Ultrasound-enhanced transdermal delivery: recent advances and future challenges

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

• 1 Bos JD, Meinardi MM. The 500 Dalton rule for the skin penetration of chemical compounds and drugs. Exp. Dermatol. 9(3), 165–169 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 2 Morgan TM, Reed BL, Finnin BC. Enhanced skin permeation of sex hormones with novel topical spray vehicles. J. Pharm. Sci. 87(10), 1213–1218 (1998).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 3 Michaels AS, Chandrasekaran SK, Shaw JE. Drug permeation through human skin: Theory and in vitro experimental measurement. AIChE J. 21(5), 985–996 (1975).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 4 Rose J. Transdermal administration of nicotine. Drug Alcohol Depend. 13(3), 209–213 (1984).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 5 Prausnitz MR, Langer R. Transdermal drug delivery. Nat. Biotechnol. 26(11), 1261–1268 (2008).•• Excellent review on the history and developments in the field of transdermal drug delivery.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 6 Prausnitz MR, Mitragotri S, Langer R. Current status and future potential of transdermal drug delivery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3(2), 115–124 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 7 Polat BE, Blankschtein D, Langer R. Low-frequency sonophoresis: application to the transdermal delivery of macromolecules and hydrophilic drugs. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 7(12), 1415–1432 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 8 Rainsford KD. An analysis of the gastro-intestinal side-effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, with particular reference to comparative studies in man and laboratory species. Rheumatol. Int. 2(1), 1–10 (1982).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 9 Miller MA, Pisani E. The cost of unsafe injections. Bulletin World Health Organisation. (1999). www.who.int/entity/injection_safety/toolbox/Miller.pdf
  Google Scholar
• 10 Sokolowski CJ, Giovannitti JA Jr., Boynes SG. Needle Phobia: Etiology, Adverse Consequences, and Patient Management. Dent Clin. North Am. 54(4), 731–744 (2010)
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 11 Nir Y, Paz A, Sabo E, Potasman I. Fear of injections in young adults: Prevalence and associations. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 68(3), 341–344 (2003).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 12 Forslind B, Lindberg M. Structure and Function of the Skin Barrier: An Introduction. In: Skin, Hair, and Nails Structure and Function. Forslind B, Lindberg M (Eds.). Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY, USA, 9–21 (2004).
  Google Scholar
• 13 Gutowska-Owsiak D, Ogg GS. Cytokine regulation of the epidermal barrier. Clin. Exp. Allergy 43, 586–589 (2012).
  Google Scholar
• 14 Alexander A, Dwivedi S, Ajazuddin, et al. Approaches for breaking the barriers of drug permeation through transdermal drug delivery. J. Control. Rel. 164(1), 26–40 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 15 Schoellhammer CM, Blankschtein D, Langer R. Skin permeabilization for transdermal drug delivery: recent advances and future prospects. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 11(3), 393–407 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 16 Park D, Park H, Seo J, Lee S. Sonophoresis in transdermal drug deliverys. Ultrasonics 54(1), 56–65 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 17 Azagury A, Khoury L, Enden G, Kost J. Ultrasound mediated transdermal drug delivery. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 72, 127–143 (2014). 
