Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Microneedle Arrays Allow Lower Microbial Penetration Than Hypodermic Needles In Vitro

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Pharmaceutical Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Methods

In this study we determined, for the first time, the ability of microorganisms to traverse microneedle-induced holes using two different in vitro models.

Results

When employing Silescol® membranes, the numbers of Candida albicans, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus epidermidis crossing the membranes were an order of magnitude lower when the membranes were punctured by microneedles rather than a 21G hypodermic needle. Apart from the movement of C. albicans across hypodermic needle-punctured membranes, where 40.2% of the microbial load on control membranes permeated the barrier over 24 h, the numbers of permeating microorganisms was less than 5% of the original microbial load on control membranes. Experiments employing excised porcine skin and radiolabelled microorganisms showed that the numbers of microorganisms penetrating skin beyond the stratum corneum were approximately an order of magnitude greater than the numbers crossing Silescol® membranes in the corresponding experiments. Approximately 103 cfu of each microorganism adhered to hypodermic needles during insertion. The numbers of microorganisms adhering to MN arrays were an order of magnitude higher in each case.

Conclusion

We have shown here that microneedle puncture resulted in significantly less microbial penetration than did hypodermic needle puncture and that no microorganisms crossed the viable epidermis in microneedle—punctured skin, in contrast to needle-punctured skin. Given the antimicrobial properties of skin, it is, therefore, likely that application of microneedle arrays to skin in an appropriate manner would not cause either local or systemic infection in normal circumstances in immune-competent patients. In supporting widespread clinical use of microneedle-based delivery systems, appropriate animal studies are now needed to conclusively demonstrate this in vivo. Safety in patients will be enhanced by aseptic or sterile manufacture and by fabricating microneedles from self-disabling materials (e.g. dissolving or biodegradable polymers) to prevent inappropriate or accidental reuse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Prausniz MR. Microneedles for transdermal drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2004;56:581–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mikszta JA, Dekker JP, Harvey NG, Dean CH, Brittingham JM. Microneedle-based intradermal delivery of the anthrax recombinant protective antigen vaccine. Infect Immun. 2006;74:6806–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Coulman SA, Barrow D, Anstey A, Gateley C, Morrissey A, Wilke N. Minimally invasive cutaneous delivery of macromolecules and plasmid DNA via microneedles. Curr Drug Deliv. 2006;3:65–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Henry S, McAllister DV, Allen MG, Prausnitz MR. Microfabricated microneedles: a novel approach to transdermal drug delivery. J Pharm Sci. 1998;87:922–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Park JH, Allen MG, Prausnitz MR. Biodegradable polymer microneedles: fabrication, mechanics and transdermal drug delivery. J Cont Rel. 2005;104:51–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cormier M, Johnson B, Ameri M, Nyam K, Libiran L, Zhang DD. Transdermal delivery of desmopressin using a coated microneedle array patch system. J Cont Rel. 2004;97:503–11.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wang PM, Cornwell M, Hill J, Prausnitz MR. Precise microinjection into skin using hollow microneedles. J Invest Dermatol. 2006;126:1080–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McAllister DV, Wang PM, Davis SP, Park JH, Canatella PJ, Allen MG, et al. Microfabricated needles for transdermal delivery of macromolecules and nanoparticles: fabrication methods and transport studies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100:13755–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Teo MA, Shearwood C, Ng KC, Lu J, Moochhala S. In vitro and in vivo characterization of MEMS microneedles. Biomed Microdev. 2005;7:47–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Donnelly RF, Morrow DIJ, McCarron PA, Woolfson AD, Morrissey A, Juzenas P, et al. Microneedle-mediated intradermal delivery of 5-aminolevulinic acid: potential for enhanced topical photodynamic therapy. J Cont Rel. 2008;129:154–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Donnelly RF, Morrow DIJ, McCarron PA, Woolfson AD, Morrissey A, Juzenas P, et al. Microneedle arrays permit true intradermal delivery of a preformed photosensitiser. Photochem Photobiol. 2009;85:195–204.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Woolfson AD, McCafferty DF, McCallion CR, McAdams ET, Anderson JMcC. Moisture-activated, electrically conducting bioadhesive hydrogels as interfaces for bioelectrodes: effect of film hydration on cutaneous adherence in wet environments. J Appl Polym Sci. 1995;58:1291–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fourtanier A, Berrebi C. Miniature pig as an animal model to study photoaging. Photochem Photobiol. 1989;50:771–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Moser K, Kriwet K, Froehlich C, Kalia YN, Guy RH. Supersaturation: enhancement of skin penetration and permeation of a lipophilic drug. Pharm Res. 2001;18:1006–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pellett MA, Roberts MS, Hadgraft J. Supersaturated solutions evaluated with an in vitro stratum corneum tape stripping technique. Int J Pharm. 1997;151:91–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Wermeling DP, Banks SL, Huclson DA, Prausnitz M. Microneedles permit transdermal delivery of a skin-impermeant medication to humans. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:2058–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Haq MI, Smith E, John DN, Kalavala M, Edwards C, Anstey A, et al. Clinical administration of microneedles: skin puncture, pain and sensation. Biomed Microdev. 2009;11:35–47.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Van Damme P, Oosterhuis-Kafeja F, Van der Wielen M, Almagor Y, Sharon O, Levin Y. Safety and efficacy of a novel microneedle device for dose sparing intradermal influenza vaccination in healthy adults. Vaccine. 2009;27:454–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Alarcon JB, Hartley AW, Harvey NG, Mikszta JA. Preclinical evaluation of microneedle technology for intradermal delivery of influenza vaccines. Clin Vacc Immun. 2007;14:375–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Seal DV, Hay RJ, Middleton KR. Skin and wound infection: investigation and treatment in practice. London: Informa Healthcare; 2000. p. 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  21. www.who.int/en. Accessed 16th April 2009.

