 20-60 mL/min for adults with bags, enabling of crystalloids, colloids, and products, though hypertonic or particulate solutions (e.g., certain antibiotics) risk marrow infiltration and are contraindicated. Most emergency medications, including epinephrine, , atropine, and antibiotics, achieve plasma concentrations akin to intravenous routes, albeit with 1.4-2.5-fold delays to peak levels due to marrow filtration. While intraosseous access circumvents venous collapse in shock states, providing pharmacokinetic equivalence for drugs in pediatric models, adult trials reveal no 30-day survival advantage over intravenous routes and potential associations with lower (odds ratio 0.79) and neurological outcomes. Complications, occurring in <1% of cases with proper technique, encompass leading to , (incidence ~0.6% in prolonged use), (higher in ), and needle dislodgement; contraindications include prior IO at the site within 48 hours, , or overlay. Devices should remain in situ no longer than 24 hours to avert or risks.

Localized Injections

Localized injections deliver medications directly into specific anatomical sites or pathological lesions to concentrate therapeutic effects at the target area while reducing systemic exposure and side effects. Common agents include corticosteroids for action, local anesthetics for blockade, and viscosupplements like for joint lubrication. These differ from broader routes by prioritizing site-specific , often guided by imaging such as or to ensure precision and minimize risks like tissue damage or off-target deposition. Intra-articular injections target synovial joints, such as the or , to treat conditions like or flares. Corticosteroid formulations, administered via needle aspiration followed by injection, provide short-term pain relief lasting up to 6 weeks, though evidence shows no sustained benefit beyond this or at 24 weeks in trials. Viscosupplementation with derivatives aims to restore viscosity, offering modest improvements in pain and function for , with effects persisting 3-6 months in some patients; however, systematic reviews indicate limited superiority over for long-term outcomes. Risks include post-injection pain, swelling, and rare (incidence approximately 1 in 50,000-100,000 procedures), necessitating sterile technique and contraindications in active infections. Intralesional injections deposit high-concentration drugs directly into dermatological or soft tissue s, such as keloids, hypertrophic scars, or infantile hemangiomas, leveraging minimal systemic absorption for efficacy. , a common , reduces lesion size and symptoms in keloids with recurrence rates lowered when combined with other modalities, supported by evidence from randomized trials showing significant flattening after 3-5 sessions spaced 4-6 weeks apart. In , intralesional triamcinolone effectively resolves acute inflammatory nodules with low adverse event rates, though fistulas may require adjunctive therapies. Potential complications involve local , , or , occurring in up to 10-20% of cases depending on dosage and site, with mitigation via diluted solutions and careful volume control (typically 0.1-0.5 mL per site). Epidural injections, a subtype for spinal applications, involve steroid deposition into the to manage from disc herniation or , often via caudal, interlaminar, or transforaminal approaches under fluoroscopic guidance. Short- to medium-term relief (up to 3-6 months) is evidenced in cases, with level II evidence for radiculitis improvement, though overall efficacy for chronic without remains limited and not superior to conservative management in some meta-analyses. Temporary pain reduction occurs in over 50% of patients after the first injection, but repeated doses (up to 3-4 per year) are needed, with risks including , , or neural injury (less than 1%). These procedures require specialized training to avoid dural puncture or vascular injection, and benefits are most pronounced when integrated with .

Long-Acting and Depot Injections

Long-acting injectable (LAI) formulations, commonly referred to as , are pharmaceutical preparations designed to provide sustained release of medication over periods ranging from weeks to months, thereby minimizing the need for frequent dosing. These injections typically involve intramuscular or of poorly water-soluble esters, salts, or microparticles that form a depot at the injection site, allowing gradual dissolution and absorption into the bloodstream. This approach addresses challenges in patient adherence, particularly for chronic conditions requiring consistent therapeutic levels. The development of depot injections originated in the with the introduction of enanthate in 1966 and fluphenazine decanoate in 1968, primarily for antipsychotic therapy in to combat non-compliance. Mechanisms of sustained release vary: oil-based suspensions (e.g., decanoate esters) rely on slow of prodrugs; aqueous crystalline suspensions (e.g., palmitate) precipitate in tissue due to low ; and microsphere or encapsulations (e.g., or pamoate) erode gradually via . These formulations achieve steady-state plasma concentrations more reliably than daily oral dosing, reducing peak-trough fluctuations that can exacerbate side effects or efficacy gaps. Common applications include psychiatric disorders, with LAI antipsychotics such as decanoate (dosed every 4 weeks), microspheres (every 2 weeks), and (every 4-8 weeks) demonstrating reduced relapse rates compared to oral equivalents in non-adherent populations. Beyond , depot formulations are used in (e.g., for contraception, every 3 months) and addiction treatment (e.g., for dependence, monthly). Advantages encompass improved treatment adherence (up to 20-30% better retention in studies), lower hospitalization risks (e.g., 20-37% reduction in ), and enhanced pharmacokinetic predictability, though benefits are most pronounced in patients with prior adherence issues. Risks include local injection-site reactions such as , nodules, or abscesses (reported in 5-10% of cases), delayed therapeutic onset (1-4 weeks for full effect), and challenges in dose adjustment due to irreversible administration. Specific formulations carry unique hazards, like post-injection /sedation syndrome with pamoate (incidence ~0.07%), necessitating monitoring. While LAIs generally show comparable safety to orals, their use requires careful patient selection to balance adherence gains against potential for prolonged exposure to adverse effects if intolerance develops. Economic analyses indicate initial higher costs offset by reduced healthcare utilization in adherent cohorts.

Administration Techniques

Preparation and Sterilization

Aseptic technique is fundamental to injection preparation and sterilization, encompassing hand hygiene, use of sterile equipment, and avoidance of contamination to minimize risks such as abscesses or bloodstream infections. Healthcare providers must perform hand hygiene with and water or alcohol-based sanitizer prior to handling medications or equipment. Preparation occurs in a designated clean area free from potential contaminants, with single-use sterile syringes and needles employed for each injection to prevent cross-contamination between patients. Medication preparation begins with verifying the drug label for correct identity, concentration, and expiration date, followed by drawing the prescribed dose into the . For vials, the rubber is disinfected with a 70% swab for at least 10-15 seconds and allowed to dry before needle insertion; single-dose vials are preferred over multi-dose ones to reduce microbial entry risks, as repeated punctures in multi-dose vials can introduce contaminants despite aseptic measures. Air bubbles are expelled from the by tapping and pushing the , ensuring no medication waste or potential, though aspiration of air into the is not routinely recommended for most routes. Needles and s must remain untouched on sterile parts, with gloves changed if contaminated. Skin sterilization at the injection site involves applying a 60-70% alcohol-based solution via a single-use swab in a from the center outward, covering an area at least 2 inches in , for a minimum of 30 seconds, followed by complete drying to maximize efficacy and avoid irritation from wet alcohol. This method disrupts microbial cell membranes, reducing that could cause post-injection infections; alternatives like may be used for patients with alcohol sensitivity, but alcohol remains standard due to its broad-spectrum activity and rapid evaporation. Iodine-based solutions are avoided in cases of , though evidence shows alcohol's superiority in reducing bacterial counts when properly applied and dried. Reusable equipment, if employed in resource-limited settings, requires steam sterilization at 121°C for minutes in autoclaves to achieve sterility assurance levels exceeding 10^-6 probability of microbial survival, though disposable pre-sterilized items predominate in modern practice to eliminate reprocessing errors. Validation of sterilization processes includes biological indicators like strips to confirm efficacy, underscoring causal links between inadequate sterilization and outbreaks, as documented in historical healthcare-associated infections.