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 18 Barry BW. Novel mechanisms and devices to enable successful transdermal drug delivery. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 14(2), 101–114 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 19 Pikal MJ. The role of electroosmotic flow in transdermal iontophoresis. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 46(1–3), 281–305 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 20 Prausnitz MR. The effects of electric current applied to skin: a review for transdermal drug delivery. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 18(3), 395–425 (1996).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 21 SINGH P, MAIBACH HI. Iontophoresis in drug delivery – basic principles and applications. Crit. Rev. Ther. Drug Carrier Syst. 11(2–3), 161–213 (1994).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 22 Guillard EC, Tfayli A, Laugel C, Baillet-Guffroy A. Molecular interactions of penetration enhancers within ceramides organization: a FTIR approach. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 36(2–3), 192–199 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 23 Pathan IB, Setty CM. Chemical Penetration Enhancers for Transdermal Drug Delivery Systems. Trop. J. Pharm. Res. 8(2), 173–179 (2009).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 24 Karande P, Jain A, Ergun K, Kispersky V, Mitragotri S. Design principles of chemical penetration enhancers for transdermal drug delivery. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102(13), 4688–4693 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 25 Cevc G, Vierl U. Nanotechnology and the transdermal route. J. Control. Rel. 141(3), 277–299 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 26 Yao C, Guo F, Li C, Sun C. Gene transfer and drug delivery with electric pulse generators. Curr. Drug Metab. 14(3), 319–323 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 27 Scheiblhofer S, Thalhamer J, Weiss R. Laser microporation of the skin: prospects for painless application of protective and therapeutic vaccines. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 10(6), 761–773 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 28 Banga AK. Microporation applications for enhancing drug delivery. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 6(4), 343–354 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 29 Fellinger K, Schmid J. Klinik und Therapie des chronischen Gelenkrheumatismus. Monatsschrift für Allgemeinmedizin 549–552 (1954).
  Google Scholar
• 30 Mitragotri S. Sonophoresis: a 50-year journey. Drug Discov. Today 9(17), 735–736 (2004).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 31 Machet L, Boucaud A. Phonophoresis: efficiency, mechanisms and skin tolerance. Int. J. Pharm. 243(1–2), 1–15 (2002).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 32 Polat BE, Hart D, Langer R, Blankschtein D. Ultrasound-mediated transdermal drug delivery: mechanisms, scope, and emerging trends. J. Control. Rel. 152(3), 330–348 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 33 Mitragotri S, Blankschtein D, Langer R. Ultrasound-mediated transdermal protein delivery. Science 269(5225), 850–853 (1995).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 34 Mitragotri S, Blankschtein D, Langer R. Transdermal drug delivery using low-frequency sonophoresis. Pharmaceut. Res. 13(3), 411–420 (1996).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 35 Watkinson AC. Transdermal and tipical drug delivery today. In: Transdermal and Topical Drug Delivery: Principles and Practice. Benson HAC, Watkinson AC (Eds). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA, 357–366 (2012).
  Google Scholar
• 36 Becker BM, Helfrich S, Baker E, Lovgren K, Minugh A, Machan JT. Ultrasound with topical anesthetic rapidly decreases pain of intravenous cannulation. Academic Emerg. Med. 12(4), 289–295 (2005).• Clinical study with US FDA-approved ultrasound device displaying an excellent safety profile.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 37 Boucaud A, Montharu J, Machet L et al. Clinical, histologic, and electron microscopy study of skin exposed to low-frequency ultrasound. Anat. Rec. 264(1), 114–119 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 38 Terahara T, Mitragotri S, Kost J, Langer R. Dependence of low-frequency sonophoresis on ultrasound parameters; distance of the horn and intensity. Int. J. Pharm. 235(1–2), 35–42 (2002).• Investigation of the effect of different ultrasound exposure parameters.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 39 Tang H, Wang CCJ, Blankschtein D, Langer R. An investigation of the role of cavitation inlow-frequency ultrasound-mediated transdermal drug transport. Pharmaceutical Res. 19(8), 1160–1169 (2002).