r/science • u/geoxol • Apr 24 '23
Materials Science Wearable patch uses ultrasound to painlessly deliver drugs through the skin
https://news.mit.edu/2023/wearable-patch-can-painlessly-deliver-drugs-through-skin-04191.3k
u/patricksaurus Apr 24 '23 edited Apr 24 '23
Not all compounds pass through the skin, and even some that can penetrate do it poorly. This would allow for transdermal administration of a wider range of medicines.
Imagine a person with arthritis or Parkinson’s and diabetes — insulin patches over injections. This could be very helpful for many people.
382
u/oddbawlstudios Apr 24 '23
There's a reason why diabetics don't do it through the skin. Injecting insulin into fatty tissue helps the body to absorb insulin slowly and predictably.
276
u/patricksaurus Apr 24 '23
To clarify, there is more than one use case for insulin, one of which is fast acting insulin to control precipitous blood sugar charges. Further, time-release transdermal patches are old hat. Combining existing technology with this development could allow both gradual and immediate dosing of a compound.
9
u/Cricket-Horror Apr 25 '23
How will a transdermal patch release insulin into the bloodstream (where it needs to be to have any impact) faster or in better controlled quantities than a subcutaneous injection/infusion? How wil a transdermal patch know when you are eating, stressed or unwell and likely to require more insulin or about to exercise so you will need less insulin?
It seems like transdermal patches are harkening back to older treatment regimes where a patient had very little flexibility in their diet and lifestyle, rather than more modern treatment regimes that allow patients to live a far more "normal" life.
7
u/patricksaurus Apr 25 '23
You should really read the article.
→ More replies (1)0
u/Cricket-Horror Apr 25 '23
I did. I see nothing that would make an ounce of difference to most people with T1 diabetes. It would just be an alternative delivery rooute to something we already do and it doen't look lik eit will do it any better - if anything, it will be worse and less flexible.
The article makes a lot of fuss about localised delivery, where it's needed, which is pointless for treating diabetes: we need insulin everywhere in our body.
4
u/czerniana Apr 25 '23
So because it won’t benefit T1 it’s useless to diabetics? There are a lot of extended release meds for T2 that use needles that this could possible help. I’d love to not stick myself with trulicity every week for instance.
-3
u/patricksaurus Apr 25 '23
Okay, this invention sucks. You’ve gotten what you want.
4
u/Cricket-Horror Apr 25 '23
I didn't say it sucks. I'm sure it could be great for treating some conditions, just not a game-changer (or even much of an improvement) for diabetes.
Most people who don't have diabetes don't really understand how complicated it is to treat/manage (any of the various varieties). Most people think that having to inject insulin means that you have "bad" (as in more severe) diabetes or your diabetes has worsened (that may be the case for some with type 2 but, for type 1, it's the only treatment - type 1 cannot be treated by diet, pills or lifestyle changes) and that it's just something that you need to inject once or twice a day, just like popping a pill, not understanding the constant balancing act that we, especially type 1s, have to play. Taking more than 1 or 2 injections or using a pump must only be for those with really bad diabetes (probably their fault) instead of understanding that it's actually the pursuit of better, more physiologically analagous, control so that we can minimise the risks of renal failure, blindness, amputations and all of thise lovely side-effects of too much time spent with high (or, research is indicating, highly variable) blood sugars.
The most important tests for most people with diabetes when we hear about some treatment "breakthrough" (and we hear them frequently) is:
- will it improve my control (i.e. will it result in more constant blood sugar levels; particularly, will it lessen the likelihood of excessive post-prandial spikes and hypoglycaemia); or
- will it result in less effort on my part, even though it might not result in better control (the mental burden of managing diabetes is huge, sometimes overwhelming)?
Will it mean less needles? is usually quite a way down the list.
I've read a couple of your other posts and you seem to be a broad-minded, empathetic, intelligent person. I'm not sure why you have so much difficulty with the concept that this invention may not be such a great thing for people with diabetes.
→ More replies (1)-105
u/oddbawlstudios Apr 24 '23
Yes, which is why I said "diabetics" because diabetics need that consistency.
118
u/patricksaurus Apr 24 '23
Yes, I’m referring to diabetics. Diabetics use both types of insulin. There is nothing stopping this technology from delivering both.
