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 10(3) 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.
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 10(3) 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.
Authors: Devin V McAllister; Ping M Wang; Shawn P Davis; Jung-Hwan Park; Paul J Canatella; Mark G Allen; Mark R Prausnitz Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-11-17 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Michel Cormier; Bonny Johnson; Mahmoud Ameri; Kofi Nyam; Luz Libiran; Dee Dee Zhang; Pete Daddona Journal: J Control Release Date: 2004-07-07 Impact factor: 9.776
Authors: Sion A Coulman; David Barrow; Alexander Anstey; Chris Gateley; Anthony Morrissey; Nicolle Wilke; Chris Allender; Keith Brain; James C Birchall Journal: Curr Drug Deliv Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Siôn A Coulman; James C Birchall; Aneesh Alex; Marc Pearton; Bernd Hofer; Conor O'Mahony; Wolfgang Drexler; Boris Považay Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2010-05-13 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Maelíosa T C McCrudden; Ahlam Zaid Alkilani; Aaron J Courtenay; Cian M McCrudden; Bronagh McCloskey; Christine Walker; Nida Alshraiedeh; Rebecca E M Lutton; Brendan F Gilmore; A David Woolfson; Ryan F Donnelly Journal: Drug Deliv Transl Res Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.617
Authors: Patrycja Mikolajewska; Ryan F Donnelly; Martin J Garland; Desmond I J Morrow; Thakur Raghu Raj Singh; Vladimir Iani; Johan Moan; Asta Juzeniene Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2010-07-31 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Shaun D Gittard; Aleksandr Ovsianikov; Boris N Chichkov; Anand Doraiswamy; Roger J Narayan Journal: Expert Opin Drug Deliv Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 6.648
Authors: Ryan F Donnelly; Kurtis Moffatt; Ahlam Zaid Alkilani; Eva M Vicente-Pérez; Johanne Barry; Maelíosa T C McCrudden; A David Woolfson Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 4.200