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 40 Tezel A, Sens A, Mitragotri S. Investigations of the role of cavitation in low-frequency sonophoresis using acoustic spectroscopy. J. Pharm. Sci. 91(2), 444–453 (2002).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 41 Carvell KJ, Bigelow TA. Dependence of optimal seed bubble size on pressure amplitude at therapeutic pressure levels. Ultrasonics 51(2), 115–122 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 42 Suslick KS. The chemical effects of ultrasound. Scientific American 260(2), 80–86 (1989).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 43 Colussi AJ, Weavers LK, Hoffmann MR. Chemical bubble dynamics and quantitative sonochemistry. J. Phys. Chem. A. 102(35), 6927–6934 (1998).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 44 Mitragotri S, Ray D, Farrell J et al. Synergistic effect of low-frequency ultrasound and sodium lauryl sulfate on transdermal transport. J. Pharm. Sci. 89(7), 892–900 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 45 Mitragotri S. Synergistic effect of enhancers for transdermal drug delivery. Pharma. Res. 17(11), 1354–1359 (2000).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 46 Polat BE, Seto JE, Blankschtein D, Langer R. Application of the aqueous porous pathway model to quantify the effect of sodium lauryl sulfate on ultrasound-induced skin structural perturbation. J. Pharm. Sci. 100(4), 1387–1397 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 47 Tang H, Blankschtein D, Langer R. Effects of low-frequency ultrasound on the transdermal permeation of mannitol: Comparative studies with in vivo and in vitro skin. J. Pharm. Sci. 91(8), 1776–1794 (2002).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 48 Tezel A, Tezel A, Sens A et al. Frequency dependence of sonophoresis. Pharma. Res. 18(12), 1694–1700 (2001).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 49 Kushner J, Blankschtein D, Langer R. Experimental demonstration of the existence of highly permeable localized transport regions in low-frequency sonophoresis. J. Pharm. Sci. 93(11), 2733–2745 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 50 Han T, Das DB. Permeability enhancement for transdermal delivery of large molecule using low-frequency sonophoresis combined with microneedles. J. Pharm. Sci. 102(10), 3614–3622 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 51 Yoon J, Park D, Son T, Seo J, Nelson JS, Jung B. A physical method to enhance transdermal delivery of a tissue optical clearing agent: combination of microneedling and sonophoresis. Lasers Surg. Med. 42(5), 412–417 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 52 Chen B, Wei J, Iliescu C. Sonophoretic enhanced microneedles array (SEMA)—Improving the efficiency of transdermal drug delivery. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical 145(1), 54–60 (2010).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 53 Hikima T, Ohsumi S, Shirouzu K, Tojo K. Mechanisms of synergistic skin penetration by sonophoresis and iontophoresis. Biol. Pharm. Bull. 32(5), 905–909 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 54 Katikaneni S, Li G, Badkar A, Banga AK. Transdermal delivery of a similar to 13 kDa protein-an in vivo comparison of physical enhancement methods. J. Drug Target 18(2), 141–147 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 55 Liu H-L, Hsieh C-M. Single-transducer dual-frequency ultrasound generation to enhance acoustic cavitation. Ultrason. Sonochem. 16(3), 431–438 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 56 Schoellhammer CM, Polat BE, Mendenhall J et al. Rapid skin permeabilization by the simultaneous application of dual-frequency, high-intensity ultrasound. J. Control. Rel. 163(2), 154–160 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 57 Brotchie A, Mettin R, Grieser F, Ashokkumar M. Cavitation activation by dual-frequency ultrasound and shock waves. Phys. Chem. 11(43), 10029–10034 (2009).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 58 Blomley MJ, Cooke JC, Unger EC, Monaghan MJ, Cosgrove DO. Microbubble contrast agents: a new era in ultrasound. BMJ 322(7296), 1222–1225 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 59 Calliada F, Campani R, Bottinelli O, Bozzini A, Sommaruga MG. Ultrasound contrast agents - Basic principles. Eur. J. Radiol. 27, S157–S160 (1998).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 60 Quaia E. Physical basis and principles of action ofmicrobubble-based contrast agents. In: Contrast Media in Ultrasonography. Quaia E (Ed.). Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Germany, 15–30 (2005).