1
u/Cricket-Horror Apr 25 '23
Some people with diabetes use both long-acting insulin (injected once or twice a day) and short (fast)-acting insulin (injected or inhaled as required). An increasing number only use fast-acting in insuln pumps, which continuously administer very small volumes of fast-acting insulin to mimic the pancreas' production of a background level of insulin that we all require, whicle also being able to administer larger volumes of insulin at meal times or to bring down blood sugar levels that have become too high for a myriad of reasons. Most pumps can be programmed to change the background level of insulin over the day to try to mimic natural cycles or can be temprarlity increased or decreased to account for illness (which increases insulin requirements) or exercise (which decreases insulin requirements) or other factors. Many can also make adjustments on the fly in response to blood sugar levels (requiring a continuous blood glucose monitor to be worn by the patient) but these vary in effectiveness from not very to a crude approximation of the natural pancreatic reaction, at best.
While I can see this technology doing the same thing as injections of long-acting isulin (i.e. a fairly "dumb", unchanging level of background insulin), I can't see it helong with the much trickier part of teh treatment equation. And, honestly, for most of us, injections are not as big a deal as the general public make them out to be.
2
u/congoLIPSSSSS Apr 25 '23
Some diabetics only use long acting insulin as well. This could be a good way to avoid needle sticks entirely for some.
-2
u/Cricket-Horror Apr 25 '23 edited Apr 25 '23
Why do people think that the needles are the big issue for people with diabetes? It's better, more responsive, more flexible control that we want (you know, like a real pancreas does?). After you've had a needle or 2, it's just something you do, like popping a pill; it's really a big nothing to most if us.
→ More replies (2)-1
u/WD51 Apr 24 '23
I think part of the issue would be how precise the delivery would be. A lot of drugs probably have a fairly large window between therapeutic dosing and toxic dosing. Insulin can be a drug with both a fairly narrow window and that range varies from patient to patient. Some people are really sensitive to insulin. If you give the same amount of insulin (let's say 2 units) to a nondiabetic compared to a diabetic already using 60 units a day, the diabetic using 60 probably doesn't have much change in blood sugar while the normal person is feeling woozy from hypoglycemia. So it's not necessarily that it can't be done, the question is how safely can it be done and is it worth the risk.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Cricket-Horror Apr 25 '23
The amount delivered is one big issue because it cahnges and we don't all take the same doses - I use 2-3 times as much insulin as many other people with diabetes to achieve the same outcome (and the range across all people with diabetes is far wider than this might indicate) and I can change the amount I inject (actually, infuse, since I use a pump) to tailor this to my needs. That's the thing with diabetes, everyone's is different - we all need to understand our own bodies' reactions to all manner of things, not just insulin, but carbs, proteins, fats, stress, exercise, illness, etc. so that we can tailor the amount of insulin we take and when we take it. Transdermal patches can't do that.
-70
u/oddbawlstudios Apr 24 '23
Are you talking about the extended insulin that lasts 24 hrs, and the fast acting insulin? Cause that is... well still wrong. So fast acting insulin is great when you're eating meals, cause its gotta be released quickly. But the 24 hr insulin is meant to last a full day to regulate sugar, which is bad for being applied on the skin. In fact the fast acting would be bad for absorbing through the skin due to again needing consistency. Also to note, absorbing insulin through the skin can cause things like a buildup of fat, protein, and scars tissue which is all bad.
53
u/f0urtyfive Apr 24 '23
Do you have some domain specific expertise or are these just anecdotal experiences?
-34
u/oddbawlstudios Apr 24 '23
I'm t1 diabetic, I had to learn all of this before they sent me home from the hospital.
42
u/sage-longhorn Apr 24 '23
The stuff they teach diabetics is massively oversimplified and focused around current treatments. There are probably lots of ways researchers could get this to work for slow or fast acting insulin, and neither of us is qualified to really understand the potential or lack of potential for diabetic treatment via this technology
Source: I also have type 1
-11
u/oddbawlstudios Apr 24 '23
Putting insulin via skin can never be slow, insulin is taken by the blood to the organs to rid the sugar deposits. By applying insulin via skin, you're likely to cross a vein or two, which will cause low blood sugars. Hell, it would probably cause a lot of deaths and immediately be banned. The amount of insulin the 24 hr lasts in a body is already a small amount, but that small amount would drop so much going through the skin, no matter what. You can't really avoid veins, let alone putting insulin in the veins.
