Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27696306›Full record

ArticleDrugs in R&D2016

Assessing the Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Microneedle Patches in Childhood Measles Vaccination Programs: The Case for Further Research and Development.

Bishwa B Adhikari, James L Goodson, Susan Y Chu, Paul A Rota, Martin I Meltzer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drugs in R&D, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Microneedles: Selected Applications for Pediatrics.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

5 authors.

Bishwa B AdhikariDivision of Preparedness and Emerging Infections, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-C18, Atlanta, GA, 30333, USA. bia6@cdc.gov.
James L GoodsonGlobal Immunization Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Center for Global Health, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Susan Y ChuGlobal Immunization Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Center for Global Health, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Paul A RotaDivision of Viral Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Martin I MeltzerDivision of Preparedness and Emerging Infections, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-C18, Atlanta, GA, 30333, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCurrently available measles vaccines are administered by subcutaneous injections and require reconstitution with a diluent and a cold chain, which is resource intensive and challenging to maintain. To overcome these challenges and potentially increase vaccination coverage, microneedle patches are being developed to deliver the measles vaccine. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of using microneedle patches with traditional vaccine delivery by syringe-and-needle (subcutaneous vaccination) in children's measles vaccination programs.

methodsWe built a simple spreadsheet model to compute the vaccination costs for using microneedle patch and syringe-and-needle technologies. We assumed that microneedle vaccines will be, compared with current vaccines, more heat stable and require less expensive cool chains when used in the field. We used historical data on the incidence of measles among communities with low measles vaccination rates.

resultsThe cost of microneedle vaccination was estimated at US$0.95 (range US$0.71-US$1.18) for the first dose, compared with US$1.65 (range US$1.24-US$2.06) for the first dose delivered by subcutaneous vaccination. At 95 % vaccination coverage, microneedle patch vaccination was estimated to cost US$1.66 per measles case averted (range US$1.24-US$2.07) compared with an estimated cost of US$2.64 per case averted (range US$1.98-US$3.30) using subcutaneous vaccination.

conclusionsUse of microneedle patches may reduce costs; however, the cost-effectiveness of patches would depend on the vaccine recipients' acceptability and vaccine effectiveness of the patches relative to the existing conventional vaccine-delivery method. This study emphasizes the need to continue research and development of this vaccine-delivery method that could boost measles elimination efforts through improved access to vaccines and increased vaccination coverage.

Indexed as

Child, PreschoolCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansInjections, SubcutaneousMeasles VaccineMicroinjectionsNeedlesTransdermal PatchMeasles Vaccine

Identifiers

PMID27696306
PMCPMC5114202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.