2,052
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

Microarray patches: scratching the surface of vaccine delivery

, , &
Pages 937-955 | Received 25 Jul 2023, Accepted 10 Oct 2023, Published online: 27 Oct 2023

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Microneedles are emerging as a promising technology for vaccine delivery, with numerous advantages over traditional needle and syringe methods. Preclinical studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of MAPs in inducing robust immune responses over traditional needle and syringe methods, with extensive studies using vaccines targeted against different pathogens in various animal models. Critically, the clinical trials have demonstrated safety, immunogenicity, and patient acceptance for MAP-based vaccines against influenza, measles, rubella, and SARS-CoV-2.

Areas covered

This review provides a comprehensive overview of the different types of microarray patches (MAPs) and analyses of their applications in preclinical and clinical vaccine delivery settings. This review also covers additional considerations for microneedle-based vaccination, including adjuvants that are compatible with MAPs, patient safety and factors for global vaccination campaigns.

Expert opinion

MAP vaccine delivery can potentially be a game-changer for vaccine distribution and coverage in both high-income and low- and middle-income countries. For MAPs to reach this full potential, many critical hurdles must be overcome, such as large-scale production, regulatory compliance, and adoption by global health authorities. However, given the considerable strides made in recent years by MAP developers, it may be possible to see the first MAP-based vaccines in use within the next 5 years.

This article is part of the following collections:
The future of vaccines: new paradigms in vaccine and adjuvant technologies

1. Introduction

The hypodermic needle and syringe have remained largely unchanged for the last 170 years. Currently, conventional needle and syringe (N&S) delivery methods such as intramuscular (IM) and subcutaneous (SC) injections are most effective and widely used for vaccination. While it is extremely effective, it is not without drawbacks surrounding vaccine supplies, transportation and storage, vaccine administration, waste disposal and needle phobia [Citation1,Citation2]. To overcome these drawbacks, novel vaccination strategies have been developed, with needle-free technologies experiencing a significant increase in the recent years. Since then, microarray patches (MAPs) have emerged as a promising alternative vaccine delivery platform to the N&S.

2. Skin vaccination

The skin provides a dynamic and active barrier to the outside world. To provide this barrier function the skin has evolved complex protective immune and inflammatory responses to provocations including toxins, viral or bacterial pathogens and mechanical wounding. To protect the body from these insults the skin layers contain a relatively high density of antigen presenting cells that when targeted can procedure enhanced immune responses. Traditional needle-based vaccination results in vaccine being deposited into muscle or subcutaneous space. While these vaccination methods works, they bypass the layers of the skin which are rich in antigen presenting cells. As a result many technologies have been developed and are underdevelopment that seek to harness the potential of skin vaccination. The traditional intradermal (ID) injection, the Mantoux technique, can be technically challenging to perform and painful for the patient, resulting in the limited adoption of this method for vaccination. To overcome these challenges, multiple devices have been developed over the years as alternative ID delivery systems. Companies such as Becton Dickson and Nanopass Inc have designed microinjection devices that simplifies and increases the success rates of ID injection. summarizes the advantages and disadvantages for the various ID delivery devices.

Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of ID delivery devices.

3. Needle-free vaccine delivery devices

Over the past 10 years, MAPs have been one of the most rapidly advancing needle-free technologies for vaccine delivery with several unique advantages, as such are the major focus of this review. MAPs, an alternative vaccine/drug delivery device, are designed to house an array of microprojections, measuring 100–1500 µm in length [Citation50–52]. Different types of MAPs have been developed (solid, coated, dissolvable, hollow, and hydrogel-forming) for various applications (vaccine, biologics, and small-molecule drug delivery) [Citation53–62]. Firstly, MAPs are designed to breach the tough outer layer of the skin, the stratum corneum, to deliver their respective payloads into the epidermal and dermal layers of the skin. Depending on the array density, MAPs are applied either by pressing onto the skin or with applicators that overcome the viscoelastic and mechanical properties of the skin. As vaccines are dry-coated onto or formulated in the microprojections often enhanced stability profiles of the vaccine payload can be achieved. As a result of the features of the MAP vaccine delivery technologies provide multiple programmatic benefits. Firstly, MAP vaccination eliminates the risk of needle-stick injuries, needle-phobias, and cross-contamination associated with the traditional N&S methods. It also removes the need of additional preparation steps where trained personnel are needed to perform both the initial reconstitution of the lyophilized vaccine and vaccination [Citation63]. Another advantage is improved thermal stability, which will potentially reduce the need for cold chain storage and lower logistical challenges associated with transport and storage, thus accelerating the introduction and reach of vaccines in resource limited settings [Citation64–68]. Other additional benefits of MAPs also incudes offering an alternative method of delivery to booster vaccines which avoids additional injections, improving vaccine uptake [Citation69,Citation70].

As a vaccine delivery platform, MAPs have great potential having been demonstrated to be compatible with a variety of vaccine modalities (DNA, live attenuated virus, mRNA, conjugate, subunit, inactivated virus, chimeric virus) and adjuvant types and have been evaluated both preclinically and clinically (). Combining these properties make MAPs the ideal vaccine delivery system for many pathogens in both the developing and developed world [Citation51,Citation145–147]. MAPs can be categorized into five main types: solid, coated, dissolvable, hollow and hydrogel-forming. Typically, microprojections are of a typical conical-shape. However, various alternative geometries have also been explored [Citation55,Citation148–153]. The various categories of MAPs are designed to target different dosage capacity, manufacturability, delivery mechanisms, cost, mechanical strength, and efficiencies [Citation50,Citation54,Citation55,Citation61,Citation62,Citation154]. The advantages and limitations of the different MAP design are summarized below () and further expanded in the section after.

Table 2. Types of MAPs, antigen used and their development stages.

Table 3. Advantages and limitations of the different MAP designs.

3.1. Solid MAPs

Solid MAPs are one of the initial designs manufactured by conventional microfabrication methods. Most commonly, they are used as a pre-treatment to penetrate the skin, forming micropores that allows enhanced uptake following the topical application of desired biological payload (typically drugs; ) [Citation55,Citation61,Citation154]. Other variations includes generating micro-abrasions [Citation157–160] or rolling the solid MAP over the skin repeatedly to abrade the stratum corneum [Citation159]. Due to the mode of application, the materials selected must be able to tolerate the force applied at time of penetration without causing breakage of the microprojections. Solid MAPs were originally mainly fabricated from silicon, but silicon is prone to fracturing in the skin upon application. As such, other materials for manufacturing solid MAPs have been explored such as ceramics, various metals (titanium, nickel, and stainless steel), and different polymers [Citation55,Citation61,Citation154,Citation161]. However, there are several drawbacks to this design, such as the reliability and reproducibility of vaccine delivery, the lack of precise dosing, as well as requirement for reformulation for many different types of vaccines [Citation155]. As vaccine delivery rate is often inconsistent as this method relies on the payload diffusing into the skin, the micropunctures generated by the microneedles as well as the concentration of the payload. Although there have been no reports to date, infection of the micropunctures is a theoretical possibility due to the time for the reestablishment of the skins barrier function [Citation162]. These limitations of the solid MAPs have led to the development of other MAP designs [Citation51,Citation146].

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the ‘poke and patch’ technique by the solid MAP. solid MAPs are commonly used to penetrate the skin before topical application of desired drug or vaccine, allowing them to diffuse through the holes created by the microneedles. Created with BioRender.com.

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the ‘poke and patch’ technique by the solid MAP. solid MAPs are commonly used to penetrate the skin before topical application of desired drug or vaccine, allowing them to diffuse through the holes created by the microneedles. Created with BioRender.com.

As one of the first MAP concepts, the solid MAP has been trialed preclinically with many vaccine platforms, including subunit, DNA, and live attenuated vaccines. This approach has received mixed reports of success in preclinical models. Ding et al (2009) found pre-treatment with solid MAPs failed to elicit potent immune responses to subunit influenza vaccines [Citation71]. In contrast, other studies with hepatitis B and JEV vaccine observed improved antibody responses when delivered by to the skin prepared with MAP pretreatment as compared to groups without. The addition of adjuvants to the vaccine formulations, can further enhance antibody levels when applied to MAP treated skin [Citation72]. Likewise, non-human primates vaccinated with JEV by the solid MAP were observed to have a variable but elevated level of neutralizing antibodies when compared to the SC injection method [Citation73]. Although these results are promising, alternative MAP designs should be considered for vaccination studies due to the limitations and inconsistency of pre-treating the skin and dosing when using solid MAPs [Citation145].

3.2. Coated MAPs

Coated MAPs are generally designed as a combination of solid MAPs with a liquid solution and coating methods. As the skin contains a relatively high concentration of antigen-presenting cells (APC), with skin-targeted immunizations using coated MAPs, minimal vaccine is needed to generate the required immune response, making coated MAPs a popular choice for vaccine delivery. Vaccines are dry coated to the tips of the microprojections at ambient temperatures before delivery into the skin (). In order to maintain consistency and reproducibility of vaccine delivery, it is important that the microneedles have an uniform coating and consistently penetrate and engage the skin [Citation192]. As a result, several methods to increase coating efficiency have been explored. These methods range from dip coating [Citation85,Citation193], gas-jet coating [Citation79,Citation91,Citation92,Citation101,Citation102,Citation194,Citation195], spray coating [Citation196] to ink-jet coating [Citation147]. Another factor that contributes to coating uniformity are the excipients selected. Excipients selected for the coating solution also plays apart in vaccine stability. Most commonly, formulations include a viscous excipient (e.g. methylcellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose, polyethene glycol), stabilizers (e.g. trehalose, sucrose, cyclodextrin, protein carriers, and various amino acids) and adjuvants (e.g. Quil-A) [Citation79,Citation81,Citation91,Citation92,Citation101,Citation102,Citation146,Citation154,Citation197]. The coating formulation requires optimization for different vaccine modalities to ensure retention of antigen potency and stability through phase changes (from the drying process to reconstitution in the skin) [Citation64–68]. These factors, in turn, affect the delivery efficiency and delivered dose of the vaccine when the coated MAPs are applied to the skin. Therefore, selection of the appropriate excipients and coating method is important for the consistency and reproducibility of vaccine delivery when using coated MAPs [Citation51,Citation146].

Figure 2. Schematic representation of the coated MAP. vaccines are dry coated onto the tips of the microprojections before application to the skin. Created with BioRender.com.

Figure 2. Schematic representation of the coated MAP. vaccines are dry coated onto the tips of the microprojections before application to the skin. Created with BioRender.com.

Coated MAPs are one of the more popular choices for vaccine delivery and have been evaluated with multiple vaccine platforms such as live attenuated, viral vector, inactivated virus, subunit, DNA, VLPs and chimeric viruses. Although most studies have been conducted with mice, research also continues with rats, guinea pigs, porcine and NHPs [Citation74–77,Citation79–85,Citation91–95,Citation97–106,Citation163–170]. Influenza vaccines (inactivated, DNA, subunit, VLP) delivered by coated MAPs were conducted by several groups including our own. All studies reported significantly higher induction of antigen-specific antibody responses and fully protected against lethal challenge when compared to traditional N&S method [Citation74–77,Citation82–84,Citation106,Citation167–170,Citation198]. In particular, an influenza study by Fernando et al. [Citation79] demonstrated 100-fold dose sparing when vaccinating with the Nanopatch (applied by a custom applicator) while yielding equivalent IgG responses to those of IM vaccination. Coated MAPs have also been evaluated with other viral vaccine candidates such as SARS-CoV-2, dengue, Ebola, poliovirus, measles, hepatitis C, HPV, and RSV [Citation91–95,Citation97–104]. Similar results were observed for all studies with significantly higher antibody response observed when vaccinated using MAPs over the traditional N&S method. The inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), when delivered by the Nanopatch, demonstrated 40-fold dose sparing while eliciting protective levels of neutralizing antibodies from a single dose [Citation101]. Although not all MAP designs demonstrate dose-reduction effects, these results demonstrate promising potential of using coated MAPs for vaccination with higher induction of antibody responses. Researchers at Stanford University and University of North Carolina have also developed a 3D-printed MAP that has a greater surface area to allow for enhanced vaccine coating and has also designed a method that allows coating of multiple cargo in specific sections of the microarray. The combination of these two technologies could prove to be a potential improvement for MAP vaccination platforms [Citation199].

