微针的临床研究现状:系统综述。

Seung-Yeon Jeong, Jung-Hwan Park, Ye-Seul Lee, Youn-Sub Kim, Ji-Yeun Park, Song-Yi Kim
{"title":"微针的临床研究现状:系统综述。","authors":"Seung-Yeon Jeong,&nbsp;Jung-Hwan Park,&nbsp;Ye-Seul Lee,&nbsp;Youn-Sub Kim,&nbsp;Ji-Yeun Park,&nbsp;Song-Yi Kim","doi":"10.3390/pharmaceutics12111113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In recent years, a number of clinical trials have been published on the efficacy and safety of drug delivery using microneedles (MNs). This review aims to systematically summarize and analyze the current evidence including the clinical effect and safety of MNs. Three electronic databases, including PubMed, were used to search the literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) that evaluated the therapeutic efficacy of MNs from their inception to 28 June 2018. Data were extracted according to the characteristics of study subjects; disorder, types, and details of the intervention (MNs) and control groups; outcome measurements; effectiveness; and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Overall, 31 RCTs and seven CCTs met the inclusion criteria. Although MNs were commonly used in skin-related studies, evaluating the effects of MNs was difficult because many studies did not provide adequate comparison values between groups. For osteoporosis treatment, vaccine, and insulin delivery studies, MNs were comparable to or more effective than the gold standard. Regarding the safety of MNs, most AEs reported in each study were minor (grade 1 or 2). A well-designed RCT is necessary to clearly evaluate the effectiveness of MNs in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":508088,"journal":{"name":"Pharmaceutics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3390/pharmaceutics12111113","citationCount":"25","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Current Status of Clinical Research Involving Microneedles: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Seung-Yeon Jeong,&nbsp;Jung-Hwan Park,&nbsp;Ye-Seul Lee,&nbsp;Youn-Sub Kim,&nbsp;Ji-Yeun Park,&nbsp;Song-Yi Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/pharmaceutics12111113\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In recent years, a number of clinical trials have been published on the efficacy and safety of drug delivery using microneedles (MNs). This review aims to systematically summarize and analyze the current evidence including the clinical effect and safety of MNs. Three electronic databases, including PubMed, were used to search the literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) that evaluated the therapeutic efficacy of MNs from their inception to 28 June 2018. Data were extracted according to the characteristics of study subjects; disorder, types, and details of the intervention (MNs) and control groups; outcome measurements; effectiveness; and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Overall, 31 RCTs and seven CCTs met the inclusion criteria. Although MNs were commonly used in skin-related studies, evaluating the effects of MNs was difficult because many studies did not provide adequate comparison values between groups. For osteoporosis treatment, vaccine, and insulin delivery studies, MNs were comparable to or more effective than the gold standard. Regarding the safety of MNs, most AEs reported in each study were minor (grade 1 or 2). A well-designed RCT is necessary to clearly evaluate the effectiveness of MNs in the future.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":508088,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pharmaceutics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3390/pharmaceutics12111113\",\"citationCount\":\"25\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pharmaceutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics12111113\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmaceutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics12111113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

摘要

近年来,许多关于微针给药的有效性和安全性的临床试验已经发表。本综述旨在系统总结和分析目前的证据,包括MNs的临床疗效和安全性。包括PubMed在内的三个电子数据库用于检索随机对照试验(rct)和临床对照试验(cct)的文献,这些试验评估了MNs从成立到2018年6月28日的治疗效果。根据研究对象的特征提取数据;干预(MNs)和对照组的障碍、类型和细节;测量结果;有效性;不良事件(ae)的发生率。总的来说,31项随机对照试验和7项随机对照试验符合纳入标准。虽然MNs通常用于皮肤相关研究,但评估MNs的效果是困难的,因为许多研究没有提供足够的组间比较值。在骨质疏松治疗、疫苗和胰岛素递送研究中,MNs与金标准相当或比金标准更有效。关于MNs的安全性,每项研究中报道的大多数ae都是轻微的(1级或2级)。为了清晰地评估MNs的有效性,需要设计良好的随机对照试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Current Status of Clinical Research Involving Microneedles: A Systematic Review.

The Current Status of Clinical Research Involving Microneedles: A Systematic Review.

The Current Status of Clinical Research Involving Microneedles: A Systematic Review.

The Current Status of Clinical Research Involving Microneedles: A Systematic Review.

In recent years, a number of clinical trials have been published on the efficacy and safety of drug delivery using microneedles (MNs). This review aims to systematically summarize and analyze the current evidence including the clinical effect and safety of MNs. Three electronic databases, including PubMed, were used to search the literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) that evaluated the therapeutic efficacy of MNs from their inception to 28 June 2018. Data were extracted according to the characteristics of study subjects; disorder, types, and details of the intervention (MNs) and control groups; outcome measurements; effectiveness; and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Overall, 31 RCTs and seven CCTs met the inclusion criteria. Although MNs were commonly used in skin-related studies, evaluating the effects of MNs was difficult because many studies did not provide adequate comparison values between groups. For osteoporosis treatment, vaccine, and insulin delivery studies, MNs were comparable to or more effective than the gold standard. Regarding the safety of MNs, most AEs reported in each study were minor (grade 1 or 2). A well-designed RCT is necessary to clearly evaluate the effectiveness of MNs in the future.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信