Our health care research intern, Adelaide Masterson, wrote this piece to assess disruptive potential in the vaccine delivery market.
As the prevalence of infectious disease increases and demand rises for immunizations, it’s no surprise that the vaccine market has seen significant growth globally. The market is projected to reach $69.21 billion this year and grow up to $88.61 billion by 2029. Governments worldwide seek to increase vaccination coverage and control health care expenditures, yet they are met with barriers due to supply chain disruptions and syringe shortages following the COVID-19 pandemic.
Syringes have been the gold standard of immunizations for years. The syringe method allows clinicians to administer vaccines with accuracy, control, and precision while minimizing waste and contamination risk. As we continue to rebound from the pandemic and recent syringe recalls, the market seems ripe for disruption.
Three companies are rising to the challenge: Vaxxas, Vaxess Technologies, and