» Articles » PMID: 36082816

Challenges and Opportunities in Current Vaccine Technology and Administration: A Comprehensive Survey Examining Oral Vaccine Potential in the United States

Overview
Date 2022 Sep 9
PMID 36082816
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study provides a snapshot of the current vaccine business ecosystem, including practices, challenges, beliefs, and expectations of vaccine providers. Our team focused on providers' firsthand experience with administering vaccines to determine if an oral vaccine (e.g. pill or oral-drop) would be well-received. We interviewed 135 healthcare providers and vaccine specialists across the US, focusing questions on routine vaccinations, not COVID-19 vaccines. Improving workflow efficiency is a top concern among vaccine providers due to shrinking reimbursement rates-determined by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)-and the time-intensiveness of injectable vaccines. Administering injectable vaccines takes 23 minutes/patient on average, while dispensing pills takes only 5 minutes/patient. An average of 24% of patients express needle-fear, which further lengthens the processing time. Misaligned incentives between providers and PBMs could reduce the quality and availability of vaccine-related care. The unavailability of single-dose orders prevents some rural providers from offering certain vaccines. Most interviewees (74%) believe an oral vaccine would improve patient-provider experience, patient-compliance, and workflow efficiency, while detractors (26%) worry about the taste, vaccine absorption, and efficacy. Additional research could investigate whether currently non-vaccinating pharmacies would be willing to offer oral vaccines, and the impact of oral vaccines on vaccine acceptance.

Citing Articles

A novel oral vaccine delivery system for enhancing stability and immune protection: bacterium-like particle with functional coating.

De X, Gao M, Jia Z, Ren H, Liu R, Zhou X Front Microbiol. 2024; 15:1481514.

PMID: 39539708 PMC: 11557395. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1481514.

References
1.
Ogra P, Faden H, Welliver R . Vaccination strategies for mucosal immune responses. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2001; 14(2):430-45. PMC: 88982. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.14.2.430-445.2001. View

2.
Kichaev G, Mendoza J, Amante D, Smith T, McCoy J, Sardesai N . Electroporation mediated DNA vaccination directly to a mucosal surface results in improved immune responses. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2013; 9(10):2041-8. PMC: 3906388. DOI: 10.4161/hv.25272. View

3.
Ravetto Enri L, Baratta F, Pignata I, Brusa P . How to promote vaccinations: a pilot study in the North-West of Italy. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2019; 15(5):1075-1079. PMC: 6605863. DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2019.1581540. View

4.
Kaaijk P, Kleijne D, Knol M, Harmsen I, Ophorst O, Rots N . Parents' attitude toward multiple vaccinations at a single visit with alternative delivery methods. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2014; 10(8):2483-9. PMC: 4896758. DOI: 10.4161/hv.29361. View

5.
Lee J, Yoon W, Kim S, Kim D, Kim S, So C . BioBERT: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining. Bioinformatics. 2019; 36(4):1234-1240. PMC: 7703786. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz682. View