Injection Procedures by Route

Injection procedures are standardized to target specific tissue layers, optimize absorption, and reduce complications such as infection or tissue damage. Aseptic technique is essential across all routes, involving hand hygiene, use of sterile equipment, and site preparation with antiseptic. Needle selection depends on route, patient age, body mass, and medication viscosity, with smaller gauges for superficial routes and larger for deeper or viscous drugs. Intravenous (IV) Injection. This route delivers medication directly into the bloodstream via a peripheral vein, often in the antecubital fossa or forearm. After verifying patient identity and medication, apply a tourniquet 4-6 inches above the site to distend the vein, palpate for a suitable vein, and cleanse the skin with 70% alcohol or chlorhexidine, allowing to dry. Insert the needle bevel-up at a 15-30 degree angle, advancing until a blood flashback appears in the hub, then secure the catheter or advance the needle slightly before injecting slowly to avoid vein irritation, typically over 1-2 minutes for most drugs. Remove tourniquet before full injection, apply pressure post-removal, and monitor for extravasation. Intramuscular (IM) Injection. Administered into deep muscle tissue for sustained absorption, common sites include the deltoid (upper arm), vastus lateralis (thigh), or ventrogluteal (hip). Use a 1-1.5 inch needle for adults, 22-25 gauge. Cleanse the site, stretch or bunch the skin, and insert the needle at a 90-degree angle to ensure muscle penetration. Aspirate briefly to check for blood (though debated for non-IV risks), then inject steadily over 10 seconds, withdraw quickly, and massage gently unless contraindicated. For vaccines, perform in a clean area with new per dose. Subcutaneous (SC) Injection. Targeting the fatty layer beneath the , sites include , upper , or , rotated to prevent . Select a 25-30 gauge, ½-⅝ inch needle. Pinch 1-2 inches of to lift , insert at 45-90 degrees (90 for lean patients, 45 for others or shorter needles), inject without aspiration as vessels are sparse, and release before withdrawing to minimize leakage. Hold for 5-10 seconds post-injection. Suitable for insulin or . Intradermal (ID) Injection. Used for diagnostic tests like the Mantoux tuberculin skin test (TST), performed on the inner forearm. Employ a 27-30 gauge, ½ inch needle, inserting bevel-up at a 5-15 degree angle parallel to the skin surface until resistance and a pale wheal (6-10 mm) form upon injecting 0.1 mL slowly. No aspiration or massage; cover if needed. Read reactions 48-72 hours later by palpation. Intraosseous (IO) Injection. Reserved for emergencies when IV access fails, accessing the medullary cavity of bones like proximal or . Use a specialized IO needle or device; after if time allows, insert perpendicular to surface, apply counter-traction, and advance with firm or until loss of resistance indicates entry, confirmed by aspiration of marrow or flush with saline. Infuse fluids/medications rapidly, monitoring for . Limit to short-term use until IV established. For localized injections, such as intra-articular or intralesional, procedures involve guidance if needed, precise site localization under sterile conditions, and smaller volumes to avoid systemic effects. Long-acting depot injections often employ techniques like Z-track (displacing skin laterally before IM insertion) to prevent medication leakage along the tract.

Aspiration and Safety Protocols

Aspiration during injection involves retracting the syringe plunger slightly after needle insertion to check for blood return, indicating potential intravascular placement and risk of unintended . This technique aims to prevent complications from injecting medications intended for intramuscular (IM), subcutaneous (SC), or intradermal routes into a . Historically routine for non-intravenous injections, its necessity has been reevaluated based on anatomical evidence and clinical trials showing low incidence of vascular puncture in standard sites like the deltoid or vastus lateralis muscles. Current evidence-based guidelines from the (WHO) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advise against aspiration for IM and SC vaccine administration, citing no demonstrated reduction in adverse events and increased procedural pain from prolonged needle dwell time and tissue shearing. A 2015 WHO best practices review and subsequent meta-analyses confirm that recommended IM sites lack major blood vessels in the target depth, rendering aspiration ineffective for detecting rare vascular entry while adding discomfort, particularly in children. For non-vaccine IM injections of medications where intravenous delivery could cause harm (e.g., certain antibiotics or irritants), selective aspiration may still be warranted if site or factors elevate risk, though systematic reviews question its reliability even then due to false negatives from small vessels or intermittent flow. Safety protocols emphasize site selection, aseptic preparation, and technique to minimize risks irrespective of aspiration. Healthcare providers must perform hand hygiene and use alcohol swabs for 15-30 seconds on injection sites, selecting landmarks away from major vessels (e.g., deltoid apex at 2-3 finger widths below ). Needle length should match patient age and body habitus—1-1.5 inches for adults in deltoid—to ensure intramuscular deposition without subcutaneous leakage or vascular proximity. Z-track method, involving lateral displacement before injection, further prevents tracking along needle tracts. Post-injection, apply gentle pressure without massage to avoid dislodging into vessels, and monitor for immediate signs of intravascular administration like rapid onset of effects or local swelling. To mitigate needlestick injuries and , protocols mandate single-use needles and syringes, with immediate activation of safety-engineered devices post-withdrawal. Evidence from randomized trials supports omitting aspiration in low-risk scenarios to reduce overall procedure time and anxiety, but reinforces visual and anatomical checks as primary safeguards. Non-adherence to these protocols correlates with higher rates, underscoring the need for standardized in clinical settings.

Needle Disposal and Waste Management

Proper disposal of used needles and sharps from medical injections is essential to mitigate needlestick injuries, which pose significant risks of transmitting bloodborne pathogens including , , and hepatitis C to healthcare workers and the public. Globally, approximately 3.35 million healthcare workers sustain needlestick and sharps injuries annually, contributing to an estimated 66,000 hepatitis B infections, 16,000 hepatitis C infections, and 1,000 infections among this population each year. In the United States, occupational needlestick injuries result in over 384,000 exposures yearly across various healthcare settings. Healthcare facilities must adhere to the Administration's (OSHA) Pathogens standard (29 CFR 1910.1030), which mandates immediate disposal of contaminated sharps into designated containers without recapping, bending, breaking, or removing needles from syringes unless no safer alternative exists. Sharps containers must be puncture-resistant, leak-proof, closable, and labeled as biohazardous, positioned as close as practicable to the point of use to minimize handling risks; they should remain upright, not exceed two-thirds capacity to avoid overfilling, and be securely sealed before transport. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) endorse FDA-cleared sharps disposal containers for healthcare use, emphasizing that up to one-third of sharps injuries occur during disposal activities if protocols are not followed. Full containers are classified as regulated medical , requiring treatment via , autoclaving, or chemical disinfection to render them non-infectious prior to disposal; untreated dumping or open-pit is prohibited to prevent environmental and scavenging hazards. The (WHO) classifies injection-related sharps as hazardous health-care waste, comprising about 15% of total medical waste volume, and recommends like safety-engineered syringes alongside rigorous waste segregation and on-site treatment to curb unsafe practices such as incomplete or laundry . In resource-limited settings, WHO guidelines prioritize puncture-proof containers and centralized to reduce community exposure risks from improper disposal. Compliance with these standards has been shown to reduce sharps injury rates by up to 50% through consistent implementation of disposal protocols.