Three phase I clinical trials for influenza using coated MAPs have been successfully conducted by Vaxxas Pty Ltd. The initial study evaluated the safety and tolerability of a silicon MAP in a randomized, partly blinded, placebo control trial (ACTRN12616000880448) [Citation80]. Volunteers were vaccinated with a monovalent inactivated influenza vaccine either: via a coated MAP, applied to the forearm or the upper arm using a spring-loaded applicator; or through IM injections into the deltoid. Volunteers receiving the MAP vaccinations preferred the MAP compared to IM injections based on past experiences [Citation80]. Overall, vaccination using MAPs was well tolerated with only mild or moderate AEs reported. Most importantly, antibody responses generated from the MAP vaccinated groups were similar to those vaccinated by IM injections, suggesting that MAP vaccinations were able to induce antibody levels equivalent to the traditional injection methods [Citation80].

Recently, a clinical trial was conducted as a two-part randomized, partially double blind, placebo-control study using MAPs coated with a monovalent influenza vaccine (ACTRN12618000112268) [Citation78,Citation81]. This study utilized a revised high-density MAP (HD-MAP) design delivered by a spring-loaded applicator, which measures 1 cm2 with 3,136 microprojections per patch each 250 µm in length with a sharp point of <25 µm. The spring-loaded applicator works by pushing a button to release the spring which propels the HD-MAP into the skin [Citation200]. The applicator is designed for single use only and the device (which includes the HD-MAP) is discarded once triggered [Citation201]. Safety, tolerability, and cellular responses of the vaccine were assessed and evaluated in this clinical trial [Citation78,Citation81]. Overall, HD-MAP delivery of the vaccine was well tolerated with only mild and moderate AEs reported. This study was the first to demonstrate the dose sparing potential of the HD-MAP in humans, with 2.5 µg of an influenza vaccine eliciting similar HAI titers as a 15 µg dose of influenza vaccine. Furthermore, this study also demonstrated the potential elimination of cold chain by thermostability of the vaccine at 40°C for 1 year [Citation81].

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Vaxxas conducted a Phase I clinical trial of a COVID-19 vaccine, Hexapro, delivered by the HD-MAP (ACTRN12622000597796) [Citation86,Citation87]. This study was designed to assess the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of the HD-MAP delivered COVID-19 vaccine in healthy adults aged 18–50 years old. This trial also consists of a dose ranging regime and will also analyze T cell and mucosal antibody responses. Interim results announced by the biotechnology company reported an 8-fold increase in antibody titers from samples taken 28 days post immunization. Funding for a Phase II clinical trial has also been obtained and will progress in 2024 [Citation202,Citation203].

3.3. Dissolvable MAPs

Dissolvable MAPs, in contrast to solid or coated MAPs, have been developed to dissolve in the skin completely and are usually made using natural, biocompatible materials. The desired drugs or vaccines are integrated together with the microprojections by casting them in a mold filled with a dissolvable solvents and then allowed to solidify [Citation55,Citation57,Citation204]. Depending on the release mechanics required for the drug/vaccine, the solvents must be carefully selected for. While the solvents selected must be biocompatible, biodegradable and mechanically strong enough to withstand the penetration of the skin, it also has to unalter the safety, potency and efficacy of the drug or vaccine. As such, water-soluble solvents, such as sugars are usually incorporated into vaccines as they rapidly dissolve into the skin upon application, while other solvents such as polymers are usually used with drugs as they slowly dissolve into the skin, controlling the release rate of the drug () [Citation204]. Other materials such as silk, polyvinyl acetate, hyaluronic acid and chitosan have also been reported in the preparation of vaccine containing dissolving microneedles [Citation115,Citation175–179]. Dissolvable MAPs also have a larger capacity to hold greater drug/vaccine payloads by adjusting the density of needles, needle size or patch size while ensuring a precise and consistent release of dosage. Despite these advantages, several factors remain to be considered without altering the original intentions of these dissolvable MAPs: vaccine compatibility and stability with solvent materials, effects of biodegradable materials on the mechanical strength of the MAPs. Furthermore, careful consideration must also be given regarding how they engage with the skin at the point of insertion and the effect of the solvent and biodegradable materials on the immune system [Citation173,Citation174].

Figure 3. Schematic representation of the dissolvable MAP. the desired drugs or vaccines are integrated together with the microprojections which dissolves into the skin over time after application. Created with BioRender.com.

Figure 3. Schematic representation of the dissolvable MAP. the desired drugs or vaccines are integrated together with the microprojections which dissolves into the skin over time after application. Created with BioRender.com.

The dissolvable MAPs have also been tested widely in pre-clinical trials for vaccinations against viruses such as influenza, Hepatitis B and C, HIV, measles, rubella, rabies, poliovirus, dengue, Ebola, Zika, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 [Citation96,Citation106–114,Citation117–127,Citation129–137,Citation180]. These studies also cover different antigen platforms such as subunit, DNA, viral vectors, live-attenuated and inactivated viruses. An interesting feature of the dissolvable MAP is the time of dissolution and how it affects the type of immune response. Multiple studies have tested different fabrication methods to alter the dissolving time of the MAP to target the type of immune response required. Dissolvable MAPs by Vaxess Technologies have demonstrated thermostability of subunit vaccines when formulated with silk protein on a water-soluble poly(acrylic acid) base [Citation205]. These silk fabricated microneedles were able to regulate the kinetics of vaccine delivery skin to mimic patterns of natural infections [Citation205]. BALB/c mice vaccinated with a HIV envelope trimer vaccine delivered by the silk fibroin dissolvable MAP were observed to have a 1300-fold increase in antibody response as compared to intradermal injections [Citation128]. Similar to the coated MAPs, compact applicators have also been designed and tested for dissolving MAPs. The latch applicator designed by Kang et al is assembled using three plastic parts and is operated using thumb force by pressing on the trigger button [Citation206]. The overall length and diameter were kept within 20 mm and 40 mm respectively, making it easy for use and economical production [Citation206]. To further optimize skin vaccination using the dissolving MAPs, factors such as the long-term stability of vaccine formulated with biodegradable materials and reliability and reproducibility of vaccine delivery are currently being investigated [Citation146]. Ultimately, these dissolvable MAPs are an attractive vaccine delivery system that offers several advantages over other MAP technologies such as the payload capacity, ability to cast great high concentrations of vaccine stabilizing excipients, absence of biohazardous waste and high vaccine-dosage capacity. The biodegradability of the dissolvable MAPs makes them an attractive alternative for further development in the field of vaccine delivery systems. While dissolvable MAPs have been extensively studied in preclinical trials, relatively few human clinical studies have been conducted with vaccines [Citation115,Citation116,Citation138,Citation140].

The first clinical study evaluated the MicroHyala dissolvable hyaluronic acid MAPs with trivalent seasonal influenza hemagglutinin antigen. Participants in this trial received the vaccination via a handheld applicator and the MAP was left to dissolve for 6 h [Citation116]. No serious AEs were reported, and antigen-specific immune responses elicited in the MAP vaccinated groups were equal to, or more effective than the SC vaccinated groups. Surprisingly, no placebo control group was included, and more than half of the data had to be excluded due to unreproducible MAP application. Long-term stability at different temperatures (4, 25, 40°C) were also evaluated. Antigen content decreases after 6 months of storage at temperatures greater than 4°C suggesting that the vaccine formulation has to be further optimized [Citation116].

The second dissolving MAP clinical trial (NCT02438423) conducted was a randomized, partly blinded, placebo-controlled study with Fluvirin (Novartis) [Citation115]. Participants were administered a single dose of the vaccine via the dissolvable MAP, either by trained healthcare personnel or via self-administration. IM delivery of the vaccine was included as a control. Immune responses elicited by MAP administration, were observed to be similar to the IM vaccinated group, with no significant differences in vaccine delivery efficiency observed between self-administration or application by a trained healthcare worker [Citation115]. Long-term stability was observed for 12 months at all temperatures tested (5, 25, 40°C). Delivery efficiencies of the MAP were also measured and revealed no significant differences between the two groups (healthcare personnel vs self-administration), supporting the self-administration potential of the MAP [Citation115].

The most recent Phase I/II clinical trial was conducted by Micron Biomedical (NCT 04394689) in pediatric population, studying the delivery of measles and rubella vaccine delivered via a dissolvable MAP [Citation138,Citation139]. This is also the first clinical study of any MAP-based technology in children. This clinical trial evaluated the safety, immunogenicity and acceptability of the MAP-based measles and rubella vaccine in adults, children and infant as young as 9 months old [Citation138,Citation139]. 93–100% seroprotection was observed in day 42 samples obtained from the study and the vaccine was safe and well tolerated without severe AEs observed. A survey from the clinical trial also revealed that majority of the parents of the children enrolled preferred the MAP vaccination over the traditional needle and syringe [Citation138]. These promising results from the clinical trials support further development of dissolving MAPs for other infectious pathogens as well as self-administration in the context of a pandemic or mass vaccination.

3.4. Hollow and porous MAPs

Hollow MAPs have been designed with channels that allows liquid to flow through the punctures created in the skin when administered (). Like dissolvable MAPs, hollow MAPs are designed to directly deliver vaccines into the skin with a facilitated force-driven fluid flow [Citation55,Citation61,Citation154,Citation181]. There are several methods in which the drugs/vaccines can be delivered into the skin using a hollow microneedle. Most commonly, drugs and vaccines are held in a reservoir before they passively delivered through the bore of the microneedle [Citation183]. Other methods include using an applicator (e.g., syringe, pump or pressurized gas) to apply pressure and actively deliver the vaccine through the bore of the microneedle into the skin [Citation141,Citation184–186]. Microfluidic chips or micropumps can also be incorporated with the microneedle for a controlled release of the vaccine [Citation207,Citation208]. As hollow MAPs have to be fabricated to ensure for consistent flow, extra attention on the mechanical strength is required when designing them. While increasing the bore of the microneedle may increase the flow of the liquid, it often compromises the mechanical strength of the MAP as well as the sharpness of the microneedle. Hence, researchers have designed hollow MAPs with the bore toward the side instead of at the tip of the microneedle [Citation187,Citation188]. Hollow MAPs also allow a greater volume of liquid formulations to be delivered into the skin, but investigation must still be carried out to determine the optimal formulation for each drug/vaccine to maximize delivery. While numerous research on hollow MAP design and fabrication has been conducted, there are still multiple factors to overcome such as the potential of vaccine leakage, clogging of channel openings, and the collapse of microprojections due to their weak structure [Citation60,Citation148,Citation181,Citation182].

Figure 4. Schematic representation of the hollow MAP. vaccines/drugs are loaded into channels of the microneedle that flows through and into the penetrated pores of the skin when administered. Created with BioRender.com.

Figure 4. Schematic representation of the hollow MAP. vaccines/drugs are loaded into channels of the microneedle that flows through and into the penetrated pores of the skin when administered. Created with BioRender.com.

To date, most of the research surrounding hollow MAPs have been directed toward the design and characterization aspects of fabrication and less on delivery efficacy into the skin [Citation51,Citation209]. Therefore, fewer studies have been conducted using hollow MAPs as a vaccine delivery system as compared to solid and coated MAPs. Hollow MAPs have been evaluated for several viral vaccines including influenza, mumps, varicella, polio, and HPV. These studies have been conducted in animal models of mice, rat and guinea pigs [Citation141–143,Citation148,Citation210]. Hollow MAPs delivering IPV using an applicator that allowed for controlled fractional dosing were observed to have ten times higher IgG titers than those of intradermal and IM vaccination methods [Citation142]. Another study delivering DNA-encoding ovalbumin using hollow MAPs observed the induction of higher cellular and humoral immune response when compared to SC injection [Citation210]. Results obtained from these pre-clinical studies have once again proved that antibody responses elicited when using MAPs as a delivery system can be attained using a fraction of a dose as compared to traditional N&S methods.

In a recent Phase I clinical trial study conducted by MyLife Technologies, vaccination using a nanoporous microneedle array with the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine have failed to induce an antibody response in the participants [Citation144]. While the microneedle platform has been found to be safe, however, no antibody or cellular immune response was produced presumably due inadequate vaccine delivery into the skin [Citation144]. There are several limitations to the study with regard to the microneedle length and depth penetration as well as the wear times of the microneedle array for a human skin. Vaccine coating procedure were also not optimized resulting in only 10% of the vaccine being coated on the needles while the remaining 90% were on the baseplate [Citation144]. Whilst this study has successfully shown that the delivery platform is safe for human use, much optimization is to be done before it can be in the markets.

