The transdermal delivery of drugs, by diffusion through the epidermis, offers improvements over more traditional delivery methods, such as subcutaneous injections and oral delivery. Transdermal drug delivery avoids the hepatic first pass effect encountered with oral drug delivery. Transdermal drug delivery also eliminates patient discomfort associated with subcutaneous injections. In addition, transdermal delivery can provide more uniform concentrations of drug in the bloodstream of the patient over time due to the extended controlled delivery profiles of certain types of transdermal delivery devices. The term “transdermal” delivery, broadly encompasses the delivery of an agent through a body surface, such as the skin, mucosa, or nails of an animal.
The skin functions as the primary barrier to the transdermal penetration of materials into the body and represents the body's major resistance to the transdermal delivery of therapeutic agents such as drugs. To date, efforts have been focused on reducing the physical resistance or enhancing the permeability of the skin for the delivery of drugs by passive diffusion. Various methods for increasing the rate of transdermal drug flux have been attempted, most notably using chemical flux enhancers.
Other approaches to-increase the rates of transdermal drug delivery include use of alternative energy sources such as electrical energy and ultrasonic energy. Electrically assisted transdermal delivery is also referred to as electrotransport. The term “electrotransport” as used herein refers generally to the delivery of an agent (e.g., a drug) through a membrane, such as skin, mucous membrane, or nails. The delivery is induced or aided by application of an electrical potential. For example, a beneficial therapeutic agent may be introduced into the systemic circulation of a human body by electrotransport delivery through the skin. A widely used electrotransport process, electromigration (also called iontophoresis), involves the electrically induced transport of charged ions. Another type of electrotransport, electroosmosis, involves the flow of a liquid, which liquid contains the agent to be delivered, under the influence of an electric field. Still another type of electrotransport process, electroporation, involves the formation of transiently-existing pores in a biological membrane by the application of an electric field. An agent can be delivered through the pores either passively (i.e., without electrical assistance) or actively (i.e., under the influence of an electric potential). However, in any given electrotransport process, more than one of these processes, including at least some “passive” diffusion, may be occurring simultaneously to a certain extent. Accordingly, the term “electrotransport”, as used herein, should be given its broadest possible interpretation so that it includes the electrically induced or enhanced transport of at least one agent, which may be charged, uncharged, or a mixture thereof, whatever the specific mechanism or mechanisms by which the agent actually is transported.
Electrotransport devices use at least two electrodes that are in electrical contact with some portion of the skin, nails, mucous membrane, or other surface of the body, One electrode, commonly called the “donor” electrode, is the electrode from which the agent is delivered into the body. The other electrode, typically termed the “counter” electrode, serves to close the electrical circuit through the body. For example, if the agent to be delivered is positively charged, i.e., a cation, then the anode is the donor electrode, while the cathode is the counter electrode which serves to complete the circuit. Alternatively, if an agent is negatively charged, i.e., an anion, the cathode is the donor electrode and the anode is the counter electrode. Additionally, both the anode and cathode may be considered donor electrodes if both anionic and cationic agent ions, or if uncharged dissolved agents, are to be delivered.
Furthermore, electrotransport delivery systems generally require at least one reservoir or source of the agent to be delivered to the body. Examples of such donor reservoirs include a pouch or cavity, a porous sponge or pad, and a hydrophilic polymer or a gel matrix. Such donor reservoirs are electrically connected to, and positioned between, the anode or cathode and the body surface, to provide a fixed or renewable source of one or more agents or drugs. Electrotransport devices also have an electrical power source such as one or more batteries. Typically at any one time, one pole of the power source is electrically connected to the donor electrode, while the opposite pole is electrically connected to the counter electrode. Since it has been shown that the rate of electrotransport drug delivery is approximately proportional to the electric current applied by the device, many electrotransport devices typically have an electrical controller that controls the voltage and/or current applied through the electrodes, thereby regulating the rate of drug delivery. These control circuits use a variety of electrical components to control the amplitude, polarity, timing, waveform shape, etc. of the electric current and/or voltage supplied by the power source. See, for example, McNichols et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,047,007.
To date, commercial transdermal electrotransport drug delivery devices (e.g., the Phoresor, sold by Iomed, Inc. of Salt Lake City, Utah; the Dupel Iontophoresis System sold by Empi, Inc. of St. Paul, Minn.; the Webster Sweat Inducer, model 3600, sold by Wescor, Inc. of Logan, Utah) have generally utilized a desk-top electrical power supply unit and a pair of skin contacting electrodes. The donor electrode contains a drug solution while the counter electrode contains a solution of a biocompatible electrolyte salt. The power supply unit has electrical controls for adjusting the amount of electrical current applied through the electrodes. The “satellite” electrodes are connected to the electrical power supply unit by long (e.g., 1–2 meters) electrically conductive wires or cables. The wire connections are subject to disconnection and limit the patient's movement and mobility. Wires between electrodes and controls may also be annoying or uncomfortable to the patient. Other examples of desk-top electrical power supply units which use “satellite” electrode assemblies are disclosed in Jacobsen et al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,141,359 (see FIGS. 3 and 4); LaPrade, U.S. Pat. No. 5,006,108 (see FIG. 9); and Maurer et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,254,081.
More recently, small self-contained electrotransport delivery devices have been proposed to be worn on the skin, sometimes unobtrusively under clothing, for extended periods of time. Such small self-contained electrotransport delivery devices are disclosed for example in Tapper, U.S. Pat. No. 5,224,927; Sibalis, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,224,928; and Haynes et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,246,418.