Clinical Benefits and Indications

Rapid Onset and Bioavailability

Injections achieve rapid onset of therapeutic effects by delivering medications directly into vascularized tissues or the bloodstream, circumventing the delays and inefficiencies of gastrointestinal absorption inherent in . This direct route minimizes variability in uptake and avoids first-pass in the liver, which can degrade up to 50-80% of orally administered drugs before they reach systemic circulation. Consequently, parenteral routes enable predictable , with onset times ranging from seconds for intravenous (IV) delivery to minutes for intramuscular () or subcutaneous (SC) injections, making them preferable for scenarios requiring immediate action, such as acute or allergic reactions. Bioavailability, defined as the proportion of administered drug reaching systemic circulation unaltered, approaches 100% for IV injections due to instantaneous and complete delivery into the blood, eliminating absorption barriers. IM injections similarly yield near-complete bioavailability (typically 90-100%) through absorption from well-perfused muscle tissue, with onset of action occurring in 10-30 minutes for aqueous solutions, outperforming oral routes where bioavailability often falls below 70% due to enzymatic degradation and incomplete absorption. SC administration provides high bioavailability (60-100%, drug-dependent) but slightly slower onset (15-60 minutes) owing to the lower vascularity of subcutaneous fat, yet it still surpasses oral methods by avoiding hepatic presystemic elimination.
RouteTypical Onset TimeBioavailability (%)
Intravenous (IV)Seconds to minutes100
Intramuscular (IM)10-30 minutes90-100
Subcutaneous (SC)15-60 minutes60-100
These attributes underpin the clinical preference for injections in emergencies, where IV routes ensure maximal drug exposure without delay, as evidenced by protocols for analgesics showing IV onset in 15-30 minutes even for slower-acting agents, far exceeding oral timelines. However, bioavailability can vary with factors like drug solubility, injection site vascularity, and patient physiology, necessitating route selection based on empirical pharmacokinetic data rather than assumptions.

Specific Therapeutic Applications

Injections serve critical roles in treating conditions requiring rapid systemic absorption, targeted delivery, or avoidance of oral limitations, with routes selected based on and patient needs. Subcutaneous (SC) injections, administered into , are primarily indicated for medications like insulin in type 1 and mellitus, where they enable self-administration and sustained release to mimic endogenous secretion, improving glycemic control as evidenced by reduced HbA1c levels in clinical trials. , an , is also given SC for prophylaxis against deep vein in postoperative patients, offering reliable absorption without intravenous access. Intramuscular (IM) injections target deep muscle beds for vaccines, including inactivated , , and formulations, leveraging vascularity for efficient and antibody response; for instance, IM administration of the achieves seroprotection in over 95% of healthy adults after three doses. Antibiotics such as penicillin G are delivered IM for severe infections like or streptococcal disease when oral routes fail, providing peak serum levels within 30-60 minutes. Hormone therapies, including for , utilize IM depots for prolonged action, with esters like enanthate maintaining therapeutic levels for 2-4 weeks per dose. Intravenous (IV) injections and infusions are essential for acute scenarios, delivering agents like for solid tumors, achieving immediate cytotoxic concentrations while allowing dose adjustments based on renal function. In , broad-spectrum antibiotics via IV bolus or reduce mortality by 20-30% compared to delayed administration, per observational data from emergency settings. IV routes also support total in malabsorption syndromes, supplying , , and electrolytes directly to circumvent gut barriers. Localized therapeutic injections address musculoskeletal and joint disorders; intra-articular corticosteroids, such as triamcinolone, injected into osteoarthritic knees alleviate and for 4-12 weeks by suppressing synovial production, though repeated use risks degradation. type A injections into hyperactive muscles treat cervical , reducing spasms via neuromuscular blockade with effects lasting 3-4 months, as confirmed in randomized trials. Long-acting injectable antipsychotics, like microspheres, are indicated for maintenance, improving adherence and relapse prevention over oral forms in non-compliant patients.

Use in Emergencies and Chronic Conditions

In medical emergencies, injections facilitate immediate to circumvent gastrointestinal absorption delays and achieve rapid peak plasma concentrations essential for stabilizing patients. Intramuscular epinephrine, dosed at 0.3 to 0.5 mg for adults, serves as the definitive first-line intervention for , counteracting , , and cardiac effects within minutes to prevent fatality. Similarly, intravenous or intramuscular at 0.4 to 2 mg reverses opioid-induced by competitively binding mu-opioid receptors, restoring breathing in overdose victims often within 2 to 3 minutes. injections, administered subcutaneously or intramuscularly at 1 mg, address severe in unconscious diabetics by promoting hepatic breakdown when oral intake is impossible. For chronic conditions, injections sustain therapeutic drug levels over extended periods, mitigating issues like variable oral absorption or nonadherence that exacerbate disease progression. In , multiple daily subcutaneous insulin injections—basal forms like glargine and bolus like aspart—replicate endogenous secretion to maintain glycemic control, reducing HbA1c by 1.5% to 2% on average versus non-insulin therapies. Long-acting injectable antipsychotics, such as paliperidone palmitate given monthly or every three months intramuscularly, outperform oral equivalents in maintenance by lowering relapse risk up to 20% through enforced compliance in nonadherent populations. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents like , injected subcutaneously three times weekly, treat in by boosting levels by 1 to 2 g/dL, averting transfusions in dialysis patients. Subcutaneous biologics, including dosed weekly, attenuate exacerbations by , delaying disability accumulation evidenced by reduced annualized relapse rates of 30% in clinical trials.

Adverse Effects and Risks

Immediate Complications

Local reactions at the injection site, such as pain, erythema, and swelling, occur frequently following intramuscular or subcutaneous administration, typically manifesting within minutes to hours due to mechanical trauma from the needle or localized inflammatory response to the injectate. In a systematic review of injection site reactions, erythema affected 42.8% of cases, pain 12.4%, and unspecified local reactions 23.3%, with these symptoms often resolving spontaneously but requiring monitoring for escalation. Hematoma formation results from vascular puncture during needle insertion, leading to immediate bruising and potential pressure on surrounding tissues, particularly in patients with coagulopathies or those receiving therapy. This complication is more prevalent in intramuscular injections into highly vascular areas like the gluteal region, where improper technique can exacerbate . Acute reactions, including , represent a severe immediate , mediated by IgE-dependent triggered by allergens in the injectate or excipients, with onset within minutes characterized by urticaria, , , and respiratory distress. Such type I reactions occur in approximately 1-2 per 100,000 vaccinations but underscore the need for epinephrine availability during administration. Nerve injury from direct needle trauma causes immediate sharp, electric-like pain radiating along the affected dermatome, as seen in injections where medial or lateral pain signals radial or ulnar involvement. Incidence is higher with repeated injections or poor , potentially leading to transient or, rarely, permanent neuropathy. For intravenous routes, inadvertent intra-arterial injection or can produce immediate , ischemia, or cardiovascular instability, with symptoms like or dyspnea emerging rapidly post-infusion. Aspiration prior to injection mitigates these risks, though not universally practiced in all protocols. Nicolau syndrome, a rare embolic following non-intravenous injections, presents with immediate site pain and livedo-like progressing to , attributed to particulate matter occluding end-arterioles. Case reports document onset within hours, emphasizing sterile technique and avoidance of deep intramuscular deposition in at-risk patients.

Infection and Long-Term Health Concerns

Infections following medical injections primarily arise from the introduction of such as Staphylococcus aureus or other into subcutaneous or muscle tissues, even with aseptic preparation, due to incomplete skin sterilization or transient bacteremia. Local complications include and formation, with reported incidence rates for abscesses after intramuscular () injections ranging from rare occurrences in immunocompetent patients to higher rates (up to 19%) in cases of extrinsic contamination, such as reused diluents. Systemic spread can lead to bacteremia or , though these are uncommon in sterile settings and typically linked to breaches like inadequate skin disinfection or injection in contaminated environments. Intravenous (IV) injections carry elevated risks compared to IM or subcutaneous routes, as direct vascular access bypasses tissue barriers, facilitating rapid dissemination of pathogens; historical outbreaks from multi-dose vial contamination have resulted in hepatitis and bacterial transmissions, underscoring the necessity of single-use equipment. In controlled medical environments, overall infection rates remain low—often below 1% for properly executed procedures—but immunocompromised patients or those receiving multiple injections face amplified vulnerability, with skin preparation time influencing bacterial load at the site. Long-term health concerns stem predominantly from untreated or recurrent local infections progressing to chronic issues, including tissue fibrosis, scarring, and persistent pain at injection sites, which may necessitate surgical intervention. Abscesses can evolve into deeper like or if bacteria disseminate hematogenously, leading to joint destruction or bone necrosis in severe cases. Rare but documented sequelae include from persistent bacteremia post-IM injection, potentially requiring prolonged therapy or , with mortality risks in vulnerable populations. Repeated injections in the same anatomical region exacerbate cumulative damage, promoting vascular compromise and chronic wounds, though empirical data from medical cohorts emphasize prompt recognition and drainage to mitigate these outcomes.