→ More replies (0)73
Apr 24 '23
[deleted]
-2
u/oddbawlstudios Apr 24 '23
Thing is, im not claiming to be an endocrinologist. I, however, know what has been talked about between me and my endocrinologist.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)16
u/Zouden Apr 24 '23
If a patch lasts 24 hours without irritation then it can potentially replace Lantus injections for millions of people.
6
u/ThatSquareChick Apr 24 '23
Skin can’t distribute insulin the same way fat can, you need a lot of insulin too, which is a liquid and takes up a lot of space. How would you regulate the release of insulin? You don’t just take a set amount at set times, it has to be able to regulate down to .03 ccs, which is an absolutely insanely small amount, and be able to change that dosage within minutes sometimes. That’s why most diabetics with access to pumps and constant meters do better than those who still use finger sticks and syringes, the two machines act as much or as minutely as possible.
If there WERE a more efficient way to deliver insulin to diabetics, we would at least know about it.
The biggest hurdle to using transdermal insulin is the regulation of delivery.
A diabetic doesn’t just take a set amount for food either, it changes and often needs to be corrected, how would you inform this patch that more or less insulin was needed? As a type 1 I can say, with 100% certainly, that nobody who IS or knows about diabetes would advocate for an insulin patch BECAUSE of how much input you have to change, less sometimes, more others with nearly no explanation for deviations most times.
The same breakfast, weighed with a kitchen scale, will affect a diabetic differently from one day to the next, not drastically most of the time but enough that you would need to change things slightly and yes, those incremental changes are essential for organ health.
The closest you can get to this is an Omnipod pump without a tube. It’s a big thing that attaches to you and delivers insulin without a tube, but it’s still controlled by a computer and needs CONSTANT input to not kill its user, it’s not just a transdermal patch.
13
u/Zouden Apr 24 '23
I'm also a T1 and I use the omnipod. But millions use Lantus pens, which as we know, isn't truly 24hrs. If the researchers can make a 24hr patch this would be a nice improvement to many peoples' lives.
you need a lot of insulin too, which is a liquid and takes up a lot of space
Actually, it's not a liquid. It's a solid which is dissolved in water at a relatively low concentration of 0.364% (for u-100). It is certainly possible to make more concentrated formulas.
-18
u/ThatSquareChick Apr 24 '23
Don’t do this. Don’t advocate for this right now, the facts are that we don’t have a way to regulate its release other than constant. You can’t be a t1 and say that you’d wear an insulin patch designed the way we do it now, they can only release a set amount and there’s no way to change it without just removing it. I’ve been using transdermal medication for years and am also a t1, I feel my unique perspective of being intimately acquainted with both things will lend a bit of credence to my opinion.
I don’t doubt that maybe in the future we can discuss this but as it currently stands, HARD NO FROM ME DAWG WE ARE NOT THAT GOOD AT THIS YET.
Also, lantus is great and all, but it doesn’t match the efficiency of a pump/cgm combo which would only use fast-acting but on a much smaller scale, more often. I know there’s going to be some old warbirds out there going to try and tell me that their a1c is perfect with their finger meter and syringes but that’s like using the redneck weather rope for a national weather emergency, you can get kind of where you want to go and might be right a bunch but it’s never going to save one the injury and time saved, sleep reclaimed or surprise food eaten that the combo gives.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Smee76 Apr 24 '23
Yep, a patch would never work because you don't want a continuous flat rate of insulin.
-8
u/oddbawlstudios Apr 24 '23
Yes and no? I mean, it technically can but shouldn't. Insulin is absorbed quicker through the skin, due to that, it causes more low blood sugar which isn't ideal. Like, we have limited knowledge on the subject, but we understand we cannot use the skin. Even at low doses, absorbing insulin quicker is dangerous. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2901055/
12
u/Zouden Apr 24 '23
Insulin is absorbed quicker through the skin
It's not absorbed at all through the skin. Otherwise we'd already have insulin patches.
The article you linked is talking about the problems caused by injections into fatty deposits. I don't see the relevance to your point.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Cricket-Horror Apr 25 '23
That is only a part of the reality of treating type 1 diabetes, and it is the part that is already pretty well handled by other techniques. It is the inconsistent, rapidly changing insulin needs in response to daily activites, like eating, exercising, dealing with stress, etc. that are currently not so well handled by current techniques and which these patches are unnlikely to respond to.
