Los Angeles Times

Getting a flu vaccine — minus the shot

New patch provided as much protection as a traditiona­l needle jab in a human trial, researcher­s say.

- KAREN KAPLAN karen.kaplan@latimes.com Twitter: @LATkarenka­plan

Here’s an idea whose time has come: a flu shot that doesn’t require an actual shot.

For the first time, researcher­s have tested a flu vaccine patch in a human clinical trial and found that it delivered as much protection as a traditiona­l jab with a needle.

It’s not just needle-phobes who stand to benefit from this developmen­t, reported last week in the journal Lancet. Doctors and public health experts have high hopes that vaccine patches will boost the number of people who get immunized against the flu.

Seasonal influenza is responsibl­e for up to half a million deaths around the world each year, according to the World Health Organizati­on. In the United States, the annual death toll since 2010 has ranged between 12,000 and 56,000. And yet the proportion of American adults who get a flu shot tends to hover around 40%.

The fact that it usually involves poking a piece of metal into the muscle of your upper arm may have something to do with that low vaccinatio­n rate. (Some people also blame the time and expense involved in getting a flu shot.)

But a team led by Georgia Tech engineer Mark Prausnitz has come up with an alternativ­e method that uses “microneedl­es.” These tiny needles are so small that 100 of them, arrayed on a patch, can fit under your thumb. Yet they’re big enough to hold vaccine for three strains of the flu.

The microneedl­e patch was tested in a clinical trial conducted by Dr. Nadine Rouphael and colleagues at Emory University’s Hope Clinic in Decatur, Ga. The trial involved 100 volunteers, who were randomly sorted into four groups.

Two of the groups were vaccinated with the patch, which resembles a BandAid and must be applied to the skin near the wrist for 20 minutes. The procedure was so straightfo­rward that one group of volunteers was able to administer the vaccine themselves. (In the other group, healthcare profession­als did the job.) Inspection of the used vaccine patches revealed that the microneedl­es dissolved during the 20 minutes they were on the skin.

A third group received a traditiona­l flu shot using a regular needle, and a fourth group got a patch that looked like the real thing but contained a placebo.

The researcher­s checked in on the volunteers 28 days after their immunizati­ons and found that flu antibody levels were “significan­tly higher” in the three groups that got the vaccine than in the group that got the placebo.

What’s more, the two groups that got the vaccine via a patch had about the same antibody levels as the group that got the traditiona­l shot. In addition, the volunteers who put the patches on themselves got the same protection as the volunteers whose patches were administer­ed by health profession­als.

After six months, at least 75% of volunteers in all three vaccine groups were still being protected, according to the study.

The traditiona­l shot contained at least 15 micrograms of antigens (the part of the flu virus that triggers an immune response) to each of the three strains of flu. The patches delivered a slightly smaller dose of antigens, regardless of whether the patch was deployed by a health profession­al or a volunteer.

None of the study volunteers had serious side effects. The groups that got patches had mild skin reactions that were not seen in the regular needle group, while the volunteers in the regular needle group were more likely to experience pain.

Overall, 70% of the volunteers who got vaccine patches said they’d rather use them again than get a traditiona­l flu shot or an intranasal vaccine. The study authors declared it a success on all fronts.

“Influenza vaccinatio­n with microneedl­e patches is well tolerated, well accepted, and results in robust immunologi­cal responses, whether administer­ed by health-care workers or by the participan­ts themselves,” they wrote.

Still, they added that the patches would have to perform well in larger studies before they could be put into wide use. Ideally, future versions of the patches would produce fewer skin reactions while delivering the same protection, they wrote.

Their enthusiasm was echoed in a commentary that accompanie­d the study.

“These early findings suggest the emergence of a promising new option for seasonal vaccinatio­n,” wrote Katja Hoschler and Maria Zambon of Public Health England.

The biggest beneficiar­ies could be people in low- and middle-income countries, where flu vaccines are hard to come by. Reducing pain is nice, but other benefits — the patch costs less, is easier to transport, doesn’t require refrigerat­ion, can be selfadmini­stered and doesn’t generate sharps waste — are even better.

“Microneedl­e patches have the potential to become ideal candidates for vaccinatio­n programs,” they wrote.

 ?? Rob Felt European Pressphoto Agency ?? A TEAM led by Georgia Tech engineer Mark Prausnitz has created an alternativ­e to the f lu shot that uses “microneedl­es.” These needles are so small that 100 of them, arrayed on a patch, can fit under your thumb.
Rob Felt European Pressphoto Agency A TEAM led by Georgia Tech engineer Mark Prausnitz has created an alternativ­e to the f lu shot that uses “microneedl­es.” These needles are so small that 100 of them, arrayed on a patch, can fit under your thumb.
 ?? European Pressphoto Agency ?? THE PATCH’S microneedl­es are big enough to hold vaccine for three strains of the flu. None of the 100 volunteers in the study had serious side effects.
European Pressphoto Agency THE PATCH’S microneedl­es are big enough to hold vaccine for three strains of the flu. None of the 100 volunteers in the study had serious side effects.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States