3.5. Hydrogel-forming MAPs

Lastly, hydrogel-forming MAPs are emerging as a field of study for the delivery and extraction of biomolecules. This MAP is fabricated with polymers crosslinked with gelatin which rapidly swell upon insertion into the skin and eventually releases the drug into the surrounding microenvironment (). This is due to the hydrophilic nature of the hydrogels, readily taking up water upon insertion into the skin [Citation191]. These hydrogel-forming MAPs makes use of a reservoir to store the drug, which enables a higher volume to be administered [Citation54,Citation174,Citation189,Citation190]. However, the MAP must be left in the skin to deliver a larger dosage for an extended period. Unlike the dissolvable microneedles, the microprojections on the hydrogel-forming MAPs does not remain in the skin, leaving no polymer residues after application [Citation174,Citation189,Citation190]. Another advantage of this MAP is that it can be fabricated to many different geometries unlike the conventional solid, hollow or dissolvable MAPs. These MAPs can also be sterilized prior to insertion and are detachable more easily resulting in minimal damage to the skin and the MAP [Citation190]. Currently, the hydrogel forming MAP has been mostly used for extracting interstitial fluids from the skin [Citation211–214], delivery of small molecular drugs [Citation214–217] and antibodies [Citation218], skin cancer treatment [Citation219] and wound healing [Citation220]. Although this form of MAP has been increasingly researched on in the therapeutics field, more investigations are required to understand the delivery efficacy, mechanism, safety, and other adverse effects before utilizing them for skin vaccination. As hydrogel-forming MAPs are a relatively new concept, they have not been thoroughly investigated in pre-clinically in animal models for skin-targeted immunization against viral pathogens.

Figure 5. Schematic representation of the hydrogel-forming MAP. hydrogel-forming MAPs are fabricated with polymers crosslinked with gelatin which rapidly swells upon penetration into the skin and eventually releases the drug/vaccines into the microenvironment. Created with BioRender.com.

Figure 5. Schematic representation of the hydrogel-forming MAP. hydrogel-forming MAPs are fabricated with polymers crosslinked with gelatin which rapidly swells upon penetration into the skin and eventually releases the drug/vaccines into the microenvironment. Created with BioRender.com.

4. Technical considerations for MAPs

4.1. MAP compatible adjuvants

To further enhance the immune response of MAP-based vaccination, adjuvants have also been explored in preclinical studies. Both chemical and biological adjuvants have been widely evaluated with MAPs in preclinical models. From a practical standpoint, adjuvants must go through careful selection depending on the type of MAPs. For example, aluminum-based and oil emulsion-based adjuvants have typically been regarded as not suitable for coated MAPs due to their inability to coat evenly on the surface of the microprojections. Furthermore, care is needed in adjuvant selection and dose delivered with special consideration taken for the local skin environment. As MAPs deliver vaccine and adjuvant into the top layers of the skin, any local reactions will be visible. These reactions are likely similar to those that occur then adjuvants are delivered deep into the tissue via the N&S. However, the visibility of any immune reaction in the skin will likely introduce issues relating to reactogenicity and patient acceptance. Regardless, adjuvants such as imiquimod, poly(I:C), QS-21, Quil-A (QA), c-di-GMP, Flt3L and Matrix-M have been evaluated for coated MAPs; cationic liposomes, CpG-ODN, MPLA, QS-21, poly(I:C) for dissolvable MAPs; and GLA-AF for hollow MAPs [Citation92,Citation99,Citation126,Citation131,Citation134,Citation164,Citation221–225]. summarizes the adjuvants used for each MAP type, animal models trialed in and if the adjuvants are approved for human use.

Table 4. MAP compatible adjuvants.

Apart from relying on adjuvants to enhance the immune response of MAP-based vaccination, preclinical studies investigating the disruption of skin barrier function post MAP-application and how it affects the immune response induced have been performed. These demonstrated that localized cell death in the skin caused by MAP application increases immunogenicity of the vaccine, thus acting as a ‘physical immune enhancer’ [Citation78]. These results suggests that with optimized MAP design and application condition, it is possible to generate mechanical stress, inducing controlled cell death to create a pro-inflammatory environment to generate enhanced immune responses [Citation78,Citation228]. These promising results from preclinical studies supports the future of MAPs in skin-targeted vaccination. however, extensive work is still required to improve and standardize MAP platforms to allow for global immunization and effective response to future pandemics. The lack of standard protocols, animal models and efficacy measures result in a more challenges for preclinical studies to be conducted for different vaccine platforms [Citation146]. Much research is required in understanding the mechanism of MAPs and how it induces the skin immune response to successfully transition from traditional immunization routes to MAP-based immunization strategies.

4.2. MAP applicators and wear times

The highly effective barrier properties of the skin’s stratum corneum results in challenges in delivering drugs or vaccines into the immune cell-rich layers of the epidermic ad upper dermis [Citation229]. To overcome these difficulties while ensuring a reproducible and repeatable delivery of the drugs and vaccines, MAPs have to penetrate the skin in a controlled manner. This has thus prompted the design and development of applicators to ensure that deliveries of the drugs and vaccines remain consistent. There are several factors to consider when designing these applicators which includes: 1) Uniformed and repeatable application that is not affected by variation of skin types; 2) Controlled depth penetration of the microprojections into the skin; 3) Sufficient mechanical strength to breach the initial layer of stratum corneum; 4) Ease of us and pain free; and 5) Retain physical stability and integrity of the applicator during storage and application [Citation229–231]. Applicator design ranges from manual (using pressure from the thumb) or mechanical (spring-loaded or electromagnets) applicators system either for single or multiple use [Citation65,Citation71,Citation72,Citation80,Citation81,Citation86–91,Citation101,Citation102,Citation116,Citation138,Citation139,Citation165,Citation176,Citation201,Citation232]. Apart from applicators, different type of MAPs have different wear times ranging from instantaneous to 24 h. Coated and hollow MAPs have relatively short wear times from removing them instantly post-application to about 2 min [Citation65,Citation80,Citation81,Citation86–91,Citation101,Citation102,Citation141–143,Citation148,Citation165,Citation201,Citation232]. While dissolving and hydrogel-forming MAPs have longer wear times of 20 min to 24 h to allow for the drugs or vaccines to fully dissolve into the skin over time [Citation116,Citation138,Citation139,Citation176,Citation190,Citation216,Citation218]. Wear time varies between different drug and vaccine types and are recommended to be refined accordingly to obtain optimal delivery [Citation90]. Companies like Vaxxas, Microhyala, Micron Biomedical and QuadMedicine have applicators designed to deliver their respective patches efficiently. summarizes the type of MAPs and the different applicator designed used with them as well as their corresponding wear times.

Table 5. MAP applicators and wear time.

5. Additional considerations for MAP-based immunizations

The concept of MAPs was first introduced in 1976 and since then, extensive research has been performed to improve and understand the mechanisms involved in the delivery of the payload into the skin [Citation52]. However, multiple factors must be established before the commercialization of MAPs is possible. The safety profile, thermostability, consistent and reproducible skin application and delivery of vaccine, disposal, cost, regulatory approval are some of the important factors that requires a full evaluation for each individual MAP vaccine candidate. The major challenge facing the MAP developers is how to produce vaccine MAPs at scale. There are many challenges to be overcome, associated with the development of vaccine MAP lines to fill and finish the final product. While of the challenges are common, unique challenges remain for each including mass production of sterile product, which cannot be terminally sterilized. For dissolving arrays, challenges remain around how to cast and set MAPs at scale while maintaining sterility. Likewise, coated MAPs face their own challenges associated with how to dispense vaccine to the tips of the projections so not to waste vaccine on the base of the patch. For both the dissolving and coated MAPs elegant engineering solutions are required to overcome the challenges associated with requirements to mass produce MAPs at a speed to be competitive with the N/S. Lastly, the criteria for regulatory approval of MAPs are not clearly defined and consultations will be required for each separate platform of MAPs.

5.1. Vaccine recipient safety

Vaccine recipient safety is by far the most important factor when considering widespread utilization of MAPs as a vaccine delivery system. Studies have shown that skin barrier recovery was observed 48 hours post MAP application with erythema clearing over the course of a 7-day period in healthy participants. However, more research is required to elucidate the relationship between the level of disruption to skin barrier and recovery and its correlation to skin infection especially between different skin types especially for the elderly and immunocompromised patients [Citation146,Citation235,Citation236]. Sterilization of MAPs, according to the Food and Drug Administration, must be considered in the early stages of the development process. Factors such as the target tissue, depth of penetration, MAP wear time, and target population determine whether the MAP requires sterilization [Citation52]. Aseptic manufacturing is complex and expensive, and some vaccine components are unsuitable to undergo current sterilizing methods. For such situations, fabrication and manufacturing of MAPs as well as vaccine coating will have to be done under aseptic conditions, increasing the overall cost considerably.

5.2. Global immunization campaigns

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic created an unprecedented need for accelerated vaccine development to combat SARS-CoV-2. Leading vaccine candidates were developed, tested, and granted approval for emergency use within 11 months. However, emergency use vaccines approved were administered through traditional needle and syringe methods and with several vaccines requiring ultra-low temperature storage with only limited stability in low temperatures (2 to 8°C) [Citation237]. This resulted in challenges in global distribution and transportation especially to low-income countries and requiring trained healthcare workers to administer the vaccine [Citation238,Citation239]. These factors accompanied with vaccine noncompliance due to needle phobia, pain and inconvenience are obstacles for successful mass vaccination. With dose-sparing, vaccine stability with reduction in dependence on cold chain as well as its compatibility with a variety of antigen platforms, delivery of vaccines using MAPs could potentially eliminate the factors of concern found with N&S delivered vaccines [Citation64–68]. MAP vaccination could also possibly increase vaccine accessibility especially in resource limited settings lacking appropriate cold chain infrastructure [Citation64–68]. The elimination of hazardous waste and trained personnel will also greatly facilitate routine outreach services and mass vaccination campaigns especially in areas where systems fail to routinely reach everyone [Citation240].

To address these drawbacks and help accelerate MAP vaccine developments, a collaboration between the Gavi Secretariat, WHO, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, United Nations Children’s Fund and PATH was formed to become the Vaccine Innovation Prioritization Strategy (VIPS) Alliance [Citation241]. VIPS concluded their meeting in May 2020 with a decision to prioritize 3 innovative approaches for advance development to help address immunization barriers and to increase immunization coverage [Citation241]. Of the three innovations, two are developing microarray patches and thermostable qualified vaccines. In their five-year action plan for MAPs, they have set to identify the requirements needed to accelerate MAP-based vaccine development for low- and middle-income countries as well as to advocate for MAP-based vaccine so as to attract the interest of global health partners and other industry funders [Citation241]. The COVID-19 pandemic has once again emphasized the need to implement innovations that will help overcome immunization barriers and ensure for vaccine equity across the globe.

There is a potential of self-administration of MAP-based vaccines in a mass pandemic scenario, however, for successful immunization, it is critical that the MAP is properly applied into the skin [Citation242]. Reliability and consistency in vaccine delivery is important for the induction of immune response in vaccinated individuals. MAPs, subjected to their design and type, can be self-administered or applied by trained medical personals. Vaxxas performed a study to observe the delivery characteristics of their HD-MAP when administered either by trained personnel or through self-application [Citation232]. Similar delivery characteristics of the HD-MAP was observed from both groups when the HD-MAP is applied to the upper deltoid of the arm. While the sample size for this study was small (n = 20), this study revealed the potential of self-administrating HD-MAP delivered vaccines to reduce the manpower strain on the healthcare workforce sector during a pandemic [Citation232]. Without the need of medical expertise, it is expected that the overall cost for MAP vaccine will be reduced. Apart from that, the elimination of cold chain for transport and storage and lack of sharps waste would also contribute to the cost reduction of MAP vaccines [Citation115,Citation243,Citation244]. Ultimately, more preclinical and clinical research is still needed to close the knowledge gaps for MAPs to be used in global immunization campaigns.

6. Conclusion

In conclusion, this review highlights the significant potential of MAPs for vaccine delivery and underscores their versatility, safety, and potential for large-scale implementation. The development and refinement of MAP-based vaccination approaches have the potential to transform the field of immunization, overcoming several barriers associated with traditional N&S injections. Future research and collaborative efforts should focus on addressing regulatory considerations, optimizing vaccine stability, and ensuring equitable access to MAP-based vaccines. With continued advancements, MAPs have the potential to revolutionize the way vaccines are administered, contributing to global health initiatives, and improving immunization outcomes.

