Back to Journals » Medical Devices: Evidence and Research » Volume 9

Comparison of drug delivery with autoinjector versus manual prefilled syringe and between three different autoinjector devices administered in pig thigh

Authors Hill R, Wilmot J, Belluscio B, Cleary K, Lindisch D, Tucker R, Wilson E, Shukla R, Blows S

Received 24 February 2015

Accepted for publication 20 October 2015

Published 2 August 2016 Volume 2016:9 Pages 257—266


Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 5

Editor who approved publication: Dr Scott Fraser

Robert L Hill,1,* John G Wilmot,1,* Beth A Belluscio,1 Kevin Cleary,2 David Lindisch,3 Robin Tucker,4 Emmanuel Wilson,Rajesh B Shukla1

1Meridian Medical Technologies Inc., Columbia, MD, 2Children’s National Medical Center, 3Washington DC VA Medical Center, 4Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA

*These authors have contributed equally to this work

Abstract: Parenteral routes of drug administration are often selected to optimize actual dose of drug delivered, assure high bioavailability, bypass first-pass metabolism or harsh gastrointestinal environments, as well as maximize the speed of onset. Intramuscular (IM) delivery can be preferred to intravenous delivery when initiating intravenous access is difficult or impossible. Drugs can be injected intramuscularly using a syringe or an automated delivery device (autoinjector). Investigation into the IM delivery dynamics of these methods may guide further improvements in the performance of injection technologies. Two porcine model studies were conducted to compare differences in dispersion of injectate volume for different methods of IM drug administration. The first study compared the differences in the degree of dispersion and uptake of injectate following the use of a manual syringe and an autoinjector. The second study compared the spatial spread of the injected formulation, or dispersion volume, and uptake of injectate following the use of five different autoinjectors (EpiPen® [0.3 mL], EpiPen® Jr [0.3 mL], Twinject® [0.15 mL, 0.3 mL], and Anapen® 300 [0.3 mL]) with varying needle length, needle gauge, and force applied to the plunger. In the first study, the autoinjector provided higher peak volumes of injectate, indicating a greater degree of dispersion, compared with manual syringe delivery. In the second study, EpiPen autoinjectors resulted in larger dispersion volumes and higher initial dispersion ratios, which decreased rapidly over time, suggesting a greater rate of uptake of injectate than the other autoinjectors. The differences in dispersion and uptake of injectate are likely the result of different functional characteristics of the delivery systems. Both studies demonstrate that the functional characteristics of the method for delivering IM injections impact the dispersion and uptake of the material injected, which could significantly affect the pharmacokinetics and, ultimately, the effectiveness of the drug.

Keywords: anaphylaxis, autoinjector device, injector pen, intramuscular drug administration, dispersion volume

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]