Pain Management and Psychological Impacts

Pain during injections primarily stems from mechanical trauma caused by needle insertion, chemical irritation from the injectate, and tissue distension, with perceived intensity influenced by needle gauge, insertion speed, and anatomical site. Evidence indicates that selecting the ventrogluteal site over alternatives like the dorsogluteal reduces intramuscular injection pain due to lower nerve density and vascularity, while the Z-track technique—displacing skin laterally before injection—further minimizes discomfort by sealing medication in muscle and preventing leakage. Manual pressure or massage applied prior to insertion, as well as devices like ShotBlocker that provide tactile stimulation, have demonstrated significant reductions in self-reported pain scores across adult and pediatric populations. Topical anesthetics, such as eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) or formulations, offer moderate efficacy in blunting needle-related pain when applied 30-60 minutes prior, with systematic reviews confirming statistically significant decreases in visual analog scale scores compared to , particularly for and vaccinations; however, onset time and skin penetration limitations reduce reliability for rapid procedures. Warming the injectate to body temperature also attenuates activation, yielding lower pain ratings in meta-analyses of local administration. These methods collectively prioritize nociceptive pathway modulation over systemic analgesia to avoid confounding therapeutic effects. Needle phobia, or trypanophobia, manifests as intense anxiety or vasovagal responses triggered by anticipation of injection-related , affecting 3-10% of adults and up to 20-25% of children, often rooted in associative learning from prior painful experiences rather than inherent traits. This contributes to treatment non-adherence, such as avoidance or insulin omission in diabetics, exacerbating health outcomes through delayed care and heightened sympathetic activation during procedures. In chronic injection regimens, repeated exposure can condition anticipatory distress, amplifying subjective via central independent of peripheral stimuli. Behavioral interventions, including distraction (e.g., or video engagement) and breathing exercises, reliably lower anxiety and procedural distress in randomized trials, with and combined cognitive-behavioral showing effect sizes up to 1.5 standard deviations in pediatric cohorts. For adults, exposure-based therapies—progressing from imaginal to simulations—reduce severity by 50-70% over 6-10 sessions, addressing avoidance patterns without pharmacological dependence. These approaches emphasize patient empowerment through predictable procedural control, mitigating psychological barriers more effectively than reassurance alone.

Innovations and Advances

Needle-Free Injection Technologies

Needle-free injection technologies encompass devices that deliver medications through the skin without penetrating needles, primarily utilizing high-velocity jets of or powdered formulations propelled by mechanisms such as compressed gas, springs, or electromagnetic forces. These systems generate pressures ranging from 100 to 1,000 bar to create a fine stream that breaches the , dispersing the drug into the or in a process typically lasting milliseconds. The originated in the late with accidental observations of high-pressure grease guns penetrating , evolving into formalized jet injectors patented in 1936 by Marshall Lockhart and further developed in the 1940s for military use. By the 1960s, jet injectors facilitated mass vaccinations, administering over 100 million doses annually in some programs, though early reusable models raised concerns leading to temporary declines in adoption. Jet injectors dominate the category, operating in stages: a power source (e.g., CO2 cartridge or spring) drives a to eject the at velocities up to 200 m/s through a micron-sized orifice, followed by dispersion and absorption. Alternative variants include powder-based systems that accelerate lyophilized particles via gas expansion and laser-induced injectors, though these remain largely experimental. Advantages include reduced pain—often described as a mild sting versus needle prick—elimination of needlestick injuries, which affect up to 5.6 million healthcare workers yearly, and enhanced safety for mass by minimizing and reuse risks. Studies report faster drug absorption and bioavailability for certain formulations, such as insulin, with onset times reduced by 20-30% compared to hypodermic methods due to broader dispersion. Limitations persist, including potential shear forces that degrade sensitive biologics like or proteins, necessitating adjustments, and higher risks of subcutaneous hemorrhage or bruising from tissue trauma. Device costs, ranging from $100 to $500 per unit, exceed traditional syringes, limiting in low-resource settings, while single-use adaptations mitigate but do not eliminate cross-contamination risks from microscopic . In clinical trials, efficacy matches needles for many antigens but varies with ; high-viscosity drugs often require dilution, potentially altering dosing. Contemporary devices include the FDA-cleared PharmaJet Stratis (approved 2011 for 0.5 mL doses), used for and HPV vaccines in campaigns reaching millions, demonstrating immunogenicity equivalence to needles with rates above 90%. Emerging systems like Portal Instruments' Portal PRIME integrate digital controls for precise dosing, targeting chronic therapies such as biologics, with pilot data showing reduced injection-site reactions. Applications span insulin delivery for , growth hormones, and vaccines, particularly in veterinary and pediatric contexts where compliance improves by 15-20% due to aversion to needles. Despite promise, regulatory scrutiny emphasizes validation against needle standards, with ongoing research addressing and long-term tissue effects to broaden therapeutic utility.

Autoinjectors and Prefilled Devices

Autoinjectors are spring-loaded devices that enable rapid, self-administration of a premeasured dose of , typically via subcutaneous or intramuscular routes, by automatically inserting the needle and expelling the contents upon activation. These devices often incorporate prefilled syringes or cartridges containing the drug, eliminating the need for manual aspiration or dose measurement from vials, which reduces preparation errors and contamination risks. Prefilled components ensure sterility and consistent delivery volumes, such as 0.3 mL for epinephrine formulations. Originally developed in the late for applications to counter chemical agents, autoinjectors evolved from rudimentary syrettes to modern disposable units by the 1970s, with the EpiPen receiving FDA approval on December 22, 1987, for treating . The surge in biologic therapies from the late 1990s onward drove broader adoption, expanding from emergency uses to chronic conditions like and . Common medications include epinephrine (0.15 mg or 0.3 mg doses for severe allergies), for migraines, and monoclonal antibodies such as or for autoimmune diseases. Clinical advantages stem from user-friendly designs, including button activation or pressure-sensitive triggers, which facilitate administration by non-experts during emergencies or home settings. A systematic review of autoinjector reliability reported malfunction rates below 5% in clinical use, attributing failures primarily to rather than device defects, with successful delivery in over 95% of observed cases. Prefilled autoinjectors improve adherence compared to manual syringes, with studies showing up to 20% higher compliance rates in self-injection for biologics, due to minimized steps and visual/auditory feedback confirming injection completion. surveys indicate preferences for these devices over vial-syringe methods, citing reduced anxiety, needle mitigation, and faster injection times under 10 seconds. Innovations include large-volume autoinjectors for biologics exceeding 1 mL doses and connected variants with integration for adherence tracking, as seen in devices for therapies, which correlate with better outcomes like fewer missed doses. Usability studies validate high success rates, with over 90% of patients and nurses rating autoinjectors as easier for subcutaneous delivery in conditions like preterm birth prevention or management. Despite these benefits, training remains essential, as improper technique can lead to incomplete delivery, underscoring the need for device-specific instructions.

