Advertisement

Drug Delivery and Translational Research

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 346–359 | Cite as

Paediatricians’ opinions of microneedle-mediated monitoring: a key stage in the translation of microneedle technology from laboratory into clinical practice

  • Karen Mooney
  • James C. McElnay
  • Ryan F. DonnellyEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Microneedle (MN) arrays could offer an alternative method to traditional drug delivery and blood sampling methods. However, acceptance among key end-users is critical for new technologies to succeed. MNs have been advocated for use in children and so, paediatricians are key potential end-users. However, the opinions of paediatricians on MN use have been previously unexplored. The aim of this study was to investigate the views of UK paediatricians on the use of MN technology within neonatal and paediatric care. An online survey was developed and distributed among UK paediatricians to gain their opinions of MN technology and its use in the neonatal and paediatric care settings, particularly for MN-mediated monitoring. A total of 145 responses were obtained, with a completion response rate of 13.7 %. Respondents believed an alternative monitoring technique to blood sampling in children was required. Furthermore, 83 % of paediatricians believed there was a particular need in premature neonates. Overall, this potential end-user group approved of the MN technology and a MN-mediated monitoring approach. Minimal pain and the perceived ease of use were important elements in gaining favour. Concerns included the need for confirmation of correct application and the potential for skin irritation. The findings of this study provide an initial indication of MN acceptability among a key potential end-user group. Furthermore, the concerns identified present a challenge to those working within the MN field to provide solutions to further improve this technology. The work strengthens the rationale behind MN technology and facilitates the translation of MN technology from lab bench into the clinical setting.

Keywords

Microneedle Paediatrician Opinions Children Neonates Monitoring Minimally invasive 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge Dr David Sweet, Consultant Neonatologist and member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, for his assistance with this work. We also recognise Dr TM Tuan-Mahmood, for her assistance with the ethical application and survey preparation. Also to our colleagues in the Children’s Medicines Research Group, Queen’s University Belfast, who piloted this survey, prior to distribution.

Ethics

This work was granted approval by the Ethical committee, School of Pharmacy, Queen’s University Belfast (012PMY2012).

Conflict of interest

Ryan Donnelly is a named inventor on a patent application related tohydrogel-forming microneedle arrays (details below). He is working with a number of companies with a view to commercialisation of this technology. He provides advice, through consultancy, to these companies. This does not alter our adherence to Drug Delivery & Translational Research policies onsharing data and materials. None of the other authors have any competing interests.

Donnelly, R.F., Woolfson A.D., McCarron, P.A., Morrow, D.I.J. Morrissey, A. (2007). Microneedles/Delivery Device and Method. British Patent Application No 0718996.2. Filed September 28th 2007. International publication No WO2009040548. Approved for grant in Japan and China. US, Europe, India and Australia pending.