  Google Scholar
• 61 Park D, Yoon J, Park J, Jung B, Park H, Seo J. Transdermal drug delivery aided by an ultrasound contrast agent: an in vitro experimental study. Open Biomed. Eng. J. 4, 56–62 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 62 Park D, Ryu H, Kim HS et al. Sonophoresis using ultrasound contrast agents for transdermal drug delivery: an in vivo experimental study. Ultrasound Med. Biology 38(4), 642–650 (2012).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 63 Gorce JM, Arditi M, Schneider M. Influence of bubble size distribution on the echogenicity of ultrasound contrast agents– a study of SonoVue (TM). Invest. Radiol. 35(11), 661–671 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 64 Smith NB. Perspectives on transdermal ultrasound mediated drug delivery. Int. J. Nanomedicine 2(4), 585 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 65 Pitt WG, Husseini GA, Staples BJ. Ultrasonic drug delivery – a general review. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 1(1), 37–56 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 66 Tressler JF, Cao WW, Uchino K, Newnham RE. Finite element analysis of the cymbal-type flextensional transducer. Ultrasonics 45(5), 1363–1369 (1998).
  Google Scholar
• 67 Szabo SJ, Sullivan BM, Peng SL, Glimcher LH. Molecular mechanisms regulating Th1 immune responses. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 21, 713–758 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 68 Sunny Y, Bawiec CR, Nguyen AT et al. Optimization of un-tethered, low voltage, 20–100kHz flexural transducers for biomedical ultrasonics applications. Ultrasonics 52(7), 943–948 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 69 Bawiec CR, Sunny Y, Nguyen AT et al. Finite element static displacement optimization of 20–100kHz flexural transducers for fully portable ultrasound applicator. Ultrasonics 53(2), 511–517 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 70 Lee S, Snyder B, Newnham RE, Barrie Smith N. Noninvasive ultrasonic transdermal insulin delivery inrabbits using the light-weight cymbal array. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 6(6), 808–815 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 71 Park EJ, Werner J, Smith NB. Ultrasound mediated transdermal insulin delivery inpigs using a lightweight transducer. Pharma. Res. 24(7), 1396–1401 (2007).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 72 Togtema M, Pichardo S, Jackson R, Lambert PF. Sonoporation delivery of monoclonal antibodies againsthuman papillomavirus 16 E6 restores p53 expression in transformed cervical keratinocytes. PLoS ONE (2012).• Ultrasound- assisted therapeutic intracellular antibody delivery.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 73 Janeway CA, Travers P, Walport M, Shlomchik MJ. T-cell mediated immunity. In: Immunobiology The Immunesystem In Health And Disease (6th Edition). Janeway CA, Travers P, Walport M, Shlomchik MJ (Eds). Garland Science Publishing, NY, USA, 319–387 (2005).
  Google Scholar
• 74 Gerlach C, Rohr JC, Perié L et al. Heterogeneous differentiation patterns of individual CD8+ T cells. Science 340(6132), 635–639 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 75 Ghosh SK, Roy Chowdhury R. Synthetic adjuvants for vaccine formulations: phytol derivatives. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 10(4), 437–450 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 76 Gupta RK, Siber GR. Adjuvants for human vaccines – current status, problems and future prospects. Vaccine 13(14), 1263–1276 (1995).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 77 Petrovsky N, Aguilar JC. Vaccine adjuvants: current state and future trends. Immunol. Cell Biol. 82(5), 488–496 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 78 Chen D, Weis KF, Chu Q et al. Epidermal powder immunization induces both cytotoxicT-lymphocyte and antibody responses to protein antigens of influenza and hepatitis B viruses. J. Virol. 75(23), 11630–11640 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 79 Yu RC, Abrams DC, Alaibac M, Chu AC. Morphological and quantitative analyses of normal epidermal Langerhans cells using confocal scanning laser microscopy. Br. J. Dermatol. 131(6), 843–848 (1994).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 80 Tezel A, Paliwal S, Shen Z, Mitragotri S. Low-frequency ultrasound as a transcutaneous immunization adjuvant. Vaccine 23(29), 3800–3807 (2005).• First report on ultrasound assisted cutaneous immunization.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 81 Dahlan A, Alpar HO, Stickings P, Sesardic D, Murdan S. Transcutaneous immunisation assisted by low-frequency ultrasound. Int. J. Pharm. 