7. Expert opinion

MAPs as vaccine delivery systems have shown precise and reproducible vaccine administration to the skin. Along with other advantages such as cost-effective fabrication, reduction in cold-chain dependence and ease in application and disposal, suggest MAPs to be a more effective vaccine delivery platform than traditional needle-and-syringe. However, despite the large body of evidence acquired over nearly 2 decades or pre-clinical research, only a handful of microneedle system have been accelerated to clinical trials. Immunologically, the MAP as a vaccine delivery device has been repeatedly shown to be superior to traditional N&S delivery. However, there are other key factors that need to be addressed before MAPs can progress down the commercialization path.

As the most accessible organ in the body, the skin has been extensively studied. Skin variability with age is one issue that may impact consistency of MAP vaccination. Studies regarding the nature of the skin physiology and structure report varying evidence of whether age plays a part in changing the morphology and to what extent. While studies have generally reported similar dermal thickness across age and gender, there are insufficient information on pediatric and elderly skin characterization. Vaccines delivered by MAPs to these skin types may have to be optimized accordingly especially if they are found to be different. Consistent payload delivery, device penetration and shorter delivery time may also have to be addressed for MAPs to become broadly accepted. As the vaccines or microneedles are not visible upon delivery, robust data sets will need to be developed indicating that when administered, skin penetration is achieved to the required depth to ensure the correct delivery of the desired dose of vaccines. With self-administration being a potential factor when using the MAPs, companies will have to ensure that device performance is consistent whether applied by a trained health-worker, or self-applied. However, MAP-based vaccines will realistically have to be rolled out in stages. Starting with administration of the MAP-based vaccines with trained medical personnel, then to trained community volunteers before moving on to self-application.

A challenge facing all MAP developers is the skin reactogenicity associated with MAP application. When MAPs are applied to the skin, localized erythema occurs at the application site. It is possible that an identifying transient eryhtema could impact uptake of the technology. However, it also creates an opportunity for patient and user education, at a very simple level that this skin-response provides visual confirmation indicating the immune system responding to the vaccine. While MAP-based vaccination is promising, patient advocacy will be necessary as part of commercialization.

Currently, the manufacturing process are sufficient to produce MAPs for small-scale Phase I and II clinical trials. Large-scale Phase III clinical trials and commercialization will require manufacturing approaches that can allow for mass production of patches with appropriate industry investments and infrastructure. While regulatory knowledge has been built around the N&S vaccine delivery, new guidelines will need to be established by the regulatory authorities so that MAP developers can be certain of achieving quality standards and manufacturing requirements for registration of MAPs. Apart from regulatory considerations, product costs are also key to progressing MAP commercialization. While MAPs have been promoted as cost competitive with N&S methods, however, MAP manufacturing still requires significant funding from investors to build facilities capable for mass production. This consideration will also need to be extended to the feasibility of manufacturing MAPs in low-income countries to ensure equitable distribution.

Vaccination by MAPs could significantly improve immunization coverage and the continuous progress of MAP-based vaccines will be dependent on the investment from vaccine manufacturers and as well as funding by global health partners. There are still several hurdles to overcome, but with the recent advances by Vaxxas, Vaxess and Micron Biomedical in clinical trials and the manufacturing space and clinical trials, we may be able to see the first MAP-based vaccine in the market for use in the next 5 years.

Article highlights

  • Comprehensive overview of the five different types of MAPs: solid, coated, dissolving, hollow and hydrogel-forming microneedles

  • Summary of pre-clinical conducted using the five different types of MAPs for vaccine delivery

  • Summary of clinical trials (completed or in-progress) for MAP-based vaccine delivery

  • Additional considerations that are required for MAP-based vaccine delivery

Decflaration of Interest

DA Muller and PR Young are consultants of the HD-MAP development company Vaxxas Pty Ltd. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or material discussed in the manuscript apart rom those disclosed.

Reviewer disclosures

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Author contributions

All authors have contributed to the conceptualization and design of the review. All authors were also involved in the writing and review of the presented manuscript.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by National Health and Medical Research Development grants from the Australian Government, APP1139754 and APP1178896.

