ReviewDrug delivery and translational research2026
Economic analysis of microneedle technology: cost-effectiveness, manufacturing scalability, and commercialization challenges.
Review in Drug delivery and translational research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Hydrogel microneedles functioning in pathological surroundings: where soft materials overcome hard scars.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microneedle technology represents a promising advancement in transdermal drug delivery, offering painless administration, enhanced patient compliance, elimination of cold chain requirements, and self-administration capabilities. Despite extensive development with over 4,000 patents, commercial translation remains limited to 13 products, predominantly cosmetic applications. Economic evaluations demonstrate microneedle patches achieve cost-effectiveness at price points below $30 per dose. Operational savings range from $0.24-$0.61 per dose across vaccination scenarios (≥ 87% probability), driven primarily by labor costs, followed by wastage reduction and freight decreases. Australian analysis projects $108 million annual savings for influenza vaccination through complete substitution of conventional systems. Manufacturing economics reveal significant barriers, with production facility establishment requiring $5-20 million capital investment and clinical development costs ranging from $10-40 million. Administration costs represent 43-63% of total vaccination expenses versus 8-10% for cold chain, identifying labor efficiency as the primary economic driver. Self-administration requires ≥ 3% compliance increases to offset administration success reductions. Manufacturing costs range from $0.50-$5.00 per patch, depending on scale and polymer selection. Regulatory pathways remain incompletely defined, creating uncertainties that delay market entry and increase expenditures. Regulatory approval costs reach hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, while no microneedle patches have received FDA approval. Microneedle market projections indicate 6.83-7.2% compound annual growth from 2025 through 2030, reaching $4.46 billion globally. This review synthesizes reports from cost-effectiveness studies, manufacturing economics, regulatory pathways, and market dynamics, providing quantitative cost-effectiveness thresholds, identifying economic barriers, and offering recommendations for technology development, regulatory optimization, and market positioning to facilitate the clinical application of microneedle products.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41946826What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.