368(1–2), 123–128 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 82 Wood LC, Jackson SM, Elias PM, Grunfeld C, Feingold KR. Cutaneous barrier perturbation stimulates cytokine production in the epidermis of mice. J. Clin. Invest. 90(2), 482–487 (1992).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 83 Wille-Reece U, Wille-Reece U. Toll-like receptor agonists influence the magnitude and quality of memory T cell responses after prime-boost immunization in nonhuman primates. J. Exp. Med. 203(5), 1249–1258 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 84 Liard C, Munier S, Joulin-Giet A et al. Intradermal Immunization Triggers Epidermal Langerhans Cell Mobilization Required for CD8 T-Cell Immune Responses. J. Invest. Dermatol. 132(3), 615–625 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 85 Oliver NS, Toumazou C, Cass AEG, Johnston DG. Glucose sensors: a review of current and emerging technology. Diabet. Med. 26(3), 197–210 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 86 Chuang H, Taylor E, Davison TW. Clinical evaluation of a continuous minimally invasive glucose flux sensor placed over ultrasonically permeated skin. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 6(1), 21–30 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 87 American Diabetes Association. Implications of the diabetes control and complications trial. Diabetes Care 26(Suppl. 1), S25–S27 (2003).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 88 Kost J, Langer R, Mitragotri S, Gabbay RA, Pishko M. Transdermal monitoring of glucose and other analytes using ultrasound. Nature Med. 6(3), 347–350 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 89 Chuang H, Trieu M-Q, Hurley J, Taylor EJ, England MR, Nasraway SA. Pilot studies of transdermal continuous glucose measurement in outpatient diabetic patients and in patients during and after cardiac surgery. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 2(4), 595–602 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 90 Boyne MS, Silver DM, Kaplan J, Saudek CD. Timing of changes in interstitial and venous blood glucose measured with a continuous subcutaneous glucose sensor. Diabetes 52(11), 2790–2794 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 91 ThomeDuret V, Reach G, Gangnerau MN et al. Use of a subcutaneous glucose sensor to detect decreases in glucose concentration prior to observation in blood. Anal. Chem. 68(21), 3822–3826 (1996).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 92 Park E-J, Werner J, Beebe J, Chan S, Smith NB. Noninvasive ultrasonic glucose sensing with large pigs (approximately 200 pounds) using a lightweight cymbal transducer array and biosensors. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 3(3), 517–523 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 93 Yu H, Xu L. Cell experimental studies on sonoporation: State of the art and remaining problems. J. Control. Rel. 174, 151–160 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 94 Tata DB, Dunn F, Tindall DJ. Selective clinical ultrasound signals mediate differential gene transfer and expression in two human prostate cancer cell lines: LnCap and PC-3. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 234(1), 64–67 (1997).•• Intracellular delivery of pDNA that translate to functional proteins.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 95 Taniyama Y, Tachibana K, Hiraoka K et al. Local delivery of plasmid DNA into rat carotid artery using ultrasound. Circulation 105(10), 1233–1239 (2002).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 96 Tezel A, Dokka S, Kelly S, Hardee GE, Mitragotri S. Topical delivery of anti-sense oligonucleotides using low-frequency sonophoresis. Pharma. Res. 21(12), 2219–2225 (2004).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 97 Tran MA, Gowda R, Sharma A et al. Targeting B-V600E-Raf and AW using nanoliposomal-small interfering RNA inhibits cutaneous melanocytic lesion development. Cancer Res. 68(18), 7638–7649 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 98 Geusens B, Strobbe T, Bracke S et al. Lipid-mediated gene delivery to the skin. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 43(4), 199–211 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 99 Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug. Deliv. Rev. 46(1–3), 3–26 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 100 Keskin O, Gursoy A, Ma B, Nussinov R. Principles of protein-protein interactions: what are the preferred ways for proteins to interact? Chem. Rev. 108(4), 1225–1244 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar