Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| SmartBIO Analytics | UNKNOWN |
| Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal | OTHER |
| Avania | INDUSTRY |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The goal of this clinical trial is to understand the efficacy of Medicsen's Smartpatch to deliver drugs through the skin in healthy volunteers. The main questions it aims to answer are:
Researchers will compare administration with Medicsen's Smartpatch with the subcutaneous administration of the drug to see if the efficacy and safety are comparable
Participants will be asked to fill a tolerability survey after receiving each of the two interventions: Subcutaneous administration and Medicse's Smartpatch.
Blood samples will be taken at different timepoints to asses for efficacy of each treatment.
The clinical investigation will be conducted in two stages:
Stage 1: A first-in-human pilot study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and exploratory performance of the Medicsen Smartpatch for drug delivery in healthy volunteers: a single-center, open-label study.
Stage 2: A confirmatory study to evaluate the performance of the Medicsen Smartpatch by comparing sonophoresis with subcutaneous drug delivery: a randomized, single-dose, open-label, two-way crossover study in healthy volunteers.
Study subjects will be monitored for device-attributable adverse effects during the scheduled examinations and at any examinations resulting from study subjects' self-reported concerns. A licensed physician will review any unanticipated adverse events associated with the protocol.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sonophoresis | Experimental | In the sonophoresis arm, the drug is administered to the volunteers through the application of ultrasound waves that increase the skin permeability. |
|
| Subcutaneous injection | Active Comparator | In the subcutaneous injection arm, the drug is administered to the volunteers through means of subcutaneous injection. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medicsen Smartpatch | Device | This intervention consists of administering the drug using the Medicsen Smartpatch, a non-invasive, needle-free drug delivery device that utilizes sonophoresis technology to enhance absorption through the skin. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Stage 1 - Device-related adverse events (adverse device effects; ADEs) | Primary Outcome Measure of Stage 1. Incidence and severity of ADEs is assesed, with special focus on those occurred at the site of administration and those leading to treatment interruption. | Periprocedural |
| Stage 1 - Assessment of local tolerability through questionnaires and visual examination | Primary Outcome Measure of Stage 1. Subject-reported sensations (pain/burning, itching/stinging, discomfort) during and after administration are assesed through questionnaires. Dermatologist-evaluated skin signs (erythema, edema, vesicles, crusts/exudate, scaling/lichenification, hematomas/bleeding, tenderness) are assesed through visual examination. | Periprocedural |
| Stage 2 - Area under the curve (AUC0-∞ and AUC0-t) | Primary Outcome Measure of Stage 2 | Prior intervention and 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 120, 180, 240 minutes post-dose |
| Stage 2 - Peak plasma concentration (Cmax) | Primary Outcome Measure of Stage 2 | Prior intervention and 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 120, 180, 240 minutes post-dose |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Stage 1 - Peak plasma concentration (Cmax) | Secondary Outcome Measure of Stage 1. | Prior intervention and 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 120, 180, 240 minutes post-dose |
| Stage 1 -Area under the curve (AUC0-∞ and AUC0-t) |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal | Madrid | Madrid | 28034 | Spain |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 27022671 | Background | Mannocci A, De Carli G, Di Bari V, Saulle R, Unim B, Nicolotti N, Carbonari L, Puro V, La Torre G. How Much do Needlestick Injuries Cost? A Systematic Review of the Economic Evaluations of Needlestick and Sharps Injuries Among Healthcare Personnel. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016 Jun;37(6):635-46. doi: 10.1017/ice.2016.48. Epub 2016 Mar 29. | |
| 17065314 |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D007279 | Injections, Subcutaneous |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D007267 | Injections |
| D004333 | Drug Administration Routes |
| D004358 | Drug Therapy |
| D013812 | Therapeutics |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Subcutaneous (SC) single dose | Device | This intervention consists of administering the drug via standard subcutaneous injection using a pre-filled pen injector |
|
Secondary Outcome Measure of Stage 1.
| Prior intervention and 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 120, 180, 240 minutes post-dose |
| Stage 1 - Tmax and t1/2 | Secondary Outcome Measure of Stage 1. | Prior intervention and 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 120, 180, 240 minutes post-dose |
| Stage 1 - Time at which the device notifies that the full dose has been delivered. | Secondary Outcome Measure of Stage 1. | Periprocedural |
| Stage 2 - Tmax and t1/2 | Secondary Outcome Measure of Stage 2. | Prior intervention and 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 120, 180, 240 minutes post-dose |
| Stage 2 - Incidence and severity of ADEs | Secondary Outcome Measure of Stage 2. | Periprocedural |
| Stage 2 - Number of participants with treatment-emergent clinically significant abnormalities in laboratory parameters (hematology and biochemistry) | Secondary Outcome Measure of Stage 2. Number of participants with laboratory values outside the normal reference range that are considered clinically significant compared to baseline. This includes hematology (hemoglobin, hematocrit, Red blood cell, MCV, MCH, MCHC, White blood cell with differential, and platelets) and biochemistry (urea, creatinine, glucose, AST (SGOT), ALT (SGPT), GGT, ALP, and total bilirubin). Unit of measure: Participants | Through study completion |
| Stage 2 - Number of participants with treatment-emergent clinically significant abnormalities in vital signs. | Secondary Outcome Measure of Stage 2. Number of participants with vital sign values outside the normal reference range that are considered clinically significant compared to baseline. This includes Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP), Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP), Heart Rate (HR), Respiratory Rate (RR), and Temperature (T) measured before and after the procedure. Unit of measure: Participants | Through study completion |
| Stage 2 - Number of participants with changes in electrocardiogram from baseline | Secondary Outcome Measure of Stage 2. A standard 12-lead ECG is performed with an ECG machine that automatically calculates the heart rate and measures PR, QRS, QT, and QTc intervals before and after the procedure to determine changes from baseline values. | Through study completion |
| Stage 2 - Assessment of local tolerability through questionnaires and visual examination | Secondary Outcome Measure of Stage 2. Subject-reported sensations (pain/burning, itching/stinging, discomfort) during and after administration of both interventions are assesed through questionnaires. Dermatologist- evaluated skin signs (erythema, edema, vesicles, crusts/exudate, scaling/lichenification, hematomas/bleeding, tenderness) after Medicsen Smartpatch intervention are assesed through visual examination. | Periprocedural |
| Stage 2 - Time at which the device notifies that the full dose has been delivered. | Secondary Outcome Measure of Stage 2 | Periprocedural |
| Stage 2 - Usability endpoints (for healthcare professionals) | Secondary Outcome Measure of Stage 2. Rate of first-attempt success, time to complete setup, clarity of instructions, and user-reported ease-of-use scores for healthcare professionals are assesed through the Healthcare Proffesionals' Usability Questionnaire, in which a score from 1 to 5 is given to each of the measurements, and where a higher score means a worse outcome. | Immediately after the intervention |
| Stage 2 - Usability endpoints (for patients) | Secondary Outcome Measure of Stage 2. Comfort and willingness to reuse the device are assesed through the Patient's Usability Questionnaire, in which a score from 1 to 5 is given to each of the measures, and where a higher score means a worse outcome. | Immediately after the intervention |
| Elder A, Paterson C. Sharps injuries in UK health care: a review of injury rates, viral transmission and potential efficacy of safety devices. Occup Med (Lond). 2006 Dec;56(8):566-74. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kql122. Epub 2006 Oct 25. |
