Biomedical Microdevices

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 35–47 | Cite as

Clinical administration of microneedles: skin puncture, pain and sensation

  • M. I. Haq
  • E. Smith
  • D. N. John
  • M. Kalavala
  • C. Edwards
  • A. Anstey
  • A. Morrissey
  • J. C. Birchall


Injections using hypodermic needles cause pain, discomfort, localised trauma and apprehension. Additionally, careful use and disposal of needles is required to avoid transmission of blood-borne pathogens. As an alternative, microneedles can facilitate drug delivery without significantly impacting on pain receptors or blood vessels that reside beneath the skin outer layers. In this study we aim to determine the pain and sensory response to the application of wet-etch silicon microneedles, when used in such a way as to reliably penetrate skin, and provide a preliminary indication of how skin responds to microneedle injury with time. Twelve subjects received single-blinded insertions of a 25-G hypodermic needle and two microneedle arrays (36 needles of 180 and 280 μm height). The optimal method for microneedle application was determined in a pilot study. Pain intensity was scored using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and sensory perception determined using an adapted McGill Pain Questionnaire Short Form. Skin penetration was determined by external staining and measurement of trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL). Mean VAS scores, verbal descriptions and questionnaire responses showed that the 180 and 280 μm microneedles caused significantly less pain and discomforting sensation in participants than the hypodermic needle. Methylene blue staining and TEWL analysis confirmed that microchannels were formed in the skin following microneedle application. Evidence of microchannel repair and resealing was apparent at 8–24 h post-application. In summary, this study shows that pyramidal wet-etch microneedles can penetrate human skin with minimal pain and sensory discomfort, creating transient pathways for potential drug, vaccine and DNA delivery.