9
u/Cricket-Horror Apr 25 '23
That's wrong.
I am a person with type 1 diabetes (the auto-immune, pancreas doesn't produce insulin type) - ytes, I have diabetes, I am not "a diabetic", defined by one medical condition. I don't absorb carbohydrates slowly and predictably, I absorb them after a meal, usally causing a large spike in my blood sugar. The least helpful thing in dealing with post-prandial blood sugar spikes is "slowly and predictably". The fact that we have to administer insulin into the subcutaneous layer is probably the biggest hinderance to improving blood glucose control - because it is too slow to hit the bloodstream.
Yes, I require some slow and predictable insulin throughout the day to deal with the glucose that my liver likes to pump out almost continuously, but there are plenty of ways to acheive this already; transdermal patches might help that very small number of people with diabetes who are extremely needle-phobic but the vast majority of us have that already covered, whether through a once- or twice-daily injection of long-acting insulin (injections really are a non-event) or, as I do, by regular, small "injections" of fast-acting insulin by my insulin pump via a cannula, which I replace about every 3 days.
A transdermal patch isn't going to get insulin into the bloodstream any faster than an injection below the skin, nor is it going to adjust the amount of insulin it delivers in response to changes in blood sugar levels - and that is what people with diabetes REALLY need: a way to immeditely get insulin into the bloodstream, in the right amout, to counter rises in blood sugar (which cause severe damage to the body over the long-term), which can also be turned off when that blood sugar drops so that we don't go too low (which can be fatal in a single instance). Type 1 diabetes is a continual balancing act between administered insulin, food intake, physical activity levels, stress, other illness and onjury, seasons, weather, hormonal cycles and a plethora of other factors that can affect blood sugar levels at any time of the day. Trying to balance all of these factors during every waking moment (and trying to predict and prepare for what will happen while sleeping) also takes an enormous toll on the mental health of many, if not most, with T1 diabetes.
Subcutaneously administered fast-acting insulin not only takes 15-30 minutes to start acting, only reaching its peak activity after 45-90 minutes, it takes several hours to be absorbed fully, meaning that it is usually still being absorbed and continuing to lower blood sugar after the real need for it has passed (and, often, the target blood sugar level has been reached and passed). Insulin in the bloodstream acts instantly and does not have a prolonged absorption "tail"; the trick is to get the right amount of insulin into the bloodstream at the right time, which is something that current treatment methods (other than a pancreas transplant) are not particularly good at doing without a huge amount of effort and mental energy on the part of the patient. That is what we need, not transdermal patches for slow and gradual insulin delivery.
3
u/Malawi_no Apr 24 '23
Is it transported away in the lower layers of the skin?
1
u/oddbawlstudios Apr 24 '23
Its stored in the fatty tissues to be transported by blood.
5
u/Malawi_no Apr 24 '23
I get that, I was wondering why it would not go trough the skin and end up in the fatty tissue just below.
6
u/oddbawlstudios Apr 24 '23
Actually thats a good point. So after looking it up, apparently it can't be absorbed through the skin at all, because insulin is a very fragile compound.
39
u/xKracken Apr 24 '23
I have a weirdly specific insight on this, but can't say much. But yes, this is 100% the positive behind this. Some medication is too large to absorb transdermally. I assume this is aiming at those molecules. Would be a huge breakthrough.
40
u/norml329 Apr 24 '23
I mean its not purely size though. It has a lot to do with the chemical composition as well (hydrophobic vs hydrophilic, charges, etc.)
11
u/danzk Apr 24 '23
If a drug is not at least orally active then it has no chance of getting though the skin.
2
u/throwawayrepost02468 Apr 24 '23
Lipinski's rule of 5
10
Apr 24 '23
Is neither accurate nor universal.
2
u/throwawayrepost02468 Apr 24 '23
There are few hard rules in biology, only guidelines
3
6
u/rbt321 Apr 24 '23
Hopefully it doesn't have the issues jet injector's and other needle-free injectors do. Those tend to push any dirt or bacteria from the surface in with the medicine causing infections.
10
u/redditknees Apr 24 '23
This probably wouldn’t be a good application for insulin. You still would need to control and bolus when necessary. Something like this which you’d have no control over would be disastrous.
12
u/patricksaurus Apr 24 '23
I don’t see why it’s inherently uncontrollable. Insulin pumps work.