References

  • Azad N, Rojanasakul Y. Vaccine delivery–current trends and future. Curr Drug Deliv. 2006 Apr;3(2):137–146. doi: 10.2174/156720106776359249
  • Lee YH, Harris RC, Oh HW, et al. Vaccine-related errors in reconstitution in South Korea: a National Physicians’ and nurses’ survey. Vaccines. 2021;9(2):117. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9020117
  • Auewarakul P, Kositanont U, Sornsathapornkul P, et al. Antibody responses after dose-sparing intradermal influenza vaccination. Vaccine. 2007 Jan 8;25(4):659–663. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.08.026
  • Brown H, Kasel JA, Freeman DM, et al. The immunizing effect of influenza A/New Jersey/76 (Hsw1N1) virus vaccine administered intradermally and intramuscularly to adults. J Infect Dis. 1977 Dec;136(Suppl):S466–71. doi: 10.1093/infdis/136.Supplement_3.S466
  • Chiu SS, Peiris JS, Chan KH, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of intradermal influenza immunization at a reduced dose in healthy children. Pediatrics. 2007 Jun;119(6):1076–1082. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-3176
  • Fishbein DB, Pacer RE, Holmes DF, et al. Rabies preexposure prophylaxis with human diploid cell rabies vaccine: a dose-response study. J Infect Dis. 1987 Jul;156(1):50–55. doi: 10.1093/infdis/156.1.50
  • Halperin W, Weiss WI, Altman R, et al. A comparison of the intradermal and subcutaneous routes of influenza vaccination with A/New Jersey/76 (swine flu) and A/Victoria/75: report of a study and review of the literature. Am J Public Health. 1979 Dec;69(12):1247–1251. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.69.12.1247
  • Herbert FA, Larke RP, Markstad EL. Comparison of responses to influenza A/New Jersey/76-A/Victoria/75 virus vaccine administered intradermally or subcutaneously to adults with chronic respiratory disease. J Infect Dis. 1979 Aug;140(2):234–238. doi: 10.1093/infdis/140.2.234
  • Kenney RT, Frech SA, Muenz LR, et al. Dose sparing with intradermal injection of influenza vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2004 Nov 25;351(22):2295–2301. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa043540
  • Khawplod P, Wilde H, Sirikwin S, et al. Revision of the Thai Red cross intradermal rabies post-exposure regimen by eliminating the 90-day booster injection. Vaccine. 2006 Apr 12;24(16):3084–3086. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.01.051
  • Quiambao BP, Dimaano EM, Ambas C, et al. Reducing the cost of post-exposure rabies prophylaxis: efficacy of 0.1 ml PCEC rabies vaccine administered intradermally using the Thai Red cross post-exposure regimen in patients severely exposed to laboratory-confirmed rabid animals. Vaccine. 2005 Feb 25;23(14):1709–1714. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.09.027
  • Warrell MJ, Nicholson KG, Warrell DA, et al. Economical multiple-site intradermal immunisation with human diploid-cell-strain vaccine is effective for post-exposure rabies prophylaxis. Lancet. 1985 May 11;1(8437):1059–1062. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(85)92367-0
  • Samuel BU, Cherian T, Sridharan G, et al. Immune response to intradermally injected inactivated poliovirus vaccine. Lancet. 1991 1991/Aug/10;338(8763):343–344. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90480-D
  • Arnou R, Eavis P, Pardo JR, et al. Immunogenicity, large scale safety and lot consistency of an intradermal influenza vaccine in adults aged 18-60 years: randomized, controlled, phase III trial. Hum Vaccin. 2010 Apr;6(4):346–354. doi: 10.4161/hv.6.4.10961
  • Arnou R, Icardi G, De Decker M, et al. Intradermal influenza vaccine for older adults: a randomized controlled multicenter phase III study. Vaccine. 2009 Dec 9;27(52):7304–7312. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.10.033
  • Atmar RL, Patel SM, Keitel WA. Intanza(®): a new intradermal vaccine for seasonal influenza. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2010 Dec;9(12):1399–1409. doi: 10.1586/erv.10.134
  • Belshe RB, Newman FK, Cannon J, et al. Serum antibody responses after intradermal vaccination against influenza. N Engl J Med. 2004 Nov 25;351(22):2286–2294. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa043555
  • Beran J, Ambrozaitis A, Laiskonis A, et al. Intradermal influenza vaccination of healthy adults using a new microinjection system: a 3-year randomised controlled safety and immunogenicity trial. BMC Med. 2009 Apr 2;7(1):13. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-7-13
  • Holland D, Booy R, De Looze F, et al. Intradermal influenza vaccine administered using a new microinjection system produces superior immunogenicity in elderly adults: a randomized controlled trial. J Infect Dis. 2008 Sep 1;198(5):650–658. doi: 10.1086/590434
  • Laurent A, Mistretta F, Bottigioli D, et al. Echographic measurement of skin thickness in adults by high frequency ultrasound to assess the appropriate microneedle length for intradermal delivery of vaccines. Vaccine. 2007 Aug 21;25(34):6423–6430. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.05.046
  • Laurent PE, Bonnet S, Alchas P, et al. Evaluation of the clinical performance of a new intradermal vaccine administration technique and associated delivery system. Vaccine. 2007 Dec 17;25(52):8833–8842. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.10.020
  • Leroux-Roels I, Vets E, Freese R, et al. Seasonal influenza vaccine delivered by intradermal microinjection: a randomised controlled safety and immunogenicity trial in adults. Vaccine. 2008 Dec 2;26(51):6614–6619. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.09.078
  • Van Damme P, Arnou R, Kafeja F, et al. Evaluation of non-inferiority of intradermal versus adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccine using two serological techniques: a randomised comparative study. BMC Infect Dis. 2010 May 26;10(1):134. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-10-134
  • Hung IF, Levin Y, To KK, et al. Dose sparing intradermal trivalent influenza (2010/2011) vaccination overcomes reduced immunogenicity of the 2009 H1N1 strain. Vaccine. 2012 Oct 5;30(45):6427–6435. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.08.014
  • Troy SB, Kouiavskaia D, Siik J, et al. Comparison of the immunogenicity of various booster doses of inactivated polio vaccine delivered intradermally versus intramuscularly to HIV-Infected adults. J Infect Dis. 2015 Jun 15;211(12):1969–1976. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiu841
  • Van Damme P, Oosterhuis-Kafeja F, der Wielen M V, et al. Safety and efficacy of a novel microneedle device for dose sparing intradermal influenza vaccination in healthy adults. Vaccine. 2009 Jan 14;27(3):454–459. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.10.077
  • Della Cioppa G, Nicolay U, Lindert K, et al. A dose-ranging study in older adults to compare the safety and immunogenicity profiles of MF59®-adjuvanted and non-adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccines following intradermal and intramuscular administration. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2014;10(6):1701–1710. doi: 10.4161/hv.28618
  • Levin Y, Kochba E, Kenney R. Clinical evaluation of a novel microneedle device for intradermal delivery of an influenza vaccine: are all delivery methods the same? Vaccine. 2014 Jul 23;32(34):4249–4252. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.03.024
  • Hepatitis B associated with jet gun injection — California. Morbidity Mortality Weekly Rep. 1986;35(23):373–376.
  • Jackson LA, Austin G, Chen RT, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of varying dosages of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine administered by needle-free jet injectors. Vaccine. 2001 Sep 14;19(32):4703–4709. doi: 10.1016/S0264-410X(01)00225-0
  • Mohammed AJ, AlAwaidy S, Bawikar S, et al. Fractional doses of inactivated poliovirus vaccine in Oman. N Engl J Med. 2010 Jun 24;362(25):2351–2359. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0909383
  • Wang R, Epstein J, Baraceros FM, et al. Induction of CD4(+) T cell-dependent CD8(+) type 1 responses in humans by a malaria DNA vaccine. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Sep 11;98(19):10817–10822. doi: 10.1073/pnas.181123498
  • Bakari M, Aboud S, Nilsson C, et al. Broad and potent immune responses to a low dose intradermal HIV-1 DNA boosted with HIV-1 recombinant MVA among healthy adults in Tanzania. Vaccine. 2011 Oct 26;29(46):8417–8428. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.08.001
  • Beckett CG, Tjaden J, Burgess T, et al. Evaluation of a prototype dengue-1 DNA vaccine in a Phase 1 clinical trial. Vaccine. 2011 Jan 29;29(5):960–968. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.11.050
  • Bråve A, Ljungberg K, Boberg A, et al. Multigene/Multisubtype HIV-1 vaccine induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses by needle-free intradermal delivery. Mol Ther. 2005 Dec;12(6):1197–1205. doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2005.06.473
  • Cattamanchi A, Posavad CM, Wald A, et al. Phase I study of a herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) DNA vaccine administered to healthy, HSV-2-seronegative adults by a needle-free injection system. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2008 Nov;15(11):1638–1643. doi: 10.1128/CVI.00167-08
  • Epstein JE, Gorak EJ, Charoenvit Y, et al. Safety, tolerability, and lack of antibody responses after administration of a PfCSP DNA malaria vaccine via needle or needle-free jet injection, and comparison of intramuscular and combination intramuscular/intradermal routes. Hum Gene Ther. 2002 Sep 1;13(13):1551–1560. doi: 10.1089/10430340260201644
  • Jaoko W, Karita E, Kayitenkore K, et al. Safety and immunogenicity study of multiclade HIV-1 adenoviral vector vaccine alone or as boost following a multiclade HIV-1 DNA vaccine in Africa. PLoS One. 2010 Sep 21;5(9):e12873. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012873
  • Resik S, Tejeda A, Lago PM, et al. Randomized controlled clinical trial of fractional doses of inactivated poliovirus vaccine administered intradermally by needle-free device in Cuba. J Infect Dis. 2010 May 1;201(9):1344–1352. doi: 10.1086/651611
  • Ault A, Zajac AM, Kong WP, et al. Immunogenicity and clinical protection against equine influenza by DNA vaccination of ponies. Vaccine. 2012 Jun 6;30(26):3965–3974. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.03.026
  • Estívariz CF, Jafari H, Sutter RW, et al. Immunogenicity of supplemental doses of poliovirus vaccine for children aged 6-9 months in Moradabad, India: a community-based, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012 Feb;12(2):128–135. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70190-6
  • Gorres JP, Lager KM, Kong WP, et al. DNA vaccination elicits protective immune responses against pandemic and classic swine influenza viruses in pigs. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2011 Nov;18(11):1987–1995. doi: 10.1128/CVI.05171-11
  • Osorio JE, Velez ID, Thomson C, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of a recombinant live attenuated tetravalent dengue vaccine (DENVax) in flavivirus-naive healthy adults in Colombia: a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014 Sep;14(9):830–838. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70811-4
  • Swain WE, Heydenburg Fuller D, Wu MS, et al. Tolerability and immune responses in humans to a PowderJect DNA vaccine for hepatitis B. Dev Biol (Basel). 2000;104:115–119.
  • Chen D, Zuleger C, Chu Q, et al. Epidermal powder immunization with a recombinant HIV gp120 targets langerhans cells and induces enhanced immune responses. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2002 Jul 1;18(10):715–722. doi: 10.1089/088922202760072348
  • Dean HJ, Chen D. Epidermal powder immunization against influenza. Vaccine. 2004 Dec 16;23(5):681–686. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.06.041
  • Osorio JE, Zuleger CL, Burger M, et al. Immune responses to hepatitis B surface antigen following epidermal powder immunization. Immunol Cell Biol. 2003 Feb;81(1):52–58. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1711.2003.01134.x
  • Roberts LK, Barr LJ, Fuller DH, et al. Clinical safety and efficacy of a powdered hepatitis B nucleic acid vaccine delivered to the epidermis by a commercial prototype device. Vaccine. 2005 Sep 23;23(40):4867–4878. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2005.05.026
  • Kendall MAF, Quinlan NJ, Thorpe SJ, et al. Measurements of the gas and particle flow within a converging-diverging nozzle for high speed powdered vaccine and drug delivery. Exp Fluids. 2004 Jul 1;37(1):128–136. doi: 10.1007/s00348-004-0792-4
  • Guillot AJ, Cordeiro AS, Donnelly RF, et al. Microneedle-based delivery: an overview of Current applications and trends. Pharmaceutics. 2020;12(6):569. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12060569
  • Kirkby M, Hutton ARJ, Donnelly RF. Microneedle mediated transdermal delivery of protein, peptide and antibody based therapeutics: Current status and future considerations. Pharm Res. 2020 Jun 2;37(6):117. doi: 10.1007/s11095-020-02844-6
  • Lee KJ, Jeong SS, Roh DH, et al. A practical guide to the development of microneedle systems – in clinical trials or on the market. Int J Pharm. 2020 Jan 5;573:118778.
  • Chu LY, Prausnitz MR. Separable arrowhead microneedles. J Control Release. 2011 Feb 10;149(3):242–249. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2010.10.033
  • Courtenay AJ, Rodgers AM, McCrudden MTC, et al. Novel hydrogel-forming microneedle array for intradermal vaccination in Mice using Ovalbumin as a model protein antigen. Mol Pharm. 2019 Jan 7;16(1):118–127. doi: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.8b00895
  • Fonseca DFS, Vilela C, Silvestre AJD, et al. A compendium of current developments on polysaccharide and protein-based microneedles. Int j biol macromol. 2019 Sep 1;136:704–728.
  • Jeong H-R, Bae J-Y, Park J-H, et al. Preclinical study of influenza bivalent vaccine delivered with a two compartmental microneedle array. J Control Release. 2020 Aug 10;324:280–288.
  • Lee JW, Choi S-O, Felner EI, et al. Dissolving microneedle patch for transdermal delivery of human growth hormone. Small. 2011;7(4):531–539. doi: 10.1002/smll.201001091
  • Park J-H, Choi S-O, Kamath R, et al. Polymer particle-based micromolding to fabricate novel microstructures. Biomed Microdevices. 2007 Apr 1;9(2):223–234. doi: 10.1007/s10544-006-9024-4
  • Prausnitz MR. Microneedles for transdermal drug delivery.Adv Drug Delivery Rev. 2004 Mar 27;56(5):581–587. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2003.10.023