Long-Acting Formulations and Implants

Long-acting injectable formulations, often referred to as depot injections, are designed to release active pharmaceutical ingredients gradually over extended periods, typically weeks to months, following a single administration into muscle or . These systems address adherence challenges in chronic conditions by maintaining therapeutic plasma levels without daily dosing, utilizing mechanisms such as oil-based suspensions, biodegradable microspheres (e.g., poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) polymers), or in-situ forming depots that solidify post-injection. Implants, a related category, involve solid or semi-solid devices surgically or trocar-inserted subcutaneously or intramuscularly for sustained release, often via or erosion-controlled kinetics. In , long-acting antipsychotics exemplify early adoption, with enanthate introduced in 1966 and its decanoate ester in 1968, followed by haloperidol decanoate. Second-generation options include risperidone microspheres (approved 2003) and paliperidone palmitate (monthly formulation approved 2009; 3-month version 2015), which demonstrate superior prevention compared to oral forms, with a 30% and of 10. Meta-analyses confirm depot antipsychotics lower hospitalization rates and improve long-term outcomes in , though benefits are most pronounced in non-adherent patients. For reproductive health, etonogestrel-releasing implants like Implanon (approved 2006) and its successor Nexplanon provide contraception for up to 3-5 years via subdermal progestin diffusion, with failure rates under 0.05% in typical use. Earlier systems, such as levonorgestrel-based Norplant (approved 1990, discontinued 2002 due to insertion challenges), highlighted the feasibility of multi-year release but underscored procedural risks. Emerging implants target infectious diseases, including reservoirs delivering antiretrovirals subcutaneously for months in prevention models, achieving steady-state release of approximately 350 μg/day over 90 days in preclinical studies. Advantages include enhanced patient compliance—evidenced by reduced treatment burden in substance use disorders—and pharmacokinetic stability minimizing peak-trough fluctuations that exacerbate side effects. However, disadvantages encompass injection-site reactions (e.g., pain in 10-20% of antipsychotic LAI recipients), potential for post-injection / with pamoate, and limited dose titration flexibility, as drug levels persist weeks after discontinuation. Economic analyses indicate cost savings via fewer relapses, but upfront administration costs and training requirements can limit uptake. Overall, these technologies prioritize chronic management where adherence predicts outcomes, though evidence supports selective use over universal replacement of oral therapies.

Controversies and Criticisms

Vaccine Mandates and Individual Autonomy

Vaccine mandates compel individuals to undergo injection of biological agents, pitting imperatives against principles of bodily autonomy and . In the United States, the in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) upheld a vaccination requirement as a valid exercise of state police power, provided it was necessary, reasonable, and not arbitrary, establishing a that individual liberty yields to community protection during epidemics. This ruling emphasized proportionality, allowing fines or but not physical force, and required evidence of disease threat and vaccine safety. Proponents of mandates argue from a utilitarian framework, asserting that high vaccination coverage achieves , reduces transmission, and minimizes societal burdens like healthcare overload. During the , mandates for healthcare workers in U.S. states correlated with increased uptake, from approximately 70% to over 90% in affected cohorts, alongside reduced infection risks. Similar policies in and rapidly boosted elderly vaccination rates post-announcement, averting excess deaths estimated in the thousands. However, these gains often followed voluntary campaigns, raising questions about whether mandates added marginal value beyond incentives or education. Critics contend that mandates infringe on autonomy by coercing injection through penalties like job loss or exclusion from public life, undermining the voluntariness essential to informed consent, which requires disclosure of risks, benefits, and alternatives without duress. Empirical data from COVID-19 policies indicate mandates heightened political polarization and eroded trust in health institutions, with surveys showing declines in vaccine confidence among skeptics and broader hesitancy toward future shots. One analysis found U.S. state mandates did not proportionally reduce case rates relative to voluntary uptake, suggesting counterproductive effects like noncompliance or natural immunity disregard. Philosophically, such coercion prioritizes collective outcomes over individual rights to refuse medical interventions with potential adverse events, including rare but documented myocarditis or thrombosis post-injection. Legal challenges to recent mandates, such as those for U.S. or federal employees, have succeeded on grounds of arbitrary implementation or failure to accommodate prior infection-based immunity, highlighting tensions with equal protection principles. While mandates may yield short-term compliance, longitudinal evidence points to diminished public adherence and institutional credibility, as seen in post-mandate drops in routine enthusiasm. This underscores a causal : enforced injections protect vulnerable populations but risk alienating segments of , potentially hampering responses to future threats.

Safety Debates and Adverse Event Reporting

Safety debates surrounding medical injections often focus on the balance between therapeutic benefits and the potential for rare but severe , particularly in and biologics where large-scale administration amplifies scrutiny. While most injections are deemed safe based on clinical trials and post-marketing surveillance, controversies arise over the interpretation of data from passive reporting systems, which may underestimate true risks due to incomplete capture of events. from studies highlights that systemic reactions, such as or neurological disorders, occur at rates of 1-10 per million doses for many , though remains challenging to confirm without controlled comparisons. Adverse event reporting for injectable medications primarily relies on systems like the (VAERS), co-managed by the CDC and FDA since 1990, and the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) for non-vaccine injectables. VAERS functions as an early warning tool, accepting reports of health issues post-vaccination regardless of suspected causation, with over 1.5 million reports logged by 2023, predominantly following vaccines. FAERS similarly aggregates voluntary submissions for drugs, including injectables like antibiotics or insulin, to detect disproportionate signals via . Both systems mandate reporting of serious events (e.g., , hospitalization) by manufacturers under , but healthcare providers and patients report voluntarily. A central contention is underreporting, a known flaw in passive where events go undocumented due to lack of awareness, time constraints, or fear of liability among reporters. Analyses of VAERS sensitivity estimate it captures fewer than 10% of mild events and 1-10% of serious ones, with multipliers derived from active comparisons suggesting true incidence could be 10-100 times higher for conditions like Guillain-Barré syndrome post-influenza . This discrepancy fuels arguments that safety profiles are artificially favorable, potentially delaying regulatory action, as seen in historical signals like the 1976 swine flu 's neurological risks, which VAERS helped identify despite initial under-detection. Conversely, defenders emphasize supplementary active systems (e.g., Vaccine Safety Datalink) provide more accurate rates, and VAERS's role is signal generation, not incidence estimation, having prompted withdrawals like the 1998 Lyme amid reports. Pharmaceutical influence on is debated, with critics pointing to industry funding of trials and contributions, which may incentivize selective reporting or downplay signals to protect . For instance, post-approval commitments under the FDA's accelerated pathways can strain independent verification, and the removal of liability for childhood via the 1986 Act has been cited as reducing competitive pressure for ultra-safe formulations. However, proponents note mandatory disclosures and independent oversight mitigate bias, with FAERS data showing consistent signals leading to label updates, such as warnings for injection-site with certain biologics. These tensions underscore broader causal realism challenges: establishing injection-specific amid confounders like comorbidities requires rigorous, denominator-adjusted , often contested in polarized public discourse.

Overuse in Pain Management and Economic Incentives

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) for chronic exemplify overuse in , with studies indicating short-term pain relief in 50-84% of cases but diminishing efficacy beyond five months and no sustained benefits over conservative therapies like or medications. Repeated ESIs, often exceeding guideline limits of three to four per year, accelerate progression, weaken spinal bones and tendons, and increase risks of , adrenal suppression, and neurologic such as . For instance, in , serial injections provide temporary symptom control but fail to alter disease course, potentially delaying necessary surgical intervention while exposing patients to cumulative toxicity. Economic structures in healthcare amplify this overuse, as ESIs generate reimbursable procedural revenue—Medicare national averages around $500 per injection in outpatient settings—compared to lower or distributed payments for non-invasive options like ongoing . Physicians may perform up to 20% more injections than clinically warranted, driven by per-procedure billing incentives rather than evidence-based limits, with retrospective analyses showing no long-term superiority of steroid-added injections over local anesthetics alone. While outpatient ESIs appear cost-effective short-term for select , broader adoption for nonspecific yields marginal quality-adjusted life-year gains at higher societal costs, perpetuating volume-based practice amid declining reimbursement rates (down 61% inflation-adjusted since ). This misalignment prioritizes procedural frequency over holistic outcomes, as multiple unnecessary injections can postpone definitive treatments like , prolonging patient disability.