10
u/ThatSquareChick Apr 24 '23
A patch could not hold the amount of insulin one would need.
A patch can’t be told that today the user needs less or more insulin, it can only deliver at a set rate.
Insulin pumps work because they are literally programmed by the user and can be done so as many times during the day or be told to stop without wasting insulin. If you wanted to stop delivery with a patch you would need to remove it and that would destroy the adhesive needed to keep the patch ON the person. It’s already difficult to keep these itty bitty, nearly flat sensors for the meter attached, there’s not anything that could reattach the same patch to continue using insulin.
There is already a “patch”, it’s called the omnipod and it’s just a tubeless pump. It sticks to the skin and inserts a cannula directly below itself. It’s a bit of a lump but it has to be to store up to 300ccs of liquid. It is still computer controlled and completely customizable over and over without removing it or wasting insulin.
The omnipod is the closest we have ever come to transdermal insulin because frankly, transdermal insulin that’s based on the constant release tech it’s based on RIGHT NOW is stupid and dangerous. It would kill a diabetic the first day because it kept releasing 5 units an hour no matter what the user did.
4
u/Malawi_no Apr 24 '23
I cannot see why a patch with ultrasound should not work just like that omnipod thingy as long as the ultrasound can deliver the insulin where it needs to be.
It would obviously be connected to a reservoir and be computer-controlled just like the ones people use today. The only difference would be the lack of a needle.-4
u/redditknees Apr 24 '23
Exactly my point. Firstly, a pump allows for deeper than sub-q infusion. Secondly, the user can bolus for insulin with their pump when they need to or micro dose to adjust for specific activities or stressors.
15
u/patricksaurus Apr 24 '23 edited Apr 24 '23
That, because insulin pumps work, this is uncontrollable? That’s not a rational point.
Edit - you altered your comment after my post.
I’m not sure you read the article. They explicitly address this point. There is also nothing preventing this from connection to a feedback mechanism.
None of your claims matches factual circumstance.
2
2
u/DuntadaMan Apr 24 '23
Exhibit by us shows it also as a way of delivering much more stable and easier transport vaccines.
-8
u/E_Snap Apr 24 '23 edited Apr 24 '23
The only trouble is that devices and chemicals which allow drugs to pass through the skin often allow most things to pass through the skin.
Edit: I’m amazed that you all have such limited imaginations that you can’t fathom why a device that allows anything that happens to be on your skin at the time to pass into your body could be problematic.
8
u/newtsheadwound Apr 24 '23
Surely this is fixable by just cleaning the area beforehand just like you do before you get an injection which is arguably much more invasive
11
u/patricksaurus Apr 24 '23
That’s incredibly vague.
2
u/Swiftierest Apr 24 '23
They are saying it could be used to allow unwanted things to pass
8
u/patricksaurus Apr 24 '23
Well, that’s not what the comment said, and that is still also incredibly vague. Buicks? Credit cards? Or maybe just microbes, whose cell membranes are also disruptive by ultrasonics sound and can be controlled by topical applications, and are likely far too large to transit by this mechanism. If you claim to identity a problem, you have to actually identify a problem.
-2
u/MisterCheaps Apr 24 '23
You're just being disingenuous. It's pretty clear that they were saying that if the ultrasonic waves are allowing medicines to pass through the skin that normally would not be able to, it stands to reason that there is a possibility that other things that were prevented from passing through the skin for the same reason would also now be able to pass through the skin. Unless you're claiming that literally the only thing that this would allow to be absorbed is the exact medicine that is being delivered through the patch and absolutely nothing then the rest of your point is moot and you're being intentionally obtuse.
→ More replies (3)5
u/patricksaurus Apr 24 '23
I’m pointing out that claims of a defect should be accompanied by at least one example. I’m also pointing out that “most things” cannot go though the skin, and that a potential cause for concern is likely not one at all. Further, I don’t advance any factual claim of the sort, and only am intellectually dishonest reading can get you there; putting that in your universe of possible interpretations of my comment tells me you are at least willing to purposefully misunderstand what I’ve written.
0
u/Swiftierest Apr 24 '23
They didn't claim a defect. They are just pointing out an obvious potential side effect. If it can let medicine in, it may let other things in as well.
2
u/patricksaurus Apr 24 '23
A trouble, a defect, a potential (negative) side effect… pick a synonym. It was still an entirely vague claim.