  22. Pittet D, Allegranzi B, Sax H, Dharan S, Pessoa-Silva CL, Donaldson L, et al. Evidence-based model for hand transmission during patient care and the role of improved practices. Lancet Infect Dis. 2006;6:641–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Del Mar CB, Glasziou PP, Spinks AB, Sanders SL. Is isopropyl alcohol swabbing before injection really necessary? Med J Aust. 2001;175:341–2.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Elsner P. Antimicrobials and the skin physiological and pathological flora. Curr Prob Derm. 2006;33:35–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Widera G, Johnson J, Kim L, Libiran L, Nyam K, Daddona PE, et al. Effect of delivery parameters on immunization to ovalbumin following intracutaneous administration by a coated microneedle array patch system. Vaccine. 2006;24:1653–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by BBSRC grant number: BB/E020534/1 and the Science Foundation Ireland Tyndall National Access Programme project number NAP 156.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Pharmacy, Queen’s University Belfast, Medical Biology Centre, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7BL, UK

    Ryan F. Donnelly, Thakur Raghu Raj Singh, Michael M. Tunney, Desmond I. J. Morrow & A. David Woolfson

  2. Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Ulster, Cromore Road, Coleraine, BT52 1SA, UK

    Paul A. McCarron

  3. Tyndall National Institute, Lee Maltings, Prospect Row, Cork, Ireland

    Conor O’Mahony

Authors
  1. Ryan F. Donnelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thakur Raghu Raj Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael M. Tunney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Desmond I. J. Morrow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul A. McCarron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Conor O’Mahony
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A. David Woolfson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan F. Donnelly.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Donnelly, R.F., Singh, T.R.R., Tunney, M.M. et al. Microneedle Arrays Allow Lower Microbial Penetration Than Hypodermic Needles In Vitro . Pharm Res 26, 2513–2522 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-009-9967-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-009-9967-2

Key Words

Search

Navigation