Non-Human Applications

Veterinary Injections

In , injections deliver medications, vaccines, fluids, and other substances parenterally to animals, bypassing the for rapid or targeted absorption. Common routes include subcutaneous (SC), intramuscular (), intravenous (IV), and intradermal (ID), with selection depending on the substance's , animal , and therapeutic goals. For companion animals like dogs and cats, SC injections are frequently used for vaccines and insulin, while IM routes suit antibiotics and anesthetics; in , the neck triangle is preferred for IM and SC to minimize carcass defects and ensure meat quality. Techniques emphasize animal restraint, aseptic skin preparation, and appropriate needle gauge and length to avoid tissue damage or vascular injury. For IV injections, slow administration prevents adverse reactions like , with maximum volumes guided by —e.g., up to 10 mL/kg bolus in small animals. Common injectables include antibiotics such as (5-20 mg/kg SC or in dogs and cats), broad-spectrum penicillins, and anesthetics like (0.2-1.0 mg/kg in horses, potentially causing and ). Vaccinations via or SC routes protect against diseases like in dogs (1 mL dose annually or triennially per protocols) and parvovirus in cats. Veterinary formulations differ from human counterparts in active ingredient ratios, excipients, and dosing to account for species-specific metabolism and body size; for instance, veterinary amoxicillin-clavulanic acid has adjusted clavulanate ratios unsuitable for direct human substitution. Human generics may lack efficacy or cause toxicity in animals due to untested pharmacokinetics, though veterinarians may prescribe them off-label under guidance. Safety risks include injection-site abscesses from bacterial or improper technique, needlestick injuries to handlers (with 16% reporting adverse effects in one study of female veterinarians), and drug-specific reactions like or seizures from monoclonal antibodies such as bedinvetmab in dogs. adverse events, though rare (e.g., or ), are monitored via systems like FDA's openFDA for animal drugs, prioritizing aseptic practices and species-appropriate dosing to mitigate failures or residues in food animals.

Agricultural and Plant Uses

Trunk injection, also known as endotherapy or vegetative endotherapy, delivers pesticides, fungicides, nutrients, and other crop protection agents directly into the vascular system (primarily ) of woody and trees via pressurized injectors inserted into drilled holes in the trunk or stem. This method enables systemic translocation of substances upward and throughout the , bypassing foliar absorption barriers and interactions. Applications are common in perennial crops such as orchards, vineyards, groves, and , where treatments target vascular pests or deficiencies without relying on sprays or drenches. In pest management, trunk injections administer systemic insecticides like emamectin benzoate or to combat such as the (Agrilus planipennis), which has devastated ash trees across since its detection in 2002; injections provide protection for 1-3 years per treatment, depending on tree diameter at breast height (DBH) and dosage rates calibrated at 0.1-0.4 g active ingredient per cm DBH. Similarly, in European and Mediterranean agriculture, endotherapy treats pine processionary moth (Thaumetopoea pityocampa) infestations in by injecting insecticides that distribute via sap flow, achieving efficacy rates exceeding 90% in controlled trials while minimizing residue on harvestable fruits. Nutrient injections, including potassium phosphite for fungal disease resistance or macroelements like and , address deficiencies in high-value crops; for instance, in , trunk-delivered micronutrients have sustained yields in huanglongbing-affected groves where soil applications fail due to root degradation. Advantages over conventional methods include reduced pesticide volumes—often 10-50 times less than foliar sprays—and elimination of drift, volatilization, and contamination, aligning with (IPM) principles and regulatory pressures for lower environmental loads. A 2022 review of subtropical applications noted uptake efficiencies up to 95% in healthy trees during active periods (spring-summer), compared to <50% for soil drenches. However, improper technique risks include embolism, wound-induced decay (e.g., from Botryosphaeriaceae fungi), or if injection pressure exceeds 20-30 psi or holes are spaced closer than 10-15 cm apart. Beyond woody perennials, direct injections extend to herbaceous crops via or methods; liquid injection systems during planting incorporate microbial inoculants (e.g., or mycorrhizae) and nutrients into seed furrows, boosting establishment rates by 15-30% in like soybeans, as demonstrated in Australian trials. Subsurface or injections, using or disk tools at 10-20 cm depths, minimize losses (up to 70% reduction versus surface spreading) and enhance uptake in corn and systems, with U.S. studies reporting yield increases of 5-10 bushels per acre. Emerging precision tools, such as MIT's 2020 silk-biomaterial microneedle arrays (50-100 μm ), enable targeted delivery to leaves or fruits in bananas, olives, and without macro-damage, potentially scaling to automated field systems for reduced labor. These applications underscore injections' role in sustainable intensification, though varies with , climate, and substance formulation, necessitating site-specific validation.