  • Trautmann A, Roth G-L, Nujiqi B, et al. Towards a versatile point-of-care system combining femtosecond laser generated microfluidic channels and direct laser written microneedle arrays. Microsyst Nanoeng. 2019 Feb 25;5(1):6. doi: 10.1038/s41378-019-0046-5
  • van der Maaden K, Jiskoot W, Bouwstra J. Microneedle technologies for (trans)dermal drug and vaccine delivery. J Control Release. 2012 Jul 20;161(2):645–655. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2012.01.042
  • Xiang Z, Wang H, Pant A, et al. Development of vertical SU-8 microtubes integrated with dissolvable tips for transdermal drug delivery. Biomicrofluidics. 2013;7(2):026502. doi: 10.1063/1.4798471
  • Prüss-Üstün A, Rapiti E, Hutin YJF. Sharps injuries: global burden of disease from sharps injuries to health-care workers/Annette prüss-Üstun, Elisabetta Rapiti, Yvan Hutin. EBD Series. 2003;2003:26–28.
  • Kolluru C, Gomaa Y, Prausnitz MR. Development of a thermostable microneedle patch for polio vaccination. Drug Deliv Transl Res. 2019;9(1):192–203. doi: 10.1007/s13346-018-00608-9
  • McMillan CLD, Choo JJY, Idris A, et al. Complete protection by a single-dose skin patch-delivered SARS-CoV-2 spike vaccine. Sci Adv. 2021;7(44):eabj8065. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abj8065
  • Mistilis MJ, Bommarius AS, Prausnitz MR. Development of a thermostable microneedle patch for influenza vaccination.J Pharm Sci. 2015 Feb 1;104(2):740–749. doi: 10.1002/jps.24283
  • Wan Y, Gupta V, Bird C, et al. Formulation development and improved stability of a combination measles and rubella live-viral vaccine dried for use in the Nanopatch(TM) microneedle delivery system. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2021 May 6;17(8):16. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2021.1887692
  • Wan Y, Hickey JM, Bird C, et al. Development of stabilizing formulations of a trivalent inactivated poliovirus vaccine in a dried state for delivery in the Nanopatch microprojection array. J Pharm Sci. 2018 Jun;107(6):1540–1551. doi: 10.1016/j.xphs.2018.01.027
  • Privor-Dumm L, Excler JL, Gilbert S, et al. Vaccine access, equity and justice: COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination. BMJ Glob Health. 2023 Jun;8(6):e011881. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-011881
  • Excler JL, Privor-Dumm L, Kim JH. Supply and delivery of vaccines for global health. Curr Opin Immunol. 2021 Aug;71:13–20. doi: 10.1016/j.coi.2021.03.009
  • Ding Z, Verbaan FJ, Bivas-Benita M, et al. Microneedle arrays for the transcutaneous immunization of diphtheria and influenza in BALB/c mice. J Control Release. 2009 MAY 21;136(1):71–78. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2009.01.025
  • Guo L, Qiu YQ, Chen JM, et al. Effective transcutaneous immunization against hepatitis B virus by a combined approach of hydrogel patch formulation and microneedle arrays. Biomed Microdevices. 2013 Dec;15(6):1077–1085. doi: 10.1007/s10544-013-9799-z
  • Dean CH, Alarcon JB, Waterston AM, et al. Cutaneous delivery of a live, attenuated chimeric flavivirus vaccine against Japanese encephalitis (ChimeriVax (TM)-JE) in Non-human primates. Hum Vaccin. 2005 May;1(3):106–111. doi: 10.4161/hv.1.3.1797
  • Kim YC, Yoo DG, Compans RW, et al. Cross-protection by co-immunization with influenza hemagglutinin DNA and inactivated virus vaccine using coated microneedles. J Control Release. 2013 DEC 10;172(2):579–588. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2013.04.016
  • Kim YC, Quan FS, Yoo DG, et al. Improved influenza vaccination in the skin using vaccine coated microneedles. Vaccine. 2009 Nov 16;27(49):6932–6938. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.08.108
  • Kim YC, Quan FS, Compans RW, et al. Formulation and coating of microneedles with inactivated influenza virus to improve vaccine stability and immunogenicity. J Control Release. 2010 Mar 3;142(2):187–195. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2009.10.013
  • Jeong HR, Park S, Park JH, et al. Preparation of H1N1 microneedles by a low-temperature process without a stabilizer. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2019 Oct;143:1–7.
  • Depelsenaire ACI, Meliga SC, McNeilly CL, et al. Colocalization of cell death with antigen deposition in skin enhances vaccine immunogenicity. J Invest Dermatol. 2014 Sep;134(9):2361–2370. doi: 10.1038/jid.2014.174
  • Fernando GJ, Chen X, Prow TW, et al. Potent immunity to low doses of influenza vaccine by probabilistic guided micro-targeted skin delivery in a mouse model. PLoS One. 2010 Apr 21;5(4):e10266. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010266
  • Fernando GJP, Hickling J, Jayashi Flores CM, et al. Safety, tolerability, acceptability and immunogenicity of an influenza vaccine delivered to human skin by a novel high-density microprojection array patch (Nanopatch™). Vaccine. 2018 Jun 18;36(26):3779–3788. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.05.053
  • Forster AH, Witham K, Depelsenaire ACI, et al. Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of influenza vaccination with a high-density microarray patch: results from a randomized, controlled phase I clinical trial. PLOS Med. 2020;17(3):e1003024. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003024
  • Kim MC, Lee JW, Choi HJ, et al. Microneedle patch delivery to the skin of virus-like particles containing heterologous M2e extracellular domains of influenza virus induces broad heterosubtypic cross-protection. J Control Release. 2015 Jul 28;210:208–216.
  • Kim YC, Quan FS, Compans RW, et al. Formulation of microneedles coated with influenza virus-like particle vaccine. AAPS Pharm Sci Tech. 2010 Sep;11(3):1193–1201. doi: 10.1208/s12249-010-9471-3
  • Kim YC, Song JM, Lipatov AS, et al. Increased immunogenicity of avian influenza DNA vaccine delivered to the skin using a microneedle patch. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2012 Jun;81(2):239–247. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2012.03.010
  • Kommareddy S, Baudner BC, Bonificio A, et al. Influenza subunit vaccine coated microneedle patches elicit comparable immune responses to intramuscular injection in guinea pigs. Vaccine. 2013 Jul 25;31(34):3435–3441. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.01.050
  • Wire B Vaxxas Announces Initiation of Phase I clinical study of first needle-free COVID-19 vaccine (HexaPro) delivered using high-density microarray patch (HD-MAP): business Wire; 2022 [cited 2023 Jun 28]. Available from: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20221108005505/en/Vaxxas-Announces-Initiation-of-Phase-I-Clinical-Study-of-First-Needle-Free-COVID-19-Vaccine-HexaPro-Delivered-Using-High-Density-Microarray-Patch-HD-MAP
  • Wire B Vaxxas Announces Interim results from Phase I clinical study of first needle-free COVID-19 vaccine delivered using Proprietary high-density microarray patch (HD-MAP) businesswire.com: business Wire; 2023 updated 5 June 2023 [cited 2023 Jun 28]. Available from: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230605005248/en/Vaxxas-Announces-Interim-Results-from-Phase-I-Clinical-Study-of-First-Needle-Free-COVID-19-Vaccine-Delivered-Using-Proprietary-High-Density-Microarray-Patch-HD-MAP
  • McMillan CLD, Amarilla AA, Modhiran N, et al. Skin-patch delivered subunit vaccine induces broadly neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Vaccine. 2022 Aug 12;40(34):4929–4932. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.07.013
  • McMillan CLD, Azuar A, Choo JJY, et al. Dermal delivery of a SARS-CoV-2 subunit vaccine induces immunogenicity against variants of concern. Vaccines. 2022;10(4):578. doi: 10.3390/vaccines10040578
  • Choo JJY, McMillan CLD, Fernando GJP, et al. Developing a stabilizing formulation of a live chimeric dengue virus vaccine dry coated on a high-density microarray patch. Vaccines. 2021;9(11):1301. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9111301
  • Choo JJY, Vet LJ, McMillan CLD, et al. A chimeric dengue virus vaccine candidate delivered by high density microarray patches protects against infection in mice. NPJ Vaccines. 2021 May 7;6(1):66. doi: 10.1038/s41541-021-00328-1
  • Muller DA, Depelsenaire ACI, Shannon AE, et al. Efficient delivery of dengue virus subunit vaccines to the skin by Microprojection Arrays. Vaccines. 2019 Nov 20;7(4):189–202. doi: 10.3390/vaccines7040189
  • Corbett HJ, Fernando GJ, Chen X, et al. Skin vaccination against cervical cancer associated human papillomavirus with a novel micro-projection array in a mouse model. PLoS One. 2010 Oct 18;5(10):e13460. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013460
  • Kines RC, Zarnitsyn V, Johnson TR, et al. Vaccination with human papillomavirus pseudovirus-encapsidated plasmids targeted to skin using microneedles. PLoS One. 2015 Mar 18;10(3): doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120797
  • Edens C, Collins ML, Ayers J, et al. Measles vaccination using a microneedle patch. Vaccine. 2013 Jul 25;31(34):3403–3409. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.09.062
  • Edens C, Collins ML, Goodson JL, et al. A microneedle patch containing measles vaccine is immunogenic in non-human primates. Vaccine. 2015;33(37):4712–4718. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.02.074
  • Gill HS, Soderholm J, Prausnitz MR, et al. Cutaneous vaccination using microneedles coated with hepatitis C DNA vaccine. Gene Ther. 2010 Jun;17(6):811–814. doi: 10.1038/gt.2010.22
  • Kask AS, Chen X, Marshak JO, et al. DNA vaccine delivery by densely-packed and short microprojection arrays to skin protects against vaginal HSV-2 challenge. Vaccine. 2010 Nov 3;28(47):7483–7491. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.09.014
  • Liu Y, Ye L, Lin F, et al. Intradermal immunization by Ebola virus GP subunit vaccines using microneedle patches protects mice against lethal EBOV challenge. Sci Rep. 2018 Jul 25;8. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-29135-w
  • Moon S, Wang YH, Edens C, et al. Dose sparing and enhanced immunogenicity of inactivated rotavirus vaccine administered by skin vaccination using a microneedle patch. Vaccine. 2013 JUL 25;31(34):3396–3402.
  • Muller DA, Fernando GJP, Owens NS, et al. High-density microprojection array delivery to rat skin of low doses of trivalent inactivated poliovirus vaccine elicits potent neutralising antibody responses. Sci Rep. 2017 Oct 3;7(1):12644. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-13011-0
  • Muller DA, Pearson FE, Fernando GJ, et al. Inactivated poliovirus type 2 vaccine delivered to rat skin via high density microprojection array elicits potent neutralising antibody responses. Sci Rep. 2016 Feb 25;6(1):22094. doi: 10.1038/srep22094
  • van der Maaden K, Sekerdag E, Schipper P, et al. Layer-by-layer assembly of inactivated poliovirus and N-Trimethyl chitosan on pH-Sensitive microneedles for dermal vaccination. Langmuir. 2015 Aug 11;31(31):8654–8660. doi: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.5b01262
  • Park S, Lee Y, Kwon YM, et al. Vaccination by microneedle patch with inactivated respiratory syncytial virus and monophosphoryl lipid a enhances the protective efficacy and diminishes inflammatory disease after challenge. PLoS One. 2018 Oct 26;13(10): doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205071
  • Prow TW, Chen X, Prow NA, et al. Nanopatch-targeted skin vaccination against West Nile virus and Chikungunya virus in mice. Small. 2010 Aug 16;6(16):1776–1784. doi: 10.1002/smll.201000331
  • Zhu WD, Pewin W, Wang C, et al. A boosting skin vaccination with dissolving microneedle patch encapsulating M2e vaccine broadens the protective efficacy of conventional influenza vaccines. J Control Release. 2017 Sep 10;261:1–9.
  • Bonificio A, Ghartey-Tagoe E, Gallorini S, et al. Fabrication of cell culture-derived influenza vaccine dissolvable microstructures and evaluation of immunogenicity in guinea pigs. Vaccine. 2015 Jun 9;33(25):2930–2938. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.059
  • Kommareddy S, Baudner BC, Oh S, et al. Dissolvable microneedle patches for the delivery of cell-culture-derived influenza vaccine antigens. J Pharm Sci. 2012 Mar;101(3):1021–1027. doi: 10.1002/jps.23019
  • Nakatsukasa A, Kuruma K, Okamatsu M, et al. Potency of whole virus particle and split virion vaccines using dissolving microneedle against challenges of H1N1 and H5N1 influenza viruses in mice. Vaccine. 2017 May 15;35(21):2855–2861. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.04.009
  • Raphael AP, Prow TW, Crichton ML, et al. Targeted, needle-free vaccinations in skin using multilayered, densely-packed dissolving microprojection arrays. Small. 2010 Aug 16;6(16):1785–1793. doi: 10.1002/smll.201000326
  • Sullivan SP, Koutsonanos DG, Del Pilar Martin M, et al. Dissolving polymer microneedle patches for influenza vaccination [10.1038/nm.2182]. Nat Med. 2010 08//print;16(8):915–920. doi: 10.1038/nm.2182
  • Vassilieva EV, Kalluri H, McAllister D, et al. Improved immunogenicity of individual influenza vaccine components delivered with a novel dissolving microneedle patch stable at room temperature. Drug Deliv Transl Res. 2015 Aug;5(4):360–371. doi: 10.1007/s13346-015-0228-0
  • Vrdoljak A, Allen EA, Ferrara F, et al. Induction of broad immunity by thermostabilised vaccines incorporated in dissolvable microneedles using novel fabrication methods. J Control Release. 2016 Mar 10;225:192–204.
  • Wang J, Li B, Wu MX. Effective and lesion-free cutaneous influenza vaccination. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015 APR 21;112(16):5005–5010.
  • Rouphael NG, Paine M, Mosley R, et al. The safety, immunogenicity, and acceptability of inactivated influenza vaccine delivered by microneedle patch (TIV-MNP 2015): a randomised, partly blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 1 trial. Lancet. 2017 Aug 12;390(10095):649–658. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30575-5
  • Hirobe S, Azukizawa H, Hanafusa T, et al. Clinical study and stability assessment of a novel transcutaneous influenza vaccination using a dissolving microneedle patch. Biomaterials. 2015 JUL;57:50–58.
  • Arya JM, Dewitt K, Scott-Garrard M, et al. Rabies vaccination in dogs using a dissolving microneedle patch. J Control Release. 2016 Oct 10;239:19–26.
  • Beaver JT, Mills LK, Swieboda D, et al. Cutaneous vaccination ameliorates Zika virus-induced neuro-ocular pathology via reduction of anti-ganglioside antibodies. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2020 Sep 1;16(9):2072–2091. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2020.1775460
  • Kim E, Erdos G, Huang S, et al. Preventative vaccines for Zika virus outbreak: preliminary Evaluation. EBioMedicine. 2016;13:315–320. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.09.028