| 22537418 | Background | Aronson R. The role of comfort and discomfort in insulin therapy. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012 Aug;14(8):741-7. doi: 10.1089/dia.2012.0038. Epub 2012 Apr 26. |
| 16120035 | Background | Wagner J, Malchoff C, Abbott G. Invasiveness as a barrier to self-monitoring of blood glucose in diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2005 Aug;7(4):612-9. doi: 10.1089/dia.2005.7.612. |
| 24574504 | Background | Jenkins K. II. Needle phobia: a psychological perspective. Br J Anaesth. 2014 Jul;113(1):4-6. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeu013. Epub 2014 Feb 25. No abstract available. |
| 30109720 | Background | McLenon J, Rogers MAM. The fear of needles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2019 Jan;75(1):30-42. doi: 10.1111/jan.13818. Epub 2018 Sep 11. |
| 22940128 | Background | Schoellhammer CM, Polat BE, Mendenhall J, Maa R, Jones B, Hart DP, Langer R, Blankschtein D. Rapid skin permeabilization by the simultaneous application of dual-frequency, high-intensity ultrasound. J Control Release. 2012 Oct 28;163(2):154-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2012.08.019. Epub 2012 Aug 23. |
| 17347019 | Background | Barati AH, Mokhtari-Dizaji M, Mozdarani H, Bathaie Z, Hassan ZM. Effect of exposure parameters on cavitation induced by low-level dual-frequency ultrasound. Ultrason Sonochem. 2007 Sep;14(6):783-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2006.12.016. Epub 2007 Jan 23. |
| 11835204 | Background | Tezel A, Sens A, Mitragotri S. Investigations of the role of cavitation in low-frequency sonophoresis using acoustic spectroscopy. J Pharm Sci. 2002 Feb;91(2):444-53. doi: 10.1002/jps.10024. |
| 7638603 | Background | Mitragotri S, Blankschtein D, Langer R. Ultrasound-mediated transdermal protein delivery. Science. 1995 Aug 11;269(5225):850-3. doi: 10.1126/science.7638603. |
| 1438012 | Background | Tachibana K. Transdermal delivery of insulin to alloxan-diabetic rabbits by ultrasound exposure. Pharm Res. 1992 Jul;9(7):952-4. doi: 10.1023/a:1015869420159. No abstract available. |
| 1676740 | Background | Tachibana K, Tachibana S. Transdermal delivery of insulin by ultrasonic vibration. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1991 Apr;43(4):270-1. doi: 10.1111/j.2042-7158.1991.tb06681.x. |
| 2339470 | Background | Williams AR. Phonophoresis: an in vivo evaluation using three topical anaesthetic preparations. Ultrasonics. 1990 May;28(3):137-41. doi: 10.1016/0041-624x(90)90075-y. |
| 2498396 | Background | Levy D, Kost J, Meshulam Y, Langer R. Effect of ultrasound on transdermal drug delivery to rats and guinea pigs. J Clin Invest. 1989 Jun;83(6):2074-8. doi: 10.1172/JCI114119. |
| 1495903 | Background | Bommannan D, Okuyama H, Stauffer P, Guy RH. Sonophoresis. I. The use of high-frequency ultrasound to enhance transdermal drug delivery. Pharm Res. 1992 Apr;9(4):559-64. doi: 10.1023/a:1015808917491. |
| 7562407 | Background | Mitragotri S, Edwards DA, Blankschtein D, Langer R. A mechanistic study of ultrasonically-enhanced transdermal drug delivery. J Pharm Sci. 1995 Jun;84(6):697-706. doi: 10.1002/jps.2600840607. |
| 23899825 | Background | Park D, Park H, Seo J, Lee S. Sonophoresis in transdermal drug deliverys. Ultrasonics. 2014 Jan;54(1):56-65. doi: 10.1016/j.ultras.2013.07.007. Epub 2013 Jul 16. |
| 21238514 | Background | Polat BE, Hart D, Langer R, Blankschtein D. Ultrasound-mediated transdermal drug delivery: mechanisms, scope, and emerging trends. J Control Release. 2011 Jun 30;152(3):330-48. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2011.01.006. Epub 2011 Jan 14. |
| 10839713 | Background | Bos JD, Meinardi MM. The 500 Dalton rule for the skin penetration of chemical compounds and drugs. Exp Dermatol. 2000 Jun;9(3):165-9. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0625.2000.009003165.x. |