References

  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK596739/
  2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK568677/
  3. https://www.mddionline.com/drug-delivery/hypodermic-syringes-greatest-medical-device-of-all-time-
  4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556121/
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6822791/
  6. https://www.cdc.gov/injection-safety/about/index.html
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10455437/
  8. https://lavagewellness.com/files/LavageWellness_FAQs.pdf
  9. https://journals.lww.com/aosopen/fulltext/2021/03000/bottoms_up__a_history_of_rectal_nutrition_from.13.aspx
  10. https://www.shl-medical.com/news-insights/blog/what-did-humans-use-before-invention-autoinjectors
  11. https://hekint.org/2019/12/03/christopher-wren-and-blood-circulation/
  12. https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/carried-away/
  13. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2404427/
  14. https://www.hmpgloballearningnetwork.com/site/emsworld/original-contribution/skin-deep-brief-history-hypodermic-hardware
  15. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10838689/
  16. https://medicine.uq.edu.au/blog/2018/12/history-syringes-and-needles
  17. https://www.nms.ac.uk/discover-catalogue/the-story-of-syringes
  18. https://litfl.com/alexander-wood/
  19. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/523793
  20. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29111804/
  21. https://www.scotmt.scot.nhs.uk/timeline/1853/
  22. https://thepolyphony.org/2020/06/06/the-hypodermic-syringe/
  23. https://www.phlebotomyusa.com/blog/history/the-history-of-medical-needles/
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352556821001259
  25. https://www.civilwarmed.org/hypodermic-syringe/
  26. https://www.exchangesupplies.org/articles/article/history_of_injecting_and_development_of_the_syringe
  27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21451197/
  28. https://hms.harvard.edu/about-hms/history-hms/timeline-discovery
  29. https://www.armeinpharma.com/the-evolution-of-injection-techniques-a-timeline/
  30. https://www.acs.org/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/flemingpenicillin.html
  31. https://imss.org/2018/05/a-note-from-the-collection-hypodermic-needles-syrettes-and-ampoules-from-the-world-war-ii-era/
  32. https://www.nursing.virginia.edu/news/flashback-syringe-evolution/
  33. https://www.k-online.com/en/Media_News/News/Made_in_New_Zealand_disposable_syringes_invented_55_years_ago
  34. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3295010/
  35. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK390471/
  36. https://www.phlebotomyusa.com/blog/history/the-history-of-medical-needles
  37. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557744/
  38. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK595006/
  39. https://www.merckvetmanual.com/pharmacology/pharmacology-introduction/routes-of-administration-and-dosage-forms-of-drugs
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/parenteral-drug-administration
  41. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551679/
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4008927/
  43. https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/28/24/8038
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7873121/
  45. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7559546/
  46. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557852/
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10745386/
  48. https://www.osmosis.org/answers/parenteral-route
  49. https://tech.snmjournals.org/content/46/3/221
  50. https://www.vinmec.com/eng/blog/what-is-the-difference-between-oral-and-injectable-drugs-which-type-is-better-en
  51. https://www.goodrx.com/classes/androgens/oral-testosterone-vs-injection
  52. https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/drugs/administration-and-kinetics-of-drugs/drug-administration
  53. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/intravenous-injection
  54. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK594499/
  55. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/21635-iv-fluids
  56. https://www.pharmapproach.com/intravenous-route-of-drug-administration-advantages-and-disadvantages/
  57. https://accesspharmacy.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?sectionid=100670238&bookid=1592
  58. https://synapse.patsnap.com/article/what-is-the-difference-between-iv-and-po-pharmacokinetic-studies
  59. https://deltamed.pro/en/news/central-and-peripheral-venous-accesses
  60. https://www.vinmec.com/eng/blog/instructions-for-intravenous-injection-procedures-en
  61. https://www.healthline.com/health/intravenous-medication-administration-what-to-know
  62. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22382792/
  63. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK594499/table/ch1therapy.T.local_complications_of_peri/
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7928085/
  65. https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2724&context=thesis
  66. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/124/2/667/72414/Needle-Length-for-Immunization-of-Early
  67. https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/nursing/practice/clinicalskills/resources/procedures/imscinjection/imvssc.php
  68. https://www.cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/table-of-contents/chapter-6-vaccine-administration.html
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8092782/
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378517394901031
  71. https://digitalcommons.gardner-webb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1228&context=nursing_etd
  72. https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/download/6495/99193549121/
  73. https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000430.htm
  74. https://www.immunize.org/clinical/a-z/administering-vaccines-adults-dose-route-site-needle-size/
  75. https://leveluprn.com/blogs/clinical-nursing-skills/26-intradermal-subcutaneous-intramuscular-injections
  76. https://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/NursingUnits/Giving_Subcutaneous_Injection.pdf
  77. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27378678/
  78. https://www.dovepress.com/investigation-into-the-acceptability-of-moderate-to-large-volume-subcu-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-MDER
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7672413/
  80. https://www.cdc.gov/injection-safety/hcp/clinical-safety/index.html
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3044245/
  82. https://www.fda.gov/media/74866/download
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6513245/
  84. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/administration/during.html
  85. https://medlineplus.gov/ency/imagepages/19345.htm
  86. https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/216/suppl_1/S161/3935062
  87. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/imz-best-practices/vaccine-administration.html
  88. https://www.icliniq.com/articles/drug-and-supplements/intradermal-injection-an-insight
  89. https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/intradermal-injection-introduction-procedurecomplications/235979847
  90. https://yuboost.com/en/expertise/what-are-the-disadvantages-of-the-different-types-of-injection/
  91. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554373/
  92. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10718241/
  93. https://safeguardmedical.com/blogs/news/intraosseous-access-history-method-and-automated-devices
  94. https://www.osmosis.org/answers/intraosseous-device
  95. https://wjes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13017-023-00487-7
  96. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMvcm1211371
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12542029/
  98. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2407616
  99. https://www.cureus.com/articles/309390-efficacy-of-intraosseous-versus-intravenous-drug-administration-in-out-of-hospital-cardiac-arrest-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3602272/
  101. https://www.openanesthesia.org/keywords/intraosseous-access/
  102. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8611707/
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7931012/
  104. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2002/1015/p1497.html
  105. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772654123000818
  106. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10554051/
  107. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4228202/
  108. https://karger.com/drm/article/238/6/1084/823400/Intralesional-Treatments-in-Hidradenitis
  109. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurology/articles/10.3389/fneur.2024.1406504/full
  110. https://painphysicianjournal.com/current/pdf?article=MjQ0MQ%253D%253D&journal=92
  111. https://www.spine-health.com/treatment/injections/epidural-steroid-injection-pain-relief-success-rates
  112. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470189/
  113. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8744824/
  114. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10820045/
  115. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3535454/
  116. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25598520/
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4212490/
  118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9989392/
  119. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2794734
  120. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16822092/
  121. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8551124/
  122. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5472171/
  123. https://www.jmcp.org/doi/10.18553/jmcp.2022.28.10.1130
  124. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK138495/
  125. https://www.cdc.gov/injection-safety/hcp/clinical-guidance/index.html
  126. https://www.cdc.gov/dental-infection-control/media/pdfs/besc6-injection-safety-508.pdf
  127. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK562932/
  128. https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/disinfection-sterilization/steam-sterilization.html
  129. https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/media/pdfs/guideline-disinfection-h.pdf
  130. https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/isolation-precautions/recommendations.html
  131. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/admin/administer-vaccines.html
  132. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/admin/downloads/IM-injection-adult.pdf
  133. https://nurseslabs.com/subcutaneous-administration/
  134. https://wtcs.pressbooks.pub/nursingskills/chapter/18-5-administering-subcutaneous-medication/
  135. https://www.cdc.gov/tb/hcp/testing-diagnosis/tuberculin-skin-test.html
  136. https://www.cdc.gov/tb/education/mantoux/pdf/Mantoux_TB_Skin_Test.pdf
  137. https://www.rch.org.au/clinicalguide/guideline_index/intraosseous_access/
  138. https://f1000research.com/articles/3-157
  139. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8783631/
  140. https://www.cda-amc.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/htis/nov-2014/RB0669%2520Aspiration%2520Prior%2520to%2520Injection%2520Final.pdf
  141. https://www.childrensmercy.org/siteassets/media-documents-for-depts-section/documents-for-health-care-providers/evidence-based-practice/critically-appraised-topics/administering-intramuscular-injections.pdf
  142. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10376178.2025.2568580
  143. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25871949/
  144. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8670299/
  145. https://www.rch.org.au/rchcpg/hospital_clinical_guideline_index/Intramuscular_Injections/
  146. https://www.who.int/teams/integrated-health-services/infection-prevention-control/injection-safety
  147. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8941363/
  148. https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-024-11439-5
  149. https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/sharps-safety/index.html
  150. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.1030
  151. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/healthcare/hcp/pandemic/sharps-disposal-containers-shortages.html
  152. https://www.hercenter.org/rmw/osha-bps.php
  153. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safely-using-sharps-needles-and-syringes-home-work-and-travel/sharps-disposal-containers-health-care-facilities
  154. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/97-111/default.html
