Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Immunogenicity, safety, usability and acceptability of microarray patches for vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Matthew N. Berger
  • , Ellen S. Mowbray
  • , Marian W.A. Farag
  • , Erin Mathieu
  • , Cristyn Davies
  • , Claire Thomas
  • , Robert Booy
  • , Angus H. Forster
  • , S. Rachel Skinner
  • The University of Sydney
  • Western Sydney Local Health District
  • Hillarys Plaza Medical Centre
  • Vaxxas Pty Ltd
  • The Children's Hospital at Westmead

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Microarray patches (MAPs) deliver vaccines to the epidermis and the upper dermis, where abundant immune cells reside. There are several potential benefits to using MAPs, including reduced sharps risk, thermostability, no need for reconstitution, tolerability and self-administration. We aimed to explore and evaluate the immunogenicity, safety, usability and acceptability of MAPs for vaccination. Methods We searched CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE and Web of Science from inception to January 2023. Eligibility criteria included all research studies in any language, which examined microarrays or microneedles intended or used for vaccination and explored immunogenicity, safety, usability or acceptability in their findings. Two reviewers conducted title and abstract screening, full-text reviewing and data extraction. Results Twenty-two studies were included (quantitative=15, qualitative=2 and mixed methods=5). The risk of bias was mostly low, with two studies at high risk of bias. Four clinical trials were included, three using influenza antigens and one with Japanese encephalitis delivered by MAP. A meta-analysis indicated similar or higher immunogenicity in influenza MAPs compared with needle and syringe (N&S) (standardised mean difference=10.80, 95% CI: 3.51 to 18.08, p<0.00001). There were no significant differences in immune cell function between MAPs and N&S. No serious adverse events were reported in MAPs. Erythema was more common after MAP application than N&S but was brief and well tolerated. Lower pain scores were usually reported after MAP application than N&S. Most studies found MAPs easy to use and highly acceptable among healthcare professionals, laypeople and parents. Conclusion MAPs for vaccination were safe and well tolerated and evoked similar or enhanced immunogenicity than N&S, but further research is needed. Vaccine uptake may be increased using MAPs due to less pain, enhanced thermostability, layperson and self-administration. MAPs could benefit at-risk groups and low and middle-income countries. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022323026.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere012247
JournalBMJ Global Health
Volume8
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 12 Oct 2023
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • immunisation
  • public health
  • systematic review
  • vaccines

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Immunogenicity, safety, usability and acceptability of microarray patches for vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this