Economic Evaluation of Microneedles for Vaccinations
Received Date: May 26, 2018 / Accepted Date: Jun 02, 2018 / Published Date: Jun 09, 2018
In the United States, influenza epidemics cost approximately $87.1 billion annually in which $10.4 billion is attributed to direct medical cost . Nearly 13 million influenza cases occur every year, costing $1.4 billion to third-party payers and $11.3 billion to the society . Despite the recommendation for annual influenza vaccinations, a significant number of people fail to get vaccinated due to their concerns about vaccine effectiveness, adverse reactions, inconvenience, and needle phobia [3,4]. Thus, a novel, cost-effective, minimally invasive, and patient-compliant delivery technology-microneedles (an array of micron-sized solid-coated or polymeric dissolving needles) could address some of these issues [5-7]. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has named this technology the potential “game changer” of global vaccination. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that the use of microneedles could lead to long-lasting, robust antibody response, and improved efficacy of various vaccines against influenza, malaria, Alzheimer’s disease, and measles [8-10]. The usability and acceptability of microneedles were also assessed to reveal that 100% of the public and 74% of the healthcare providers surveyed were positive and showed a strong support for microneedle technology [11,12]. Furthermore, if patients could self-administer vaccines using microneedles, the vaccination intent would increase from 44% to 65% .
Microneedles offer multiple superior advantages such as enhancement of drug delivery, patient compliance and adherence [14-16]; minimization of sharps handling and drug waste; elimination of vaccine reconstitution prior to administration; and avoidance of needle-related risks (pain, infection, and needle-stick injuries) [2,17,18]. The simple application of microneedles could facilitate the vaccinations with minimally trained health caregivers and potential self-administration by patients [2,8,13]. Additionally, vaccines were found to be significantly more thermo-stable in the microneedle patches than in currently available formulations on the market, which reduce the need for a cold chain, simplify the logistical system (storage, distribution, and disposal), and expand vaccine coverage to hard-toreach populations [2,8,19].
The use of microneedle patches could substantially reduce costs of vaccinations . In general, the cost-effectiveness of microneedle patch would depend on the recipient acceptability and vaccine efficacy, compared with the existing conventional vaccinations . The higher number of antigen-presenting cells in the skin led to a greater immune response with lower antigen levels . This observation was attributed to the dose-sparing effect of skin vaccination and the reduction in the cost and dose of vaccines. The economic value of microneedles depends on the market price and the success rate of selfadministration . Lee et al. have established an economic model to assess the value of microneedle delivery of influenza vaccine. The authors reported that when microneedles were administered only by health care providers and were comparable in efficacy and compliance to existing vaccination methods, the use of microneedles was found to be cost-effective at all price points ranging from $9.50 to $30 with market share more than 20% . If self-administration were offered and microneedles had the similar efficacy as existing vaccines, the patient compliance would need to increase by more than 3% to be economically dominant. If the treatment efficacy increased by more than 3%, microneedle-used vaccination would be cost-saving for all price below $30 . Adhikari et al. estimated the cost of measles vaccination using microneedles for the first dose to be $0.95 as compared to $1.65 for the first dose in subcutaneous vaccination . At 95% vaccination coverage, a measles case averted would cost $1.66 by microneedle patch vaccination, which was significantly lower than that by subcutaneous vaccination ($2.64) . Also, the use of microneedle-based vaccine in children and elderly would improve the acceptance of vaccination and cost-effectiveness of vaccination program [18,21]. Microneedles could potentially save $950 million to third-party payers and as much as $2.6 billion to the society over an influenza season . Microneedle technology is a painless, costeffective, and promising platform for vaccinations.
- Molinari N-AM, Ortega-Sanchez IR, Messonnier ML, Thompson WW, Wortley PM, et al. (2007) The annual impact of seasonal influenza in the US: measuring disease burden and costs. Vaccine 27: 5086-5096.
- Lee BY, Bartsch SM, Mvundura M, Jarrahian C, Zapf KM, et al. (2015) An economic model assessing the value of microneedle patch delivery of the seasonal influenza vaccine. Vaccine 37: 4727-04736.
- Hemingway CO, Poehling KA (2004) Change in recommendation affects influenza vaccinations among children 6 to 59 months of age. Paediatrics 4: 948-952.