  • Christiansen D, Earnest-Silveira L, Grubor-Bauk B, et al. Pre-clinical evaluation of a quadrivalent HCV VLP vaccine in pigs following microneedle delivery. Sci Rep. 2019 Jun 25;9. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-45461-z
  • Donadei A, Kraan H, Ophorst O, et al. Skin delivery of trivalent Sabin inactivated poliovirus vaccine using dissolvable microneedle patches induces neutralizing antibodies. J Control Release. 2019 Oct;311:96–103.
  • Edens C, Dybdahl-Sissoko NC, Weldon WC, et al. Inactivated polio vaccination using a microneedle patch is immunogenic in the rhesus macaque. Vaccine. 2015 Sep 8;33(37):4683–4690. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.01.089
  • Joyce JC, Carroll TD, Collins ML, et al. A microneedle patch for measles and rubella vaccination is immunogenic and protective in infant rhesus macaques. J Infect Dis. 2018 Jul 1;218(1):124–132. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiy139
  • Kim E, Erdos G, Huang SH, et al. Microneedle array delivered recombinant coronavirus vaccines: immunogenicity and rapid translational development. EBioMedicine. 2020 May;55. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102743
  • Patil S, Vijayanand S, Joshi D, et al. Subunit microparticulate vaccine delivery using microneedles trigger significant SARS-spike-specific humoral and cellular responses in a preclinical murine model. Int J Pharm. 2023 Feb 5;632:122583. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2023.122583
  • Pattani A, McKay PF, Garland MJ, et al. Microneedle mediated intradermal delivery of adjuvanted recombinant HIV-1 CN54gp140 effectively primes mucosal boost inoculations. J Control Release. 2012 Sep 28;162(3):529–537. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2012.07.039
  • Zaric M, Becker PD, Hervouet C, et al. Skin immunisation activates an innate lymphoid cell-monocyte axis regulating CD8(+) effector recruitment to mucosal tissues. Nat Commun. 2019 May 17;10(1): doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-09969-2
  • Boopathy AV, Mandal A, Kulp DW, et al. Enhancing humoral immunity via sustained-release implantable microneedle patch vaccination. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019;116(33):16473–16478. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1902179116
  • Zaric M, Becker PD, Hervouet C, et al. Long-lived tissue resident HIV-1 specific memory CD8(+) T cells are generated by skin immunization with live virus vectored microneedle arrays. J Control Release. 2017 Dec 28;268:166–175.
  • Perez Cuevas MB, Kodani M, Choi Y, et al. Hepatitis B vaccination using a dissolvable microneedle patch is immunogenic in mice and rhesus macaques. Bioeng Transl Med. 2018;3(3):186–196. doi: 10.1002/btm2.10098
  • Poirier D, Renaud F, Dewar V, et al. Hepatitis B surface antigen incorporated in dissolvable microneedle array patch is antigenic and thermostable. Biomaterials. 2017 Nov;145:256–265.
  • Choi Y, Lee GS, Li S, et al. Hepatitis B vaccine delivered by microneedle patch: immunogenicity in mice and rhesus macaques. Vaccine. 2023 Jun 1;41(24):3663–3672. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.05.005
  • Zheng X, Zhu J, Zheng C, et al. Dissolving microneedle arrays as a hepatitis B vaccine delivery system adjuvanted by APC-Targeted poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) nanoparticles. AAPS Pharm Sci Tech. 2023 Jan 25;24(1):42. doi: 10.1208/s12249-022-02473-9
  • Qiu YQ, Guo L, Zhang SH, et al. DNA-based vaccination against hepatitis B virus using dissolving microneedle arrays adjuvanted by cationic liposomes and CpG ODN. Drug Deliv. 2016 Sep;23(7):2391–2398. doi: 10.3109/10717544.2014.992497
  • Turvey ME, Uppu DSSM, Mohamed Sharif AR, et al. Microneedle-based intradermal delivery of stabilized dengue virus. Bioeng Transl Med. 2019;4(2):e10127. doi: 10.1002/btm2.10127
  • Yang HW, Ye L, Guo XD, et al. Ebola vaccination using a DNA vaccine coated on PLGA-PLL/gamma PGA nanoparticles administered using a microneedle patch. Adv Healthc Mater. 2017 Jan;6(1). doi: 10.1002/adhm.201600750
  • Romanyuk A, Wang R, Marin A, et al. Skin vaccination with Ebola virus glycoprotein using a polyphosphazene-based microneedle patch protects Mice against lethal challenge. J Funct Biomater. 2022 Dec 27;14(1):16. doi: 10.3390/jfb14010016
  • Biomedical M Micron Biomedical Announces positive measles and rubella vaccination results from first clinical trial of microarray injection-free vaccine delivery in children: Micron Biomedical; 2023 updated 17 May 2023. cited 2023 Jun 29. Available from: https://www.micronbiomedical.com/positive-measles-rubella
  • Adigweme I, Akpalu E, Yisa M, et al. Study protocol for a phase 1/2, single-centre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, active-controlled, age de-escalation trial to assess the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of a measles and rubella vaccine delivered by a microneedle patch in healthy adults (18 to 40 years), measles and rubella vaccine-primed toddlers (15 to 18 months) and measles and rubella vaccine-naïve infants (9 to 10 months) in the Gambia [measles and rubella vaccine microneedle patch Phase 1/2 age De-escalation trial]. Trials. 2022 Sep 14;23(1):775. doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06493-5
  • Iwata H, Kakita K, Imafuku K, et al. Safety and dose-sparing effect of Japanese encephalitis vaccine administered by microneedle patch in uninfected, healthy adults (MNA-J): a randomised, partly blinded, active-controlled, phase 1 trial. Lancet Microbe. 2022 Feb 1;3(2):e96–e104. doi: 10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00269-X
  • Ogai N, Nonaka I, Toda Y, et al. Enhanced immunity in intradermal vaccination by novel hollow microneedles. Skin Res Technol. 2018 Nov;24(4):630–635. doi: 10.1111/srt.12576
  • Schipper P, van der Maaden K, Romeijn S, et al. Repeated fractional intradermal dosing of an inactivated polio vaccine by a single hollow microneedle leads to superior immune responses. J Control Release. 2016 Nov 28;242:141–147.
  • van der Maaden K, Trietsch SJ, Kraan H, et al. Novel hollow microneedle technology for depth-controlled microinjection-mediated dermal vaccination: a study with polio vaccine in Rats. Pharm Res. 2014 Jul;31(7):1846–1854. doi: 10.1007/s11095-013-1288-9
  • Prins MLM, Prins C, de Vries JJC, et al. Establishing immunogenicity and safety of needle-free intradermal delivery by nanoporous ceramic skin patch of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine as a revaccination strategy in healthy volunteers. Virus Res. 2023 Sep;334:199175.
  • Korkmaz E, Balmert SC, Carey CD, et al. Emerging skin-targeted drug delivery strategies to engineer immunity: a focus on infectious diseases. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2021 Feb 1;18(2):151–167. doi: 10.1080/17425247.2021.1823964
  • Korkmaz E, Balmert SC, Sumpter TL, et al. Microarray patches enable the development of skin-targeted vaccines against COVID-19. Adv Drug Delivery Rev. 2021 Apr 1;171:164–186.
  • van der Straeten A, Sarmadi M, Daristotle JL, et al. A microneedle vaccine printer for thermostable COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Nat Biotechnol. 2023 Apr 24. doi: 10.1038/s41587-023-01774-z
  • Bae WG, Ko H, So JY, et al. Snake fang-inspired stamping patch for transdermal delivery of liquid formulations. Sci Transl Med. 2019 Jul 31;11(503): doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaw3329
  • Balmert SC, Carey CD, Falo GD, et al. Dissolving undercut microneedle arrays for multicomponent cutaneous vaccination. J Control Release. 2020 Jan 10;317:336–346.
  • Bediz B, Korkmaz E, Khilwani R, et al. Dissolvable microneedle arrays for intradermal delivery of biologics: fabrication and application. Pharm Res. 2014 Jan;31(1):117–135. doi: 10.1007/s11095-013-1137-x
  • Crichton ML, Muller DA, Depelsenaire ACI, et al. The changing shape of vaccination: improving immune responses through geometrical variations of a microdevice for immunization. Sci Rep. 2016 Jun 2;6(1):27217. doi: 10.1038/srep27217
  • Johnson AR, Caudill CL, Tumbleston JR, et al. Single-step fabrication of computationally designed microneedles by continuous liquid interface production. PLoS One. 2016 Sep 8;11(9): doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162518
  • Kim MJ, Park SC, Rizal B, et al. Fabrication of Circular Obelisk-type Multilayer microneedles using micro-milling and spray deposition. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2018 May 11;6. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2018.00054
  • Kim YC, Park JH, Prausnitz MR. Microneedles for drug and vaccine delivery. Adv Drug Delivery Rev. 2012 Nov;64(14):1547–1568. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2012.04.005
  • Gupta J, Gupta R, Vanshita R. Microneedle technology: an insight into recent advancements and future trends in drug and vaccine delivery.Assay Drug Dev Technol. 2020 Mar 1;19(2):97–114. doi: 10.1089/adt.2020.1022
  • Tariq N, Ashraf MW, Tayyaba S. A review on solid microneedles for Biomedical applications.J Pharm Innov. 2022 Dec 1;17(4):1464–1483. doi: 10.1007/s12247-021-09586-x
  • Dean CH, Alarcon JB, Waterston AM, et al. Cutaneous delivery of a live, attenuated chimeric flavivirus vaccines against Japanese encephalitis (ChimeriVaxTM-JE) in Non-human primates. Hum Vaccines. 2005 May 1;1(3):106–111. doi: 10.4161/hv.1.3.1797
  • Gill HS, Andrews SN, Sakthivel SK, et al. Selective removal of stratum corneum by microdermabrasion to increase skin permeability. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2009 Sep 10;38(2):95–103. doi: 10.1016/j.ejps.2009.06.004
  • Mikszta JA, Alarcon JB, Brittingham JM, et al. Improved genetic immunization via micromechanical disruption of skin-barrier function and targeted epidermal delivery. Nat Med. 2002 Apr 1;8(4):415–419. doi: 10.1038/nm0402-415
  • Pearton M, Kang S-M, Song J-M, et al. Influenza virus-like particles coated onto microneedles can elicit stimulatory effects on Langerhans cells in human skin. Vaccine. 2010 Aug 23;28(37):6104–6113. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.05.055
  • Henry S, McAllister DV, Allen MG, et al. Microfabricated microneedles: a novel approach to transdermal drug delivery. J Pharm Sci. 1998 Aug;87(8):922–925.
  • Iliescu F, Dumitrescu-Ionescu D, Petrescu M, et al. A review on transdermal drug delivery using microneedles: Current research and perspective. Ann Acad Rom Sci. 2014 Jul 01;7:7–34.
  • DeMuth PC, Li AV, Abbink P, et al. Vaccine delivery with microneedle skin patches in nonhuman primates. Nat Biotechnol. 2013 Dec;31(12):1082–1085. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2759
  • Fernando GJ, Chen X, Primiero CA, et al. Nanopatch targeted delivery of both antigen and adjuvant to skin synergistically drives enhanced antibody responses. J Control Release. 2012 Apr 30;159(2):215–221. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2012.01.030
  • Muller DA, Henricson J, Baker SB, et al. Innate local response and tissue recovery following application of high density microarray patches to human skin. Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 28;10(1):18468. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-75169-4
  • Ng HI, Fernando GJ, Kendall MA. Induction of potent CD8(+) T cell responses through the delivery of subunit protein vaccines to skin antigen-presenting cells using densely packed microprojection arrays. J Control Release. 2012 Sep 28;162(3):477–484. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2012.07.024
  • Quan FS, Kim YC, Compans RW, et al. Dose sparing enabled by skin immunization with influenza virus-like particle vaccine using microneedles. J Control Release. 2010 Nov 1;147(3):326–332. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2010.07.125
  • Quan FS, Kim YC, Song JM, et al. Long-term protective immunity from an influenza virus-like particle vaccine administered with a microneedle patch. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2013 Sep;20(9):1433–1439. doi: 10.1128/CVI.00251-13
  • Weldon WC, Martin MP, Zarnitsyn V, et al. Microneedle vaccination with stabilized recombinant influenza virus hemagglutinin induces improved protective immunity. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2011 Apr;18(4):647–654. doi: 10.1128/CVI.00435-10
  • Zhu QY, Zarnitsyn VG, Ye L, et al. Immunization by vaccine-coated microneedle arrays protects against lethal influenza virus challenge. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009 May 12;106(19):7968–7973. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812652106
  • Pearson FE, Muller DA, Roalfe L, et al. Functional anti-polysaccharide IgG titres induced by unadjuvanted pneumococcal-conjugate vaccine when delivered by microprojection-based skin patch. Vaccine. 2015 Nov 27;33(48):6675–6683. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.10.081
  • Henricson J, Muller DA, Baker SB, et al. Micropuncture closure following high density microarray patch application in healthy subjects. Skin Res Technol. 2022;28(2):305–310. doi: 10.1111/srt.13131
  • Al-Japairai KAS, Mahmood S, Almurisi SH, et al. Current trends in polymer microneedle for transdermal drug delivery. Int J Pharm. 2020 Sep;25:587.
  • Larraneta E, Lutton REM, Woolfson AD, et al. Microneedle arrays as transdermal and intradermal drug delivery systems: materials science, manufacture and commercial development. Mater Sci Eng R Rep. 2016 Jun;104:1–32.
  • Boopathy AV, Mandal A, Kulp DW, et al. Enhancing humoral immunity via sustained-release implantable microneedle patch vaccination. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2019;116(33):16473–16478. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1902179116
  • Hirobe S, Azukizawa H, Matsuo K, et al. Development and clinical study of a self-dissolving microneedle patch for transcutaneous immunization device. Pharm Res. 2013 Oct 1;30(10):2664–2674. doi: 10.1007/s11095-013-1092-6
  • Moore LE, Vucen S, Moore AC. Trends in drug- and vaccine-based dissolvable microneedle materials and methods of fabrication. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2022 Apr 1;173:54–72. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2022.02.013
  • Vassilieva EV, Li S, Korniychuk H, et al. cGamp/saponin adjuvant combination improves protective response to influenza vaccination by microneedle patch in an aged mouse model [original research]. Front Immunol. 2021 Feb 2;11:11.
  • Chen MC, Lai KY, Ling MH, et al. Enhancing immunogenicity of antigens through sustained intradermal delivery using chitosan microneedles with a patch-dissolvable design. Acta Biomaterialia. 2018 Jan;65:66–75.