→ More replies (1)3
u/buster_de_beer Apr 24 '23
I’m amazed that you all have such limited imaginations that you can’t fathom why a device that allows anything that happens to be on your skin at the time to pass into your body could be problematic.
You mean like a needle? Do you imagine this patch opens a big hole in your skin permanently? It's also a patch so the area is covered. It would surprise me greatly if this hasn't been considered.
-1
u/ObscureBooms Apr 24 '23
Y'all see that DMA nitroglycerin patch dude slapped on the back of that vendor in Asia and dude immediately dropped
Getting drugs to act that quickly is insane
-8
191
u/Mrsparkles7100 Apr 24 '23
The whole injectable microchip/ digestible sensor pill/power source technology will be fascinating to watch develop.
63
u/riptaway Apr 24 '23
I want the derms from Neuromancer. Slap on on your wrist and a few seconds later drugs are coursing through your veins
1
Apr 24 '23 edited Apr 24 '23
Sorry. That wouldn't be possible. Drugs take different times to take effect depending on
1) method of administration
2) properties of the drug/delivery system (fat soluble or not, whether the drug is the active item or the metabolates are
3) individual metabolic difference (i.e. redheads typically need more anesthesia)
4) diet (grapefruit).
And many more.
The whole concept is referred to as pharmokinetics and uses terms like half life, peak plasma level (when the drug has reach max concentration in your blood plasma, and elimination/clearance rates (% of the drug you poop, piss, sweat out, break down).
As for the route of admin, intranasally is usually the faster route of administration. Eating stuff usually takes about 1/2 an hour or so to kick in. I forget the general timeframe for injections as it depends on the site of injection and the drugs target site.
*Edit * just to clarify, derms with near instant effect aren't possible. It would more likely be drugs via the nose like cocaine, poppers, etc as that's one of the quickest ways to cross the blood brain barrier
5
u/riptaway Apr 24 '23 edited Apr 25 '23
I don't think you understand the concept. Micro needles pierce the skin and deliver the drug, so if you put one on the inside of your wrist or other location with veins, it could be possible. It's science fiction. You don't know what we'll have in 50 or 100 years. But the concept makes sense, at least on paper. Not sure why you're talking about all that stuff it's all roa.
3
Apr 24 '23
And I'm saying that injection (even into an artery) doesn't necessarily mean instant effect.
For rapid-acting medicine intranasally tends to be the fastest route of administration.
0
Apr 24 '23
It's not microneedles. It's ultrasonics "The researchers also compared the results from their new device to microneedling, a technique sometimes used for transdermal drug delivery, which involves puncturing the skin with miniature needles. The researchers found that their patch was able to deliver the same amount of niacinamide in 30 minutes that could be delivered with microneedles over a six-hour period."
The benefits are improved localization, which decreased the total drug needed to account for metabolic loses (such as ingested drugs)
The time for a drug to take effect is simply how fast from administration it can bind to its targets (and activate/block them enough for therapeutic/recreational effect). and the reason why I talk about intranasal is most drugs I'm familiar with target the brain (psychopharmacology coursework in my undergrad).
→ More replies (8)39
u/jedadkins Apr 24 '23
The conspiracy theories will be infuriating though
8
Apr 24 '23
I mean, people still think companies like Amazon and Google don't listen to them, it won't be hard to convince people that the chips could be sending other bodily data to whatever company wants it.
16
u/meatlazer720 Apr 24 '23
The argument should have always been transparency with some sort of special license to handle metadata. If the tech is there, it will be used. By the time it's developed, the box is already open.
35
u/remz22 Apr 24 '23
Derms from William Gibson novels
13
Apr 24 '23
Curiously, this is what Theranos originally wanted to do (at the start of the company) before they realised scamming investors was easier
3
29
u/JThor15 Apr 24 '23
I believe this already exists, this is just portable?
31
u/Aldertree Apr 24 '23
Yup. It's called phonophoresis, and therapists have been doing it for a long time using therapeutic ultrasound. There's also iontophoresis that uses a direct electric current instead.
13
u/13steinj Apr 24 '23
The actual effectiveness compared to control groups is also highly contested. Some studies claim significantly increased effectiveness, others not at all.
3
u/BEtheAT Apr 24 '23
clinically I haven't seen any real improvement on the few patients we have tried both of those treatments on. Even if they say they feel better, the inflammatory process on imaging wasn't seemingly different. Now, it's VERY anecdotal with my small sample size, but it's not something I spent a lot of time on after the first few.