References

  1. 1.
    Henry S, McAllister D, Allen M, Prausnitz M. Microfabricated microneedles: a novel approach to transdermal drug delivery. J Pharm Sci. 1998;87(8):922–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gardeniers H, Luttge R, Berenschot E, de Boer M, Yeshurun S. Silicon micromachined hollow microneedles for transdermal liquid transport. J Microelectromech Syst. 2003;12(6):855–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haq M, Smith E, John D, Kalavala M, Edwards C, Anstey A. Clinical administration of microneedles: skin puncture, pain and sensation. Biomed Microdevices. 2009;11(1):35–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chabri F, Bouris K, Jones T, Barrow D, Hann A, Allender C. Microfabricated silicon microneedles for nonviral cutaneous gene delivery. Br J Dermatol. 2004;150(5):869–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donnelly RF, Morrow D, McCarron P, Woolfson AD, Morrissey A, Juzenas P. Microneedle-mediated intradermal delivery of 5-aminolevulinic acid: potential for enhanced topical photodynamic therapy. J Control Release. 2008;129(3):154–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Verbaan F, Bal S, van den Berg D, Groenink W, Verpoorten H, Luttge R. Assembled microneedle arrays enhance the transport of compounds varying over a large range of molecular weight across human dermatomed skin. J Control Release. 2007;117(2):238–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Song J, Kim Y, Lipatov A, Pearton M, Davis C, Yoo D. Microneedle delivery of H5N1 influenza virus-like particles to the skin induces long-lasting B- and T-cell responses in mice. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2010;17(9):1381–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tsuchiya K, Jinnin S, Yamamoto H, Uetsuji Y, Nakamachi E. Design and development of a biocompatible painless microneedle by the ion sputtering deposition method. Precis Eng. 2010;34(3):461–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kolli C, Banga A. Characterization of solid maltose microneedles and their use for transdermal delivery. Pharm Res. 2008;25(1):104–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mikolajewska P, Donnelly RF, Garland MJ, Morrow D, Singh TRR, Iani V. Microneedle pre-treatment of human skin improves 5-aminolevulininc acid (ALA)- and 5-aminolevulinic acid methyl ester (MAL)-induced PpIX production for topical photodynamic therapy without increase in pain or erythema. Pharm Res. 2010;27(10):2213–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Donnelly RF, Singh TRR, Morrow D, Woolfson AD. Microneedle-mediated transdermal and intradermal drug delivery. West Sussex: Wiley; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yang SY, O’Cearbhaill SD, Sisk GC, Park KM, Cho WK, Villiger M, et al. A bio-inspired swellable microneedle adhesive for mechanical interlocking with tissue. Nat Commun 2013;4:1702.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Donnelly RF, Singh TRR, Alkilani AZ, McCrudden MTC, O’Neill S, O’Mahony C, et al. Hydrogel-forming microneedle arrays exhibit antimicrobial properties: potential for enhanced patient safety. Int J Pharm. 2013;451(1–2):76–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bhargav A, Muller DA, Kendall MAF, Corrie SR. Surface modifications of microprojection arrays for improved biomarker capture in the skin of live mice. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2012;4(5):2483–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaushik S, Hord A, Denson D, McAllister D, Smitra S, Allen M. Lack of pain associated with microfabricated microneedles. Anesth Analg. 2001;92(2):502–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bal S, Caussin J, Pavel S, Bouwstra J. In vivo assessment of safety of microneedle arrays in human skin. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2008;35(3):193–202.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gill H, Denson D, Burris B, Prausnitz M. Effect of microneedle design on pain in human volunteers. Clin J Pain. 2008;24(7):585–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Banks S, Pinninti R, Gill H, Paudel K, Crooks P, Brogden N. Transdermal delivery of naltrexol and skin permeability lifetime after microneedle treatment in hairless guinea pigs. J Pharm Sci. 2010;99(7):3072–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Donnelly RF, Morrow D, Fay F, Scott C, Abdelghany S, Singh TRR. Microneedle-mediated intradermal nanoparticle delivery: potential for enhanced local administration of hydrophobic pre-formed photosensitisers. Photodiagn Photodyn Ther. 2010;7(4):222–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mukerjee E, Collins S, Isseroff R, Smith R. Microneedle array for transdermal biological fluid extraction and in situ analysis. Sens Actuators A 2004;114(2–3):267–275.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang P, Cornwell M, Prausnitz M. Minimally invasive extraction of dermal interstitial fluid for glucose monitoring using microneedles. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2005;7(1):131–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Theoretical analytical flow model in hollow microneedles for non-forced fluid extraction. 1st IEEE International Conference on Nano/Micro Engineered and Molecular Systems; 18–21 Jan; New York: IEEE; 2006.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Corrie S, Fernando G, Crichton M, Brunck M, Anderson C, Kendall M. Surface-modified microprojection arrays for intradermal biomarker capture, with low non-specific protein binding. Lab Chip. 2010;10(20):2655–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Windmiller J, Valdes Ramirez G, Zhou N, Zhou M, Miller P. Bicomponent microneedle array biosensor for minimally-invasive glutamate monitoring. Electroanalysis. 2011;23(10):2302–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Holden RJ, Karsh B. The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. J Biomed Inform. 2010;43(1):159–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Heinemann L. The failure of exubera: are we beating a dead horse? J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008;2(3):518.