Ultrasound Waves For Transdermal Drug Delivery

An anonymous reader writes with news of research from MIT, where engineers have found a better way to use ultrasound waves to boost the permeability of skin for the delivery of drugs. "Ultrasound — sound waves with frequencies greater than the upper limit of human hearing — can increase skin permeability by lightly wearing away the top layer of the skin, an effect that is transient and pain-free. ... When ultrasound waves travel through a fluid, they create tiny bubbles that move chaotically. Once the bubbles reach a certain size, they become unstable and implode. Surrounding fluid rushes into the empty space, generating high-speed 'microjets' of fluid that create microscopic abrasions on the skin. In this case, the fluid could be water or a liquid containing the drug to be delivered. In recent years, researchers working to enhance transdermal drug delivery have focused on low-frequency ultrasound, because the high-frequency waves don’t have enough energy to make the bubbles pop. However, those systems usually produce abrasions in scattered, random spots across the treated area. In the new study (abstract), the MIT team found that combining high and low frequencies offers better results. The high-frequency ultrasound waves generate additional bubbles, which are popped by the low-frequency waves."

Comments

Already got one.

[ColdWetDog]

Just for a bit of background.

Sonophoresis (or Phonophoresis) is a older technology that sort of works. Hasn't make much in the way of clinical inroads because of a number of problems. This work may overcome some of that although having to go to a physical therapist (typically) to get some drug stuffed in your body is typically more trouble that it's worth.

The most common use for this technique is to push steroids to a localized area (such as along a tendon) instead of giving the drug in a pill and having it diffuse through the entire body or using multiple, painful injections. Sort of works.

Re:Already got one.

[wwphx]

I so hope this becomes a marketed product soon! I do two subcutaneous infusions a week, four needles in my abdomen for about an hour a session and will be doing so for the rest of my life. This would be SO sweet!

Re:Already got one.

[BoRegardless]

What I am interested in is whether the ultrasound modifies the chemicals being transported -- injected???

Ultrasonic bubbles can create implosions that raise temperatures into the range of thousands of degrees farenheit.

Ultrasonics are routinely used to bond plastics as a result of the temperatures induced.

The question comes down to whether you destroy or modify the molecules you want to deliver...however slightly. Needles don't do that.

Re:Already got one.

[jbeaupre]

The summary gets some details very wrong. Intense ultrasound can create cavitation bubbles, but nothing of that intensity is used for drug delivery. It that were to happen, it would kill living cells. So, no bubbles, no implosions, none of that stuff.

At the lower levels used, ultrasound strains the cells, creating small openings between cells and in cell membranes. Skin becomes "leaky."

Re:Already got one.

[TheSwift]

Ultrasounds are routinely used to look at human organ systems to evaluate for disease processes. The technology is extremely well-researched and it is considered significantly safer than CT scans or X-rays since it lacks the radiation and has an apparent lack of risks. The ultrasound isn't being done when the medication is administered to the patient's skin. The transdermal medication would be given after the ultrasound treatment has already removed the top layer of skin, therefore there would be no possibility of "modifying" the medications. I don't think ultrasound waves hide in cells and jump out at the last second when the medication is given. Needles come with many risks including introducing bacterial infection. A transdermal method may be very effective and preferred, especially for pediatric patients or adults who have anxiety about needles. If this was marketed at a consumer level one day, it could mean that diabetic patients wouldn't have to poke themselves on a daily basis anymore - which I imagine would be very desirable by millions of people. This tech is worth looking into.

Re:Already got one.

[TheSwift]

I think I'm understanding your point more and your concerns in your other comment make a little bit more sense. You're right in saying that there is a lot of potential for harm in technology before we're fully aware of it's implications and there are plenty of historical examples of that. However, it doesn't mean we shouldn't explore technologies that could be extremely effective. It just means we should proceed with caution. If that's your point, then I agree. Researchers should give careful thought to what they're dealing with. Of course diet and exercise is necessary to helping diabetics. Vitamin D may have quite a bit of potential as your sources indicate. However, I do know that without sufficient insulin diabetics can quickly recede into DKA and die. If Vitamin D and other means of treating it can help wean them off of it, fantastic, but in the meantime, diabetics need to take the right medication (insulin in many cases) until they can make the necessary lifestyle changes.

Hypospray

[yincrash]

Woooooo. Sci-Fi gone real! Please tell me it makes the same sound too.

Just guessing . . .

[reboot246]

I'd bet this method wouldn't work for dogs.

Question for the med community

[AnotherAnonymousUser]

I realize Google is my friend in this, but I'd love to hear from insider perspective what sort of advances are actually *in use* in clinics and hospitals these days. About 10-15 years ago I used to read in Pop Sci about the innovations in needle technology - serrating the edge like a mosquito, using thinner needles, new kinds of shots, and using these painless, efficient methods of delivering vaccines and medicine. What of those actually panned out? It's been about 10 years since I've received a vaccination; did any of those technologies we read about 10 years ago make it into the field?

Re:Question for the med community

[Anonymous Coward]

From the insurance perspective, your suffering is cheaper than newer tech.

Re:Question for the med community

[TheSwift]

I'm a pre-med student and I work for physicians in an emergency department. I've seen several pretty nifty innovations for administering IV's. In pediatric hospitals, they often use air-pressure needle-free methods of starting IV's and administering medications. To be honest, I'm not sure how they work, but they do exist and instead of having a metallic needle in your arm, it is tough, but malleable plastic. They aren't generally used mainstream in most hospitals yet, especially not in the ER. My guess is that they are more expensive and it may be more difficult to start IV access to an adult vein using needle-free technology. Some benefits though, are a reduction in introducing bacteria to a bloodstream (no potentially contaminated needles) reducing the "scare factor" from having a needle shoved in your arm. One of my close friends is a cancer survivor and he had the technology used on him many times and he said it hurts a helluva lot less than needles. http://www.icumed.com/products/infusion-therapy/needlefree-vascular-access-devices.aspx BTW, thinning needles isn't always helpful, especially if you want to administer drugs quickly (critical care situations).

This is good

[Anonymous Coward]

I read a few weeks ago that a group trying to kill cancer mated an ultrasound machine with an MRI. They targeted the cancer with the MRI, and blasted it (in 3 dimensions) with the ultrasound. Ultrasound makes cancer tumors 'fragile'. They are far more prone and are profoundly more affected by chemotherapy than they would be otherwise. What do I mean by that? Normally after 6 weeks of chemotherapy, a tumor might shrink by 30%. After the MRI/ultrasound and a single dose of chemotherapy, the tumor might shrink by 50% (in rough and general terms, they did multiple tests on multiple patients and these are generated averages). Its like 'it just isn't for the epidermis, but can be used to make the cancer tumor 'skin' more prone and able to absorb the chemo coctail more easily, making the treatment more effective, leaving less chemo cocktail in the rest of the body, meaning the tumor suffers the worst, and surrounding tissue is affected less.

Re:Maybe even radiation, too?

[TheSwift]

Do a control-F search for "radiation" on any of those articles listed. You will find 0 results. Ultrasound technology has zero radiation. It uses sound waves at frequencies relative to its preferred use. It is used frequently in hospitals every day and it is actually done to AVOID radiation caused by CT scans and X-rays.