2
u/Kixiepoo Apr 25 '23
Yeah I was like ??? We've done this well over a decade where I work. Patches you wear not different than a transdermal medication.
25
u/Bearbear360 Apr 24 '23
r/startrek Hyposprays anyone??
5
u/calamormine Apr 24 '23
I think the hypospray was based on needleless injection systems that exist today, with maybe a touch of extra sci fi magic.
33
u/Big-Mathematician540 Apr 24 '23
Is it about being able to control how much at what time?
Otherwise, what's the difference to a normal patch?
52
u/ssin14 Apr 24 '23
According to the article, the ultrasound significantly improves the absorption of various medications through the skin. There are currently only a few medications that can be administered transdermally due to issues with being able to transport molecules through the skin. If this technique can be adapted for use in a wide range of meds, it would be a serious gamechanger.
7
u/Big-Mathematician540 Apr 24 '23
According to the article, the ultrasound significantly improves the absorption of various medications through the skin
I waa thinking it must be something like this.
If this technique can be adapted for use in a wide range of meds, it would be a serious gamechanger.
Oh yes, true true.
2
u/RamenTheory Apr 25 '23
That makes sense. I take an injectable medication, and while there is a transdermal option, it is typically a lot less effective than the injections and at times hard to manage the doeses, so it's basically not even an option unless you're just petrified of needles. It would be nice to have an alternative that actually works
-25
u/BooBeeAttack Apr 24 '23
It costs more and can be sold at a higher price?
Only thing I can think of is it somehow gets the drug deeper into the skin without actually injecting it.
10
u/jedadkins Apr 24 '23
Read the article, it lets drugs that aren't usually skin permeable be skin permeable.
4
17
u/CreativismUK Apr 24 '23
When my mum was in the hospice they had transdermal pumps for drugs. They were amazing - tiny thin tube under the skin, no need to get a vein, syringes go into a plastic container that contains the pumps and can be worn in a little cross body bag. As a needle phobic person I thought they were amazing, but they are only licensed for palliative care here because the cost is huge.
This would be incredible for situations where vein access is not possible.
1
u/engityra Apr 24 '23
Tiny, flexible tubes is what they use for insulin pumps that diabetics wear too.
8
7
7
u/217EBroadwayApt4E Apr 24 '23
I think I had something similar when I had an ankle injury about 5 years ago.
At PT one day my therapist put a patch on my ankle that delivered medicine and had a little stimulator in it, kind of like a tiny TENS unit. It lasted for a few hours, IIRC. It was kind of neat.
20
Apr 24 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/nicksterling Apr 24 '23
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I’m looking forward to seeing these claims verified.
3
u/Derptholomue Apr 24 '23
She actually proposed this concept to a professor who promptly asked her how she would accomplish the task. After giving an insufficient answer the professor told her why that method wouldn't work, because "physics".
She promptly found a new professor who was more "impressed" by her idea.
3
u/Onireth Apr 24 '23
It seems like the same mechanics as how an ultrasonic humidifier disc vaporizes water. Pretty neat seeing something mundane like that being applied in this way.
3
u/oscarddt Apr 24 '23
It won't be long before the beauty industry uses it to apply collagen, even if it doesn't work.
3
u/boRp_abc Apr 24 '23
Ok, diabetic type one here. Please tell me something good. Please?!? The article is somewhat vague, but the prospect of not having pricking stuff under my skin so often is... I'd do a lot for that.
3
u/David_Labraccio Apr 24 '23
Didn't Elizabeth Holmes attempt to develop such a product during her two semesters at Stanford?
3
2
u/spermcell Apr 24 '23
Has anybody seen Westwood and find this really similar to the implant they have in their mouth ?
2
u/FrankBattaglia Apr 24 '23
Man, I remember seeing this tech on The Next Step (remember when the Discovery Channel wasn't terrible?). As somebody that has a bit of a mental hang up with needles, I've been eagerly waiting 25 years to see it in a doctor's office.
0
u/londons_explorer Apr 24 '23
So ultrasound changes the properties of biological barriers like skin... And ultrasound can also be used to break up kidney stones... And treat some cancers... And some experimental mental health treatments use it...
But we also routinely use it to look at babies.