Microneedle Pain Sensation Visual analogue scale Clinical trial 


  1. J. Aramaki, S. Kawana, I. Effendy et al., Differences of skin irritation between Japanese and European women Br. J. Dermatol 146, 1052–1056 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. C.S. Asbill, A.F. El-Kattan, B. Michniak, Enhancement of transdermal drug delivery: chemical and physical approaches Crit. Rev. Ther. Drug Carrier Syst 17, 621–658 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. B.W. Barry, Novel mechanisms and devices to enable successful transdermal drug delivery Eur. J. Pharm. Sci 14, 101–14 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. J. Birchall, S. Coulman, M. Pearton et al., Cutaneous DNA delivery and gene expression in ex vivo human skin explants via wet-etch micro-fabricated micro-needles J. Drug Target 13, 415–421 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. J. Birchall, S. Coulman, A. Anstey et al., Cutaneous gene expression of plasmid DNA in excised human skin following delivery via microchannels created by radio frequency ablation Int. J. Pharm 312, 15–23 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. S.L. Collins, R.A. Moore, H.J. McQuay, The visual analogue pain intensity scale: what is moderate pain in millimetres? Pain 72, 95–97 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. S. Coulman, C. Allender, J. Birchall, Microneedles and other physical methods for overcoming the stratum corneum barrier for cutaneous gene therapy Crit. Rev. Ther. Drug Carrier Syst 23, 205–258 (2006a)Google Scholar
  8. S.A. Coulman, D. Barrow, A. Anstey et al., Minimally invasive cutaneous delivery of macromolecules and plasmid DNA via microneedles Curr. Drug Deliv 3, 65–75 (2006b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. A.R. Denet, R. Vanbever, V. Preat, Skin electroporation for transdermal and topical delivery Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev 56, 659–674 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. F. Dreher, B.S. Modjtahedi, S.P. Modjtahedi et al., Quantification of stratum corneum removal by adhesive tape stripping by total protein assay in 96-well microplates Skin Res. Technol 11, 97–101 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. M. Fredrikson, P. Annas, H. Fischer et al., Gender and age differences in the prevalence of specific fears and phobias Behav. Res. Ther 34, 33–39 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. S. Henry, D.V. McAllister, M.G. Allen et al., Microfabricated microneedles: a novel approach to transdermal drug delivery J. Pharm. Sci 87, 922–925 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Y.J. Hutin, A.M. Hauri, G.L. Armstrong, Use of injections in healthcare settings worldwide, 2000: literature review and regional estimates BMJ 327, 1075 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. C.C.J. Kahl, Visual analogue scale, numeric pain rating scale and the McGill pain Questionnaire: an overview of psychometric properties Phys. Ther. Rev. 10, 123–128 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. S. Kaushik, A.H. Hord, D.D. Denson et al., Lack of pain associated with microfabricated microneedles Anesth. Analg 92, 502–504 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. R.A. Kleinknecht, Acquisition of blood, injury, and needle fears and phobias Behav. Res. Ther. 32, 817–823 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. I. Marks, Blood-injury phobia: a review Am. J. Psychiatry 145, 1207–1213 (1988)Google Scholar
  18. D.V. McAllister, M.G. Allen, M.R. Prausnitz, Microfabricated microneedles for gene and drug delivery Annu Rev. Biomed. Eng 2, 289–313 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. R. Melzack, The McGill Pain Questionnaire: major properties and scoring methods Pain 1, 277–299 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. R. Melzack, The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire Pain 30, 191–197 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. R.K.J. Melzack, Katz J, in Pain measurement in persons in pain, ed. By PDMR Wall. Textbook of pain, 3rd edn. (Churchill Livingstone, New York, 1994), pp. 337–351Google Scholar
  22. P. Milgrom, S.E. Coldwell, T. Getz et al., Four dimensions of fear of dental injections J. Am. Dent. Assoc 128, 756–766 (1997)Google Scholar
  23. T. Miyano, Y. Tobinaga, T. Kanno et al., Sugar micro needles as transdermic drug delivery system Biomed. Microdevices 7, 185–188 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Y. Nir, A. Paz, E. Sabo et al., Fear of injections in young adults: prevalence and associations Am. J. Trop Med. Hyg 68, 341–344 (2003)Google Scholar
  25. L.G. Ost, Blood and injection phobia: background and cognitive, physiological, and behavioral variables J. Abnorm. Psychol 101, 68–74 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. M. Pearton, C. Allender, K. Brain et al., Gene delivery to the epidermal cells of human skin explants using microfabricated microneedles and hydrogel formulations Pharm Res 25, 407–416 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. M.R. Prausnitz, Overcoming skin's barrier: the search for effective and user-friendly drug delivery Diabetes Technol. Ther 3, 233–236 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. C. Rosado, P. Pinto, L.M. Rodrigues, Modeling TEWL-desorption curves: a new practical approach for the quantitative in vivo assessment of skin barrier Exp. Dermatol 14, 386–390 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. D.A. Schwindt, K.P. Wilhelm, H.I. Maibach, Water diffusion characteristics of human stratum corneum at different anatomical sites in vivo J. Invest. Dermatol 111, 385–389 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. M. Shirkhanzadeh, , Microneedles coated with porous calcium phosphate ceramics: effective vehicles for transdermal delivery of solid trehalose J. Mater Sci. Mater Med 16, 37–45 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. R.K. Sivamani, B. Stoeber, G.C. Wu et al., Clinical microneedle injection of methyl nicotinate: stratum corneum penetration Skin Res. Technol 11, 152–156 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. W.H. Smart, K. Subramanian, The use of silicon microfabrication technology in painless blood glucose monitoring Diabetes Technol. Ther 2, 549–559 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. P. Treffel, F. Panisset, B. Faivre et al., Hydration, transepidermal water loss, pH and skin surface parameters: correlations and variations between dominant and non-dominant forearms Br. J. Dermatol. 130, 325–328 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. P.M. Wang, M. Cornwell, M.R. Prausnitz, Minimally invasive extraction of dermal interstitial fluid for glucose monitoring using microneedles Diabetes Technol. Ther 7, 131–141 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. WHO. Safety of injections. In Secretariat of the Safe Injection Global Network, vol. 2007. Department of Essential Health Technologies, World Health Organization (2004)Google Scholar
  36. WHO. Safety of injections: questions and answers. In WHO fact sheet, no. 234, vol. 2007. World Health Organization, Geneva (1999)Google Scholar
  37. N. Wilke, C. Hibert, J. O'Brien et al., Silicon microneedle electrode array with temperature monitoring for electroporation Sens Actuators A Phys 123–124, 319–325 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. I. Haq
    • 1
  • E. Smith
    • 1
  • D. N. John
    • 1
  • M. Kalavala
    • 2
  • C. Edwards
    • 2
  • A. Anstey
    • 2
  • A. Morrissey
    • 3
  • J. C. Birchall
    • 1
  1. 1.Welsh School Of PharmacyCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
  2. 2.Gwent Healthcare NHS TrustRoyal Gwent HospitalNewportUK
  3. 3.Biomedical Microsystems TeamTyndall National InstituteCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations