Cargando…

Comparison of drug delivery with autoinjector versus manual prefilled syringe and between three different autoinjector devices administered in pig thigh

Parenteral routes of drug administration are often selected to optimize actual dose of drug delivered, assure high bioavailability, bypass first-pass metabolism or harsh gastrointestinal environments, as well as maximize the speed of onset. Intramuscular (IM) delivery can be preferred to intravenous...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hill, Robert L, Wilmot, John G, Belluscio, Beth A, Cleary, Kevin, Lindisch, David, Tucker, Robin, Wilson, Emmanuel, Shukla, Rajesh B
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4976900/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27536164
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S83406
_version_ 1782446933979168768
author Hill, Robert L
Wilmot, John G
Belluscio, Beth A
Cleary, Kevin
Lindisch, David
Tucker, Robin
Wilson, Emmanuel
Shukla, Rajesh B
author_facet Hill, Robert L
Wilmot, John G
Belluscio, Beth A
Cleary, Kevin
Lindisch, David
Tucker, Robin
Wilson, Emmanuel
Shukla, Rajesh B
author_sort Hill, Robert L
collection PubMed
description Parenteral routes of drug administration are often selected to optimize actual dose of drug delivered, assure high bioavailability, bypass first-pass metabolism or harsh gastrointestinal environments, as well as maximize the speed of onset. Intramuscular (IM) delivery can be preferred to intravenous delivery when initiating intravenous access is difficult or impossible. Drugs can be injected intramuscularly using a syringe or an automated delivery device (autoinjector). Investigation into the IM delivery dynamics of these methods may guide further improvements in the performance of injection technologies. Two porcine model studies were conducted to compare differences in dispersion of injectate volume for different methods of IM drug administration. The first study compared the differences in the degree of dispersion and uptake of injectate following the use of a manual syringe and an autoinjector. The second study compared the spatial spread of the injected formulation, or dispersion volume, and uptake of injectate following the use of five different autoinjectors (EpiPen(®) [0.3 mL], EpiPen(®) Jr [0.3 mL], Twinject(®) [0.15 mL, 0.3 mL], and Anapen(®) 300 [0.3 mL]) with varying needle length, needle gauge, and force applied to the plunger. In the first study, the autoinjector provided higher peak volumes of injectate, indicating a greater degree of dispersion, compared with manual syringe delivery. In the second study, EpiPen autoinjectors resulted in larger dispersion volumes and higher initial dispersion ratios, which decreased rapidly over time, suggesting a greater rate of uptake of injectate than the other autoinjectors. The differences in dispersion and uptake of injectate are likely the result of different functional characteristics of the delivery systems. Both studies demonstrate that the functional characteristics of the method for delivering IM injections impact the dispersion and uptake of the material injected, which could significantly affect the pharmacokinetics and, ultimately, the effectiveness of the drug.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4976900
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49769002016-08-17 Comparison of drug delivery with autoinjector versus manual prefilled syringe and between three different autoinjector devices administered in pig thigh Hill, Robert L Wilmot, John G Belluscio, Beth A Cleary, Kevin Lindisch, David Tucker, Robin Wilson, Emmanuel Shukla, Rajesh B Med Devices (Auckl) Original Research Parenteral routes of drug administration are often selected to optimize actual dose of drug delivered, assure high bioavailability, bypass first-pass metabolism or harsh gastrointestinal environments, as well as maximize the speed of onset. Intramuscular (IM) delivery can be preferred to intravenous delivery when initiating intravenous access is difficult or impossible. Drugs can be injected intramuscularly using a syringe or an automated delivery device (autoinjector). Investigation into the IM delivery dynamics of these methods may guide further improvements in the performance of injection technologies. Two porcine model studies were conducted to compare differences in dispersion of injectate volume for different methods of IM drug administration. The first study compared the differences in the degree of dispersion and uptake of injectate following the use of a manual syringe and an autoinjector. The second study compared the spatial spread of the injected formulation, or dispersion volume, and uptake of injectate following the use of five different autoinjectors (EpiPen(®) [0.3 mL], EpiPen(®) Jr [0.3 mL], Twinject(®) [0.15 mL, 0.3 mL], and Anapen(®) 300 [0.3 mL]) with varying needle length, needle gauge, and force applied to the plunger. In the first study, the autoinjector provided higher peak volumes of injectate, indicating a greater degree of dispersion, compared with manual syringe delivery. In the second study, EpiPen autoinjectors resulted in larger dispersion volumes and higher initial dispersion ratios, which decreased rapidly over time, suggesting a greater rate of uptake of injectate than the other autoinjectors. The differences in dispersion and uptake of injectate are likely the result of different functional characteristics of the delivery systems. Both studies demonstrate that the functional characteristics of the method for delivering IM injections impact the dispersion and uptake of the material injected, which could significantly affect the pharmacokinetics and, ultimately, the effectiveness of the drug. Dove Medical Press 2016-08-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4976900/ /pubmed/27536164 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S83406 Text en © 2016 Hill et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. Permissions beyond the scope of the License are administered by Dove Medical Press Limited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Hill, Robert L
Wilmot, John G
Belluscio, Beth A
Cleary, Kevin
Lindisch, David
Tucker, Robin
Wilson, Emmanuel
Shukla, Rajesh B
Comparison of drug delivery with autoinjector versus manual prefilled syringe and between three different autoinjector devices administered in pig thigh
title Comparison of drug delivery with autoinjector versus manual prefilled syringe and between three different autoinjector devices administered in pig thigh
title_full Comparison of drug delivery with autoinjector versus manual prefilled syringe and between three different autoinjector devices administered in pig thigh
title_fullStr Comparison of drug delivery with autoinjector versus manual prefilled syringe and between three different autoinjector devices administered in pig thigh
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of drug delivery with autoinjector versus manual prefilled syringe and between three different autoinjector devices administered in pig thigh
title_short Comparison of drug delivery with autoinjector versus manual prefilled syringe and between three different autoinjector devices administered in pig thigh
title_sort comparison of drug delivery with autoinjector versus manual prefilled syringe and between three different autoinjector devices administered in pig thigh
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4976900/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27536164
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S83406
work_keys_str_mv AT hillrobertl comparisonofdrugdeliverywithautoinjectorversusmanualprefilledsyringeandbetweenthreedifferentautoinjectordevicesadministeredinpigthigh
AT wilmotjohng comparisonofdrugdeliverywithautoinjectorversusmanualprefilledsyringeandbetweenthreedifferentautoinjectordevicesadministeredinpigthigh
AT bellusciobetha comparisonofdrugdeliverywithautoinjectorversusmanualprefilledsyringeandbetweenthreedifferentautoinjectordevicesadministeredinpigthigh
AT clearykevin comparisonofdrugdeliverywithautoinjectorversusmanualprefilledsyringeandbetweenthreedifferentautoinjectordevicesadministeredinpigthigh
AT lindischdavid comparisonofdrugdeliverywithautoinjectorversusmanualprefilledsyringeandbetweenthreedifferentautoinjectordevicesadministeredinpigthigh
AT tuckerrobin comparisonofdrugdeliverywithautoinjectorversusmanualprefilledsyringeandbetweenthreedifferentautoinjectordevicesadministeredinpigthigh
AT wilsonemmanuel comparisonofdrugdeliverywithautoinjectorversusmanualprefilledsyringeandbetweenthreedifferentautoinjectordevicesadministeredinpigthigh
AT shuklarajeshb comparisonofdrugdeliverywithautoinjectorversusmanualprefilledsyringeandbetweenthreedifferentautoinjectordevicesadministeredinpigthigh