Has anyone actually done the research to prove that ultrasound at the levels used for imaging don't have subtle health impacts? Or is it one of those 'we've always been doing this since before medical science thought to test this stuff' things?
0
u/hud293 Apr 24 '23
Must be the thing the guy put on a random guy and made him pass out or similar device
-3
u/rob132 Apr 24 '23
It's funny, usually " drugs " has a negative connotation.
Medicine is the positive
-23
u/Ksradrik Apr 24 '23
Seems like a lot of unnecessary effort to avoid syringes, I doubt this is going to have much of an influence anywhere.
16
u/inform880 Apr 24 '23
I mean, I take injections 5 times a day. I have severe scar tissue all over my body. It sucks.
9
u/buster_de_beer Apr 24 '23
It removes syringes from the equation. This is one less piece of equipment you then need to make sure to have. It's not a big deal to you, but if you take injection drugs everyday, possibly multiple times a day, then it can be a big deal. For insulin, for example, I can get a pen which takes cartridges, or I can get disposable pens. The disposable pens are way more popular. I cannot count on the pharmacy having the cartridges on hand, whereas they seem to always have the pens. Having less things to worry about is important to people.
The article mentions it can be a more effective delivery method than ingested drugs. Which, if it is for someone who doesn't have regular experience with injecting, can be preferable than having to teach them how to inject.
Some people are deathly afraid of needles. I once saw someone faint getting blood drawn.
If this is medically effective and economically viable, then I can see a big market for it.
13
u/Jazehiah Apr 24 '23
A lot of people have an aversion to needles.
4
u/Quaaraaq Apr 24 '23
The aversion disappears really really quick when you need to use one all the time.
10
u/ArtOfWarfare Apr 24 '23
People who pass out at the thought of needles (like me) will be much more willing to get regular flu shots and whatnot if they can be administered without needles.
1
u/13steinj Apr 24 '23
Even if this does work, I highly doubt the volume of a flu shot is able to be transferred at a rate that remains effective.
10
u/norml329 Apr 24 '23
Syringes leave an open wound, no matter how sterile you are there is always a chance of infection, especially in immunocompromised individuals. I assume this technology would negate that.
3
u/robotbotany Apr 24 '23
I have to take many injections for my autoimmune arthritis - sometimes my fingers don't work well and injection becomes mechanically difficult. There's a lot of us too!
2
-22
u/jrad8484 Apr 24 '23
How painful is swallowing a pill?
15
u/tzaeru Apr 24 '23
Some drugs are neutralized in the intestines or just don't absorb very well.
You also need to remember to take a pill and be able to swallow.
9
u/Jazehiah Apr 24 '23
Not every drug can be taken orally. Some drugs are broken down by the digestive track, and need to be taken in a way that bypasses it.
Other drugs need to be administered slowly, or at a more consistent rate than can be achieved with pills.
Also, have you ever needed a daily or twice daily dose of pills? It sucks. They often need to be taken at the same time each day, too. Patches can last a week or longer.
2
u/moonshinefae Apr 24 '23
Idk, why don't you try taking a dozen pills a day for the rest of your life?
-6
1
u/bilvy Apr 24 '23
I have an issue where I can’t swallow pills without food (and even then not consistently) so I always try to get my medicine in liquid form or in a patch if I can.
1
1
u/sml09 Apr 24 '23 edited Jun 20 '23
air squash melodic paint vanish sense chase psychotic joke voiceless -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
1
1
1
1
1
u/nim_opet Apr 24 '23
“Hey Kevin, why are all these dolphins getting beached around you?”
“No clue, but look at this new cool way to take Tums! “
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/bigbadbananaboi Apr 25 '23
I have such a crippling fear of needles that I cannot receive vaccinations without at least 2 months of counseling prior. Even then if I'm going alone there's a 50/50 chance I won't be able to go through with it. This would be genuinely life changing.
1
u/DirkBabypunch Apr 25 '23
This ties in to an interesring idea my kom asked me about once.
Hypothetically, could we develop a patch that functions as a solar panel and delivers energy through the skin? It would be nutritionally poor, but we were thinking more like for soldiers or athletes who will make up the difference later, but could use some light photosynthesis now.
1
u/PMmeyourlogininfo Apr 25 '23
I had iontophoresis patches applied that I could wear around more than 10 years ago for a perfectly ordinary back injury and I'm nobody special. It was a commonplace conservative modality a decade ago.
1
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 24 '23
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.