  • Zaric M, Lyubomska O, Poux C, et al. Dissolving microneedle delivery of nanoparticle-encapsulated antigen elicits efficient cross-priming and Th1 immune responses by murine langerhans cells. J Invest Dermatol. 2015 Feb;135(2):425–434. doi: 10.1038/jid.2014.415
  • Paredes AJ, McKenna PE, Ramoller IK, et al. Microarray patches: poking a hole in the challenges faced when delivering poorly soluble drugs. Adv Funct Mater. 2021 Jan;31(1). doi: 10.1002/adfm.202005792
  • Vinayakumar KB, Kulkarni PG, Nayak MM, et al. A hollow stainless steel microneedle array to deliver insulin to a diabetic rat. J Micromech Microeng. 2016 Jun;26(6):065013. doi: 10.1088/0960-1317/26/6/065013
  • Cárcamo-Martínez Á, Mallon B, Domínguez-Robles J, et al. Hollow microneedles: a perspective in biomedical applications. Int J Pharm. 2021 Apr 15;599:120455.
  • Du G, Hathout RM, Nasr M, et al. Intradermal vaccination with hollow microneedles: a comparative study of various protein antigen and adjuvant encapsulated nanoparticles. J Control Release. 2017 Nov 28;266:109–118.
  • Niu L, Chu LY, Burton SA, et al. Intradermal delivery of vaccine nanoparticles using hollow microneedle array generates enhanced and balanced immune response. J Control Release. 2019 Jan 28;294:268–278.
  • Du G, Woythe L, van der Maaden K, et al. Coated and hollow microneedle-mediated intradermal immunization in Mice with diphtheria toxoid loaded mesoporous silica nanoparticles. Pharm Res. 2018 Aug 13;35(10):189. doi: 10.1007/s11095-018-2476-4
  • Norman JJ, Brown MR, Raviele NA, et al. 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. 2013;14(6):459–465. doi: 10.1111/pedi.12031
  • Norman JJ, Choi S-O, Tong NT, et al. Hollow microneedles for intradermal injection fabricated by sacrificial micromolding and selective electrodeposition. Biomed Microdevices. 2013 Apr 1;15(2):203–210. doi: 10.1007/s10544-012-9717-9
  • Al-Kasasbeh R, Brady AJ, Courtenay AJ, et al. Evaluation of the clinical impact of repeat application of hydrogel-forming microneedle array patches. Drug Deliv Transl Res. 2020 Jun;10(3):690–705. doi: 10.1007/s13346-020-00727-2
  • Donnelly RF, Singh TRR, Garland MJ, et al. Hydrogel-forming microneedle arrays for enhanced transdermal drug delivery. Adv Funct Mater. 2012 Dec 5;22(23):4879–4890. doi: 10.1002/adfm.201200864
  • Turner JG, White LR, Estrela P, et al. Hydrogel-forming microneedles: Current advancements and future trends. Macromol biosci. 2021;21(2):2000307. doi: 10.1002/mabi.202000307
  • Ingrole RSJ, Gill HS. Microneedle coating methods: a review with a perspective. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2019 Sep;370(3):555–569. doi: 10.1124/jpet.119.258707
  • Gill HS, Prausnitz MR. Coated microneedles for transdermal delivery. J Control Release. 2007 Feb 12;117(2):227–237. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2006.10.017
  • Chen X, Corbett HJ, Yukiko SR, et al. Site-Selectively coated, densely-packed microprojection array patches for targeted delivery of vaccines to skin. Adv Funct Mater. 2011;21(3):464–473. doi: 10.1002/adfm.201000966
  • Chen X, Fernando GJP, Crichton ML, et al. Improving the reach of vaccines to low-resource regions, with a needle-free vaccine delivery device and long-term thermostabilization. J Control Release. 2011 6/30;152(3):349–355. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2011.02.026
  • Vrdoljak A, McGrath MG, Carey JB, et al. Coated microneedle arrays for transcutaneous delivery of live virus vaccines. J Control Release. 2012 Apr 10;159(1):34–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2011.12.026
  • Prausnitz MR, Goodson JL, Rota PA, et al. A microneedle patch for measles and rubella vaccination: a game changer for achieving elimination. Curr Opin Virol. 2020 Apr;41:68–76.
  • Quan FS, Kim YC, Vunnava A, et al. Intradermal vaccination with influenza virus-like particles by using microneedles induces protection superior to that with intramuscular immunization. J Virol. 2010 Aug;84(15):7760–7769. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01849-09
  • Caudill C, Perry JL, Iliadis K, et al. Transdermal vaccination via 3D-printed microneedles induces potent humoral and cellular immunity. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2021;118(39):e2102595118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2102595118
  • Forster A, Junger M. Opportunities and challenges for commercializing microarray patches for vaccination from a MAP developer’s perspective.Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2022 Nov 30;18(4):2050123. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2022.2050123
  • Davies C, Taba M, Deng L, et al. Usability, acceptability, and feasibility of a high-density microarray patch (HD-MAP) applicator as a delivery method for vaccination in clinical settings. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2022 Nov 30;18(4):2018863. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2021.2018863
  • MfIa S. Propelling Australian electric planes minister.Industry.gov.au: Minister for industry and science; 2023 updated 19 January 2023 cited 2023 Jun 28. Available from: https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/husic/media-releases/propelling-australian-electric-planes
  • Government A CRC projects selection round outcomes business.Gov.au: Australian Government; 2023 updated 20 February 2023 [cited 2023 Jun 28]. Available from: https://business.gov.au/grants-and-programs/cooperative-research-centres-projects-crcp-grants/crc-projects-selection-round-outcomes
  • Leone M, Monkare J, Bouwstra J, et al. Dissolving microneedle patches for dermal vaccination. Pharm Res. 2017 Nov;34(11):2223–2240. doi: 10.1007/s11095-017-2223-2
  • DeMuth PC, Min Y, Irvine DJ, et al. Implantable silk composite microneedles for programmable vaccine release kinetics and enhanced immunogenicity in transcutaneous immunization. Adv Healthc Mater. 2014;3(1):47–58. doi: 10.1002/adhm.201300139
  • Kang G, Kim M, Yang H, et al. Latch applicator for efficient delivery of dissolving microneedles based on Rapid Release of Elastic strain Energy by thumb force. Adv Funct Mater. 2023;33(11):2210805. doi: 10.1002/adfm.202210805
  • Paik S-J, Byun S, Lim J-M, et al. In-plane single-crystal-silicon microneedles for minimally invasive microfluid systems. Sens Actuators A. 2004 Sep 1];114(2):276–284. doi: 10.1016/j.sna.2003.12.029
  • Cui Q, Liu C, Zha XF. Study on a piezoelectric micropump for the controlled drug delivery system.Microfluid Nanofluidics. [2007 Aug 1;3(4):377–390. doi: 10.1007/s10404-006-0137-0
  • Tuan-Mahmood T-M, McCrudden MTC, Torrisi BM, et al. Microneedles for intradermal and transdermal drug delivery. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2013;50(5):623–637. doi: 10.1016/j.ejps.2013.05.005
  • Pamornpathomkul B, Niyomtham N, Yingyongnarongkul BE, et al. Cationic niosomes for enhanced skin immunization of plasmid DNA-Encoding ovalbumin via hollow microneedles. AAPS Pharm Sci Tech. 2018 Jan;19(1):481–488. doi: 10.1208/s12249-017-0855-5
  • Samant PP, Prausnitz MR. Mechanisms of sampling interstitial fluid from skin using a microneedle patch. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 May 1;115(18):4583–4588. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1716772115
  • Romanyuk AV, Zvezdin VN, Samant P, et al. Collection of analytes from microneedle patches. Anal Chem. 2014 Nov 4;86(21):10520–10523. doi: 10.1021/ac503823p
  • Chang H, Zheng M, Yu X, et al. A swellable microneedle patch to rapidly extract skin interstitial fluid for timely metabolic analysis. Adv Mater. 2017;29(37):1702243. doi: 10.1002/adma.201702243
  • Caffarel-Salvador E, Brady AJ, Eltayib E, et al. Hydrogel-forming microneedle arrays allow detection of drugs and glucose in vivo: potential for use in Diagnosis and Therapeutic drug Monitoring. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0145644. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145644
  • Kearney MC, Caffarel-Salvador E, Fallows SJ, et al. Microneedle-mediated delivery of donepezil: potential for improved treatment options in Alzheimer’s disease. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2016 Jun;103:43–50.
  • Courtenay AJ, McAlister E, McCrudden MTC, et al. Hydrogel-forming microneedle arrays as a therapeutic option for transdermal esketamine delivery. J Control Release. 2020 Jun 10;322:177–186. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2020.03.026
  • Shi Y, Truong VX, Kulkarni K, et al. Light-triggered release of ciprofloxacin from an in situ forming click hydrogel for antibacterial wound dressings. J Mater Chem B. 2015 Dec 7;3(45):8771–8774. doi: 10.1039/C5TB01820J
  • Courtenay AJ, McCrudden MTC, McAvoy KJ, et al. Microneedle-mediated transdermal delivery of Bevacizumab. Mol Pharm. [2018 Aug 6];15(8):3545–3556. doi: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.8b00544
  • Cárcamo-Martínez Á, Domínguez-Robles J, Mallon B, et al. Potential of polymeric films loaded with gold nanorods for local hyperthermia applications. Nanomaterials. 2020;10(3):582. doi: 10.3390/nano10030582
  • Barnum L, Samandari M, Schmidt TA, et al. Microneedle arrays for the treatment of chronic wounds. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2020 Dec;17(12):1767–1780. doi: 10.1080/17425247.2020.1819787
  • Carter D, van Hoeven N, Baldwin S, et al. The adjuvant GLA-AF enhances human intradermal vaccine responses. Sci Adv. 2018 Sep;4(9):eaas9930. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aas9930
  • Erdos G, Balmert SC, Carey CD, et al. Improved Cutaneous genetic immunization by microneedle array delivery of an adjuvanted adenovirus vaccine. J Invest Dermatol. 2020 Dec;140(12):2528±. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2020.03.966
  • Shin JH, Lee JH, Jeong SD, et al. C-di-GMP with influenza vaccine showed enhanced and shifted immune responses in microneedle vaccination in the skin. Drug Deliv Transl Res. 2020 Jun;10(3):815–825. doi: 10.1007/s13346-020-00728-1
  • Weldon WC, Zarnitsyn VG, Esser ES, et al. Effect of adjuvants on responses to skin immunization by microneedles coated with influenza subunit vaccine. PLoS One. 2012 Jul 25;7(7):e41501. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041501
  • Zhou Q, Wang F, Yang F, et al. Augmented humoral and cellular immune response of hepatitis B virus DNA vaccine by micro-needle vaccination using Flt3L as an adjuvant. Vaccine. 2010 Feb 3;28(5):1357–1362. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.11.006
  • Stertman L, Palm AE, Zarnegar B, et al. The Matrix-M™ adjuvant: a critical component of vaccines for the 21(st) century. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2023 Dec 31;19(1):2189885. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2023.2189885
  • Jackson S, Lentino J, Kopp J, et al. Immunogenicity of a two-dose investigational hepatitis B vaccine, HBsAg-1018, using a toll-like receptor 9 agonist adjuvant compared with a licensed hepatitis B vaccine in adults. Vaccine. 2018 Jan 29;36(5):668–674. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.12.038
  • Ng H-I, Tuong ZK, Fernando GJP, et al. Microprojection arrays applied to skin generate mechanical stress, induce an inflammatory transcriptome and cell death, and improve vaccine-induced immune responses. NPJ Vaccines. 2019 Oct 11;4(1):41. doi: 10.1038/s41541-019-0134-4
  • Kim YC, Park JH, Prausnitz MR. Microneedles for drug and vaccine delivery. Adv Drug Delivery Rev. 2012 Nov;64(14):1547–1568. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2012.04.005
  • Donnelly RF, Raj Singh TR, Woolfson AD. Microneedle-based drug delivery systems: microfabrication, drug delivery, and safety. Drug Deliv. 2010 May;17(4):187–207. doi: 10.3109/10717541003667798
  • Márquez-Graña C, Bryan K, Vucen S, et al. Development of a novel single-use microneedle design platform for increased patient compliance. Procedia Manuf. 2017 Jan 1;13:1352–1359.
  • Baker B, Hacker E, Siller G, et al. Evaluation of the self-administration potential of high-density microarray patches to human skin: a preliminary study. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2023 Mar 22;19(1):2189409. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2023.2189409
  • Kim JS, J-A C, Kim JC, et al. Microneedles with dual release pattern for improved immunological efficacy of hepatitis B vaccine. Int J Pharm. 2020Dec 15;591:119928.
  • Na YG, Kim M, Han M, et al. Characterization of hepatitis B surface antigen loaded Polylactic acid-based microneedle and its dermal safety profile. Pharmaceutics. 2020 Jun 9;12(6):531. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12060531
  • Donnelly RF, Singh TRR, Tunney MM, et al. Microneedle arrays allow lower microbial penetration than hypodermic needles in vitro. Pharm Res. 2009 Nov;26(11):2513–2522. doi: 10.1007/s11095-009-9967-2
  • Iredahl F, Muller DA, Togö T, et al. Local response and barrier recovery in elderly skin following the application of high-density microarray patches. Vaccines (Basel). [2022 Apr 10];10(4):583. doi: 10.3390/vaccines10040583
  • Crommelin DJA, Anchordoquy TJ, Volkin DB, et al. Addressing the cold reality of mRNA vaccine stability. J Pharm Sci. 2021 Mar 1;110(3):997–1001. doi: 10.1016/j.xphs.2020.12.006
  • Arya J, Prausnitz MR. Microneedle patches for vaccination in developing countries. J Control Release. 2016 Oct 28;240:135–141. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2015.11.019
  • Marshall S, Sahm LJ, Moore AC. The success of microneedle-mediated vaccine delivery into skin. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2016;12(11):2975–2983. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2016.1171440
  • Goodson JL, Rota PA. Innovations in vaccine delivery: increasing access, coverage, and equity and lessons learnt from measles and rubella elimination.Drug Deliv Transl Res. 2022 May 1;12(5):959–967. doi: 10.1007/s13346-022-01130-9
  • Gavi. The vaccine innovation prioritisation strategy (VIPS) 2021 updated 30 June 2021 cited 2023 Jul 13. Available from: https://www.gavi.org/our-alliance/market-shaping/vaccine-innovation-prioritisation-strategy
  • Norman JJ, Arya JM, McClain MA, et al. Microneedle patches: usability and acceptability for self-vaccination against influenza. Vaccine. 2014 Apr 1;32(16):1856–1862. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.01.076
  • Arya J, Henry S, Kalluri H, et al. Tolerability, usability and acceptability of dissolving microneedle patch administration in human subjects. Biomaterials. 2017 Jun;128:1–7.
  • Frew PM, Paine MB, Rouphael N, et al. Acceptability of an inactivated influenza vaccine delivered by microneedle patch: results from a phase I clinical trial of safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity. Vaccine. 2020 Oct 21;38(45):7175–7181. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.07.064