- Hofmann F, Ferracin C, Marsh G, Dumas R (2006) Influenza vaccination of healthcare workers: a literature review of attitudes and beliefs. Infection 3: 142-147.
- Nguyen HX, Banga AK (2015) Microneedle-mediated delivery of vismodegib across skin. J Invest Dermatol: S58-S58.
- Tas C, Joyce JC, Nguyen HX, Eangoor P, Knaack JS, et al. (2017) Dihydroergotamine mesylate-loaded dissolving microneedle patch made of polyvinylpyrrolidone for management of acute migraine therapy. J Controlled Release: 159-165.
- Nguyen HX, Bozorg BD, Kim Y, Wieber A, Birk G, et al. (2018) Poly (vinyl alcohol) microneedles: Fabrication, characterization, and application for transdermal drug delivery of doxorubicin. Eur J Pharm Biopharm S0939-6411.
- Edens C, Collins ML, Ayers J, Rota PA, Prausnitz MR (2013) Measles vaccination using a microneedle patch. Vaccine 34: 3403-3409.
- Fernando GJ, Chen X, Prow TW, Crichton ML, Fairmaid EJ, et al. (2010) Potent immunity to low doses of influenza vaccine by probabilistic guided micro-targeted skin delivery in a mouse model. PloS One 4: e10266.
- Sullivan SP, Koutsonanos DG, Del Pilar Martin M, Lee JW, Zarnitsyn V, et al. (2010) Dissolving polymer microneedle patches for influenza vaccination. Nat Med 8: 915-920.
- Birchall JC, Clemo R, Anstey A, John DN (2011) Microneedles in clinical practice-an exploratory study into the opinions of healthcare professionals and the public. Pharm Res 1: 95-106.
- Norman JJ, Brown MR, Raviele NA, Prausnitz MR, Felner EI (2013) Faster pharmacokinetics and increased patient acceptance of intradermal insulin delivery using a single hollow microneedle in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes 6: 459-465.
- Norman JJ, Arya JM, McClain MA, Frew PM, Meltzer MI, et al. (2014) Microneedle patches: usability and acceptability for self-vaccination against influenza. Vaccine 16: 1856-1862.
- Nguyen HX, Banga AK (2015) Enhanced skin delivery of vismodegib by microneedle treatment. Drug Deliv Transl Res 4: 407-423.
- Nguyen HX, Banga AK (2017) Fabrication, characterization and application of sugar microneedles for transdermal drug delivery. Ther Deliv 5: 249-264.
- Nguyen HX, Banga AK (2018) Delivery of methotrexate and characterization of skin treated by fabricated PLGA microneedles and fractional ablative laser. Pharm Res 3: 68.
- Adhikari BB, Goodson JL, Chu SY, Rota PA, Meltzer MI (2016) Assessing the potential cost-effectiveness of microneedle patches in childhood measles vaccination programs: the case for further research and development. Drugs RD 4: 327-338.
- Wong C, Jiang M, You JH (2016) Potential cost-effectiveness of an influenza vaccination program offering microneedle patch for vaccine delivery in children. PloS One 12: e0169030.
- Hickling JK, Jones KR, Friede M, Zehrung D, Chen D, et al. (2011) Intradermal delivery of vaccines: potential benefits and current challenges. Bull World Health Organ 3: 221-226.
- Al-Zahrani S, Zaric M, McCrudden C, Scott C, Kissenpfennig A, et al. (2012) Microneedle-mediated vaccine delivery: harnessing cutaneous immunobiology to improve efficacy. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 5: 541-550.
- Leung M-K, You JH (2016) Cost-effectiveness of an influenza vaccination program offering intramuscular and intradermal vaccines versus intramuscular vaccine alone for elderly. Vaccine 22: 2469-2476.
Citation: Nguyen HX, Vu M, Nguyen LT (2018) Economic Evaluation of Microneedles for Vaccinations. J Pharmacovigil 6:e174. DOI: 10.4172/2329-6887.1000e174
Copyright: © 2018 Nguyen HX, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Share This Article
- Total views: 455
- [From(publication date): 0-2018 - Jan 18, 2019]
- Breakdown by view type
- HTML page views: 424
- PDF downloads: 31