There have recently been suggestions to utilize electrotransport devices having a reusable controller which is adapted for use with multiple drug-containing units. The drug-containing units are simply disconnected from the controller when the drug becomes depleted and a fresh drug-containing unit is thereafter connected to the controller. In this way, the relatively more expensive hardware components of the device (e.g. batteries, LED's, circuit hardware, etc.) can be contained within the reusable controller, and the relatively less expensive donor reservoir and counter reservoir matrices can be contained in the single use/disposable drug-containing unit, thereby bringing down the overall cost of electrotransport drug delivery. Examples of electrotransport devices comprised of a reusable controller, removably connected to a drug-containing unit are disclosed in Sage, Jr. et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,320,597; Sibalis, U.S. Pat. No. 5,358,483; Sibalis et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,135,479 (FIG. 12); and Devane et al., UK Patent Application 2 239 803.
In further development of electrotransport devices, hydrogels have become particularly favored for use as the drug and electrolyte reservoir matrices, in part, due to the fact that water is the preferred liquid solvent for use in electrotransport drug delivery due to its excellent biocompatibility compared with other liquid solvents such as alcohols and glycols. Hydrogels have a high equilibrium water content and can quickly absorb water. In addition, hydrogels tend to have good biocompatibility with the skin and with mucosal membranes.
Of particular interest in transdermal delivery is the delivery of analgesic drugs for the management of moderate to severe pain. Control of the rate and duration of drug delivery is particularly important for transdermal delivery of analgesic drugs to avoid the potential risk of overdose and the discomfort of an insufficient dosage.
One class of analgesics that has found application in a transdermal delivery route is the synthetic opiates, a group of 4-aniline piperidines. The synthetic opiates, e.g., fentanyl and certain of its derivatives such as sufentanil, are particularly well-suited for transdermal administration. These synthetic opiates are characterized by their rapid onset of analgesia, high potency, and short duration of action. They are estimated to be 80 and 800 times respectively, more potent than morphine. These drugs are weak bases, i.e., amines, whose major fraction is cationic in acidic media.
In an in vivo study to determine plasma concentration, Thysman and Preat (Anesth. Analg. 77 (1993) pp. 61–66) compared simple diffusion of fentanyl and sufentanil to electrotransport delivery in citrate buffer at pH 5. Simple diffusion did not produce any detectable plasma concentration. The plasma levels attainable depended on the maximum flux of the drug that can cross the skin and the drug's pharmacokinetic properties, such as clearance and volume of distribution. Electrotransport delivery was reported to have significantly reduced lag time (i.e., time required to achieve peak plasma levels) as compared to passive transdermal patches (1.5 h versus 14 h). The researchers' conclusions were that electrotransport of these analgesic drugs can provide more rapid control of pain than classical patches, and a pulsed release of drug (by controlling electrical current) was comparable to the constant delivery of classical patches. See, also, e.g., Thysman et al. Int. J. Pharma., 101 (1994) pp. 105–113; V. Préat et al. Int. J. Pharma., 96 (1993) pp.189–196 (sufentanil); Gourlav et al. Pain, 37 (1989) pp. 193–202 (fentanyl); Sebel et al. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 32 (1987) pp. 529–531 (fentanyl and sufentanil). Passive, i.e., by diffusion, and electrically-assisted transdermal delivery of narcotic analgesic drugs, such as fentanyl, to induce analgesia, have also both been described in the patent literature. See, for example, Gale et al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,588,580, and Theeuwes et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,232,438.
In the last several years, management of post-operative pain has looked to delivery systems other than electrotransport delivery. Particular attention has been given to devices and systems which permit, within predetermined limits, the patient to control the amount of analgesic the patient receives. The experience with these types of devices has generally been that patient control of the administration of analgesic has resulted in the administration of less analgesic to the patient than would have been administered were the dosage prescribed by a physician. Self-administered or patient controlled self-administration has become known (and will be referred to herein) as patient-controlled analgesia (PCA).
Known PCA devices are typically electromechanical pumps which require large capacity electrical power sources, e.g., alternating current or multiple large capacity battery packs which are bulky. Due to their bulk and complexity, commercially available PCA devices generally require the patient to be confined to a bed, or some other essentially fixed location. Known PCA devices deliver drug to the patient by means of an intravenous line or a catheter which must be inserted into the intended vein, artery or other organ by a qualified medical technician. This technique requires that the skin barrier be breached in order to administer the analgesic. (See, Zdeb U.S. Pat. No. 5,232,448). Thus, as practiced using commercially available PCA devices, PCA requires the presence of highly skilled medical technicians to initiate and supervise the operation of the PCA device along with its attendant risk of infection. Further, commercially available PCA devices themselves are somewhat painful to use by virtue of their percutaneous (i.e., intravenous or subcutaneous) access.
The art has produced little in the way of transdermal electrotransport devices that can compete with the conventional PCAs in terms of the amount of drug delivered to achieve adequate analgesia and in a patient controlled manner. Further, little progress has been made to provide a hydrogel formulation for analgesic electrotransport, particularly fentanyl transdermal electrotransport delivery, that has long term stability and has performance characteristics comparable to the patient controlled electromechanical pumps for, e.g., intravenous delivery of analgesic. There is need to provide an analgesic formulation in a suitable device to take advantage of the convenience of electrotransport delivery in a small, self-contained, patient-controlled device.