  155. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/health-care-waste
  156. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7656698/
  157. https://www.drugs.com/article/injection-types-sites.html
  158. https://www.healthline.com/health/intramuscular-injection
  159. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/types-of-injections
  160. https://ameripharmainfusioncenter.com/what-are-the-differences-between-intravenous-iv-intramuscular-injectable-im-and-subcutaneous-injectable-sq-infusions/
  161. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2008/1015/p971.html
  162. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5808869/
  163. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/epinephrine-is-the-only-effective-treatment-for-anaphylaxis-2020070920523
  164. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/139/3/e20164006/53753/Epinephrine-for-First-aid-Management-of
  165. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/naloxone
  166. https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/naloxone-injection-route/description/drg-20095285
  167. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a682480.html
  168. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2011/0715/p183.html
  169. https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/48/Supplement_1/S181/157569/9-Pharmacologic-Approaches-to-Glycemic-Treatment
  170. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27732772/
  171. https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/a-practical-review-of-longacting-injectable-antipsychotics
  172. https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/epoetin-alfa-injection-route/description/drg-20068065
  173. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a604005.html
  174. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10486173/
  175. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11311355/
  176. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6602527/
  177. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7348619/
  178. https://anesth-pain-med.org/upload/pdf/APM-12-103.pdf
  179. https://www.hmpgloballearningnetwork.com/site/wounds/article/2045
  180. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15849663/
  181. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3385328/
  182. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4969378/
  183. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971209000253
  184. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2769353/
  185. https://insightsimaging.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13244-020-00903-5
  186. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4375012/
  187. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31452229/
  188. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36758552/
  189. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10800406/
  190. https://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644%2805%2900133-2/fulltext
  191. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0196064410018329
  192. https://cdn-uat.mdedge.com/files/s3fs-public/jfp-archived-issues/1995-volume_40-41/JFP_1995-08_v41_i2_needle-phobia-a-neglected-diagnosis.pdf
  193. https://criticalvalues.org/news/all/2025/02/18/addressing-needle-phobia-in-phlebotomy-enhancing-patient-care-and-reducing-anxiety
  194. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9678288/
  195. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7774419/
  196. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6517234/
  197. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16506073.2016.1157204
  198. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/06/injection-fear
  199. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4675000/
  200. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd2076
  201. https://jtip.com/history-of-jet-injection/
  202. https://www.nature.com/articles/nri1728
  203. https://pubs.lib.umn.edu/index.php/innovations/article/download/330/324/499
  204. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12065001/
  205. https://www.dovepress.com/current-trends-in-needle-free-jet-injection-an-update-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-CCID
  206. https://www.ijpsjournal.com/article/Needle%2BFree%2BInjection%2BTechnology%2BA%2BComprehensive%2BReview
  207. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0233599
  208. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9303610/
  209. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm?ID=k111517
  210. https://drug-dev.com/needle-free-injection-portal-prime-a-digitally-controlled-cloud-integrated-jet-injection-system/
  211. https://www.aasv.org/shap/issues/v16n5/v16n5p254.htm
  212. https://www.fda.gov/files/about%2520fda/published/Technical-Considerations-for-Pen--Jet--and-Related-Injectors-Intended-for-Use-with-Drugs-and-Biological-Products.pdf
  213. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10409493/
  214. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319016421001821
  215. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2020/019430s091lbl.pdf
  216. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2012/201739Orig1s000MedR.pdf
  217. https://www.ondrugdelivery.com/30-years-in-the-making-an-inside-perspective-on-the-emergence-of-autoinjectors/
  218. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8523323/
  219. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9969699/
  220. https://www.kindevadd.com/resources/how-the-autoinjector-changed-the-world/
  221. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10567963/
  222. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6080662/
  223. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2147/DHPS.S290771
  224. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37733212/
  225. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5766732/
  226. https://www.dovepress.com/development-and-usability-of-a-new-subcutaneous-auto-injector-device-t-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-MDER
  227. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4654245/
  228. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38953767/
  229. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11570717/
  230. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3742035/
  231. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23780619/
  232. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359644625001606
  233. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-36330-5
  234. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7030185/
  235. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40263-021-00861-6
  236. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/
  237. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1449223/
  238. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2822221
  239. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196655324004942
  240. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264410X2301472X
  241. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9818041/
  242. https://www.sccm.org/blog/ethical-considerations-for-a-covid-19-vaccine-mandate
  243. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-36989-6_11
  244. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9136690/
  245. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2313610121
  246. https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2024/10/28/jme-2024-110236
  247. https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/187/3-4/73/6363094
  248. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7798520/
  249. https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Bardosh-Testimony.pdf
  250. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK558963/
  251. https://www.cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/table-of-contents/chapter-4-vaccine-safety.html
  252. https://vaers.hhs.gov/
  253. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/surveillance/fdas-adverse-event-reporting-system-faers
  254. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety-systems/vaers/index.html
  255. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11252891/
  256. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264410X20312548
  257. https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html
  258. https://www.fda.gov/safety/medwatch-fda-safety-information-and-adverse-event-reporting-program
  259. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/fdas-adverse-event-reporting-system-faers/fda-adverse-event-reporting-system-faers-public-dashboard
  260. https://hssh.health/blog/the-dark-side-of-epidural-steroid-injections-risks-complications/
  261. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11790416/
  262. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/22091-lumbar-epidural-steroid-injection
  263. https://ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/AJR.23.30458
  264. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40141-013-0038-6
  265. https://www.vertosmed.com/the-downside-of-repeat-epidural-steroid-injection-treatments-for-lumbar-spinal-stenosis/
  266. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4566306/
  267. https://jheor.org/article/143489-reasonable-cost-for-procedures-an-anonymous-survey-of-healthcare-providers
  268. https://www.solace.health/articles/medicare-pain-injections-coverage-guide
  269. https://surgicalneurologyint.com/surgicalint-articles/unnecessary-multiple-epidural-steroid-injections-delay-surgery-for-massive-lumbar-disc-case-discussion-and-review/
  270. https://www.jwatch.org/na38842/2015/09/01/epidural-corticosteroid-injections-another-meta-analysis
  271. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3468401/
  272. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11648747/
  273. https://ouv.vt.edu/content/dam/ouv_vt_edu/sops/small-animal/sop-dogs-and-cats-injections.pdf
  274. https://open.lib.umn.edu/clinicalskills/part/injections-2/
  275. https://www.ndsu.edu/agriculture/ag-hub/ag-topics/livestock/beef/injections
  276. https://extension.vetmed.ufl.edu/files/2012/02/injections-sites-techniques-and-needle-choice-March-issue-FCA-2011.pdf
  277. https://www.canr.msu.edu/animal_science/uploads/files/4H1669_AnimalScienceAnywhere-LivestockInjections_NEW.pdf
  278. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3189662/
  279. https://lar.fsu.edu/media/1127/a-good-practice-guide-to-the-administration.pdf
  280. https://www.avma.org/resources/pet-owners/petcare/your-pets-medications
  281. https://www.vet.k-state.edu/handbooks/senior/docs/anesthetic-drugs-and-dosages.pdf
  282. https://www.merckvetmanual.com/pharmacology/vaccines-and-immunotherapy/vaccine-failure-and-other-adverse-events-in-animals
  283. https://pharmacyconnection.ca/veterinary-and-human-drugs-spring-2018/
  284. https://www.compassionatecareveterinaryhospital.com/pharmacy/prescription-information/fda-animal-drugs-versus-human-generics/
  285. https://theconversation.com/yes-vets-sometimes-prescribe-human-drugs-to-pets-but-dont-try-it-at-home-259675
  286. https://vetmed.tamu.edu/peer/wp-content/uploads/sites/72/2020/04/Injection-Fact-Sheet.pdf
  287. https://veterinarypartner.vin.com/default.aspx?pid=19239&catId=260499&id=8458100
  288. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2465782/
  289. https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/dear-veterinarian-letter-notifying-veterinarians-about-adverse-events-reported-dogs-treated-librela
  290. https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/adverse-event-reports-animal-drugs-and-devices
  291. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/HS1426
  292. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12526419/
  293. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/7/1465
  294. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/1/107
  295. https://beasmartash.org/what-can-i-do/emerald-ash-borer-treatment/trunk-injection/
  296. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261219419301711
  297. https://citrusindustry.net/2021/05/17/principles-and-risks-of-trunk-injection-for-delivery-of-crop-protection-materials/
  298. https://fruitsandnuts.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk12441/files/media/documents/Archer-Crane-Albrecht%25202022_0.pdf
  299. https://nutrisoil.com.au/inoculation-and-liquid-injection/
  300. http://nmsp.cals.cornell.edu/publications/factsheets/factsheet87.pdf
  301. https://news.mit.edu/2020/plant-precision-injection-orange-olive-banana-0427
  302. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1537511024000552
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.