Skip to main content
Log in

An Innovative Needle-free Injection System: Comparison to 1 ml Standard Subcutaneous Injection

  • Research Article
  • Published:
AAPS PharmSciTech Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A needle-free delivery system may lead to improved satisfaction and compliance, as well as reduced anxiety among patients requiring frequent or ongoing injections. This report describes a first-in-man assessment comparing Portal Instruments’ innovative needle-free injection system with subcutaneous injections using a 27G needle. Forty healthy volunteer participants each received a total of four injections of 1.0 mL sterile saline solution, two with a standard subcutaneous injection using a 27G needle, and two using the Portal injection system. Perception of pain was measured using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Injection site reactions were assessed at 2 min and at 20–30 min after each injection. Follow-up contact was made 24–48 h after the injections. Subject preference regarding injection type was also assessed. VAS pain scores at Portal injection sites met the criteria to be considered non-inferior to the pain reported at 27G needle injection sites (i.e., upper 95% confidence bound less than +5 mm). Based on a mixed effects model, at time 0, accounting for potential confounding variables, the adjusted difference in VAS scores indicated that Portal injections were 6.5 mm lower than the 27G needle injections (95% CI −10.5, −2.5). No clinically important adverse events were noted. Portal injections were preferred by 24 (60%) of the subjects (P = 0.0015). As an early step in the development of this new needle-free delivery system, the current study has shown that a 1.0-mL saline injection can be given with less pain reported than a standard subcutaneous injection using a 27G needle.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Taberner A, Hogan NC, Hunter IW. Needle-free jet injection using real-time controlled linear Lorentz-force actuators. Med Eng Phys. 2012;34:1228–35. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.12.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stachowiak JC, et al. Dynamic control of needle-free jet injection. J Control Release. 2009;135:104–12. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2009.01.003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Prausnitz MR, Mitragotri S, Langer R. Current status and future potential directions of transdermal drug delivery. Nature Reviews. 2004;3:115–24. doi:10.1038/nrd1304.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Shergold OA, Fleck NA, King TS. The penetration of a soft solid by a liquid jet, with application to the administration of a needle-free injection. J Biomech. 2006;39:2593–602. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.08.028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hoffman PN, et al. A model to assess the infection potential of jet injectors used in mass immunization. Vaccine. 2001;19:4020–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Baker AB, Sanders JE. Fluid mechanics analysis of a spring-loaded jet injector. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1999;46:235–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Linn L, et al. The effects of system parameters on in vivo injection performance of a needle-free injector in human volunteers. Pharm Res. 2007;24:1501–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Engwerda EEC, Tack CJ, Galan BE. Needle-free injection of rapid-acting insulin improves early postprandial glucose control in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2013;36:3436–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. FDA Guidance for Industry. Toxicity grading scale for healthy adult and adolescent volunteers enrolled in preventive vaccine clinical trials. CBER; 2007.

  10. Dias, et al. Tolerability of high-volume subcutaneous injections of a viscous placebo buffer: a randomized, crossover study in healthy subjects. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2015; doi:10.1208/s12249-015-0288-y.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Heise, et al. Impact of injection speed and volume on perceived pain during subcutaneous injections into the abdomen and thigh: a single-centre, randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism. 2014;16:971–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Auerbach M, Tunik M, Mojica M. A randomized, double-blind controlled study of jet lidocaine compared to jet placebo for pain relief in children undergoing needle insertion in the emergency department. Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00401.x.

  13. Gottlieb M, Thommes JA. Safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of enfuvirtide administered by a needle-free injection system compared with subcutaneous injection. Antiviral Therpay. 2008;13:723–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. McMurtry CM, et al. Far from “just a poke” common painful needle procedures and the development of needle fear. Clin J Pain. 2015;31:Supple 3–11. doi:10.1097/AJP.0000000000000272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wright S. Fear of needles nature and prevalence in general practice. Aust Fam Physician. 2009;38:172–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nir Y, et al. Fear of injections in young adults: prevalence and associations. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 2003;68:341–4.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikola Kojic.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kojic, N., Goyal, P., Lou, C.H. et al. An Innovative Needle-free Injection System: Comparison to 1 ml Standard Subcutaneous Injection. AAPS PharmSciTech 18, 2965–2970 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-017-0779-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-017-0779-0

KEY WORDS

Navigation