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lærum L, Ellingsen G, Faxvaag A. Doctors’ use of electronic medical records systems in hospitals: cross sectional survey. BMJ: Br Med J (Int Ed). 2001;323(7325):1344–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wu JH, Wang SC, Lin LM. Mobile computing acceptance factors in the healthcare industry: a structural equation model. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76(1):66–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liddy C, Dusseault JJ, Dahrouge S, Hogg W, Lemelin J, Humber J. Telehomecare for patients with multiple chronic illnesses: pilot study. Can Fam Physician. 2008;54(1):58–65.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Handy J, Hunter I, Whiddett R. User acceptance of inter-organizational electronic medical records. Health Inform J. 2001;7(2):103–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Or CKL, Karsh B. A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16(4):550–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kim J, Park HA. Development of a health information technology acceptance model using consumers’ health behavior intention. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(5):e133.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Birchall J, Clemo R, Anstey A, John D. Microneedles in clinical practice—an exploratory study into the opinions of healthcare professionals and the public. Pharm Res. 2011;28(1):95–106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mooney K, McElnay JC, Donnelly RF. Children’s views on microneedle use as an alternative to blood sampling for patient monitoring. Int J Pharm Pract. 2013;22(5):335–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Green J, Britten N. Qualitative research and evidence based medicine. BMJ Br Med J. 1998;316(7139):1230–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fitzpatrick R, Boulton M. Qualitative methods for assessing health care. Qual Health Care. 1994;3(2):107–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Evans JR, Mathur A. The value of online surveys. Internet Res -Electron Netw Appl Policy. 2005;15(2):195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lefever S, Dal M, Matthiasdottir A. Online data collection in academic research: advantages and limitations. Br J Educ Technol. 2007;38(4):574–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cook C, Heath F, Thompson RL. A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educ Psychol Meas. 2000;60(6):821–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fowler FJ. Survey research methods. 3rd ed. United States of America: Sage; 2002.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Wentz R. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2009(3).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    McColl E, Jacoby A, Thomas L, Soutter J, Bamford C, Steen N, et al. Design and use of questionnaires: a review of best practice applicable to surveys of health service staff and patients. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(31):1–256.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ward AM, Agar M, Koczwara B. Collaborating or co-existing: a survey of attitudes of medical oncologists toward specialist palliative care. Palliat Med. 2009;23(8):698–707.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tsikriktsis N. A review of techniques for treating missing data in OM survey research. J Oper Manag. 2005;24(1):53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Competency, compassion and contentment: nurses’ attitudes toward pain associated with peripheral venous access in pediatric patients. American Pain Society 27th Annual Scientific meeting; 8–10 May 2008; 2008.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Department of Health. Integrated care: our shared commitment. 2013.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Department of Health. Patient and public involvement: the evidence for policy implementation. 2004.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Patient and public involvement policy. 2012.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cartwright A. Professionals as responders: variations in and effects of response rates to questionnaires, 1961–77. Br Med J. 1978 1978;2.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    McAvoy BR, Kaner EFS. General practice postal surveys: a questionnaire too far? Br Med J. 1996;313(7059):732–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Barclay S, Todd C, Finlay I, Grande G, Wyatt P. Not another questionnaire! Maximizing the response rate, predicting non-response and assessing non-response bias in postal questionnaire studies of GPs. Fam Pract. 2002;19(1):105–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Nulty DD. The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assess Eval High Educ. 2008;33(3):301–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lin W, van Ryzin GG. Web and mail surveys: an experimental comparison of methods for nonprofit research. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q. 2012;41(6):1014–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Aitken C, Power R, Dwyer R. A very low response rate in an on-line survey of medical practitioners. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2008;32(3):288–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Scott A, Jeon SH, Joyce CM, Humphreys JS, Kalb G, Witt J, et al. A randomised trial and economic evaluation of the effect of response mode on response rate, response bias, and item non-response in a survey of doctors. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2011 2011-01-01;11:126–126.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Braithwaite D, Emery J, de Lusignan S, Sutton S. Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: a valid alternative? Fam Pract. 2003;20(5):545–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Controlled Release Society 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen Mooney
    • 1
  • James C. McElnay
    • 1
  • Ryan F. Donnelly
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.School of PharmacyQueen’s University BelfastBelfastUK

Personalised recommendations