Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25772675›Full record

ArticleVaccine2015

An economic model assessing the value of microneedle patch delivery of the seasonal influenza vaccine.

Bruce Y Lee, Sarah M Bartsch, Mercy Mvundura, Courtney Jarrahian, Kristina M Zapf, Kathleen Marinan, Angela R Wateska, Bill Snyder, Savitha Swaminathan, Erica Jacoby and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Transdermal approaches to vaccinations in the COVID-19 pandemic era.Therapeutic advances in vaccines and immunotherapy · 2021
    Review
  19. Polymeric Nanoparticle-Based Vaccine Adjuvants and Delivery Vehicles.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2021
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Bruce Y LeeJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 855 N Wolfe Street, Suite 600, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States. Electronic address: brucelee@jhu.edu.
Sarah M BartschJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 855 N Wolfe Street, Suite 600, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.
Mercy MvunduraPATH, 2201 Westlake Avenue, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98121, United States.
Courtney JarrahianPATH, 2201 Westlake Avenue, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98121, United States.
Kristina M ZapfJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 855 N Wolfe Street, Suite 600, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.
Kathleen MarinanJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 855 N Wolfe Street, Suite 600, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.
Angela R WateskaJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 855 N Wolfe Street, Suite 600, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.
Bill SnyderPATH, 2201 Westlake Avenue, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98121, United States.
Savitha SwaminathanPATH, 2201 Westlake Avenue, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98121, United States.
Erica JacobyPATH, 2201 Westlake Avenue, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98121, United States.
James J NormanSchool of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 311 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA 30332, United States.
Mark R PrausnitzSchool of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 311 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA 30332, United States.
Darin ZehrungPATH, 2201 Westlake Avenue, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98121, United States.
Program for Appropriate Technology in Health · USJohns Hopkins University · USGeorgia Institute of Technology · US

Funding

MULTILEVEL SYSTEMS-ORIENTED CHILDHOOD OBESITY STUDY IN CHINAU54HD070725 · NICHD · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI CURRIERO, FRANK · 2011 to 2016
$15.9M
Influenza vaccination using a microneedle patchU01EB012495 · NIBIB · GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI PRAUSNITZ, MARK R. · 2010 to 2015
$9.6M
Regional Healthcare Ecosystem Analyst for Healthcare Associated InfectionsR01HS023317 · AHRQ · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI LEE, BRUCE Y · 2014 to 2014
$2.4M
AHRQ HHS 1R01HS02331701AHRQ HHS R01 HS023317NIBIB NIH HHS U01 EB012495NIBIB NIH HHS U01EB012495NICHD NIH HHS U54 HD070725
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNew vaccine technologies may improve the acceptability, delivery (potentially enabling self-administration), and product efficacy of influenza vaccines. One such technology is the microneedle patch (MNP), a skin delivery technology currently in development. Although MNPs hold promise in preclinical studies, their potential economic and epidemiologic impacts have not yet been evaluated.

methodsWe utilized a susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered (SEIR) transmission model linked to an economic influenza outcomes model to assess the economic value of introducing the MNP into the current influenza vaccine market in the United States from the third-party payer and societal perspectives. We also explored the impact of different vaccination settings, self-administration, the MNP price, vaccine efficacy, compliance, and MNP market share. Outcomes included costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), cases, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; cost/QALY).

resultsWith healthcare provider administration, MNP introduction would be cost-effective (ICERs ≤$23,347/QALY) at all MNP price points ($9.50-$30) and market shares (10-60%) assessed, except when compliance and efficacy were assumed to be the same as existing vaccines and the MNP occupied a 10% market share. If MNP self-administration were available (assuming the same efficacy as current technologies), MNP compliance or its efficacy would need to increase by ≥3% in order to be cost-effective (ICERs ≤$1401/QALY), assuming a 2% reduction in administration success with unsupervised self-administration. Under these conditions, MNP introduction would be cost-effective for all price points and market shares assessed.

conclusionsWhen healthcare providers administered the MNP, its introduction would be cost-effective or dominant (i.e., less costly and more effective) in the majority of scenarios assessed. If self-administration were available, MNP introduction would be cost-effective if it increased compliance enough to overcome any decrease in self-administration success or if the MNP presentation afforded an increase in efficacy over current delivery methods for influenza vaccines.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolDrug Delivery SystemsFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornInfluenza VaccinesInjections, IntradermalMaleMiddle AgedModels, EconomicInfluenza VaccinesCost-effectivenessEconomicsInfluenzaInfluenza vaccinationMicroneedle patch

Identifiers

PMID25772675
PMCPMC4623320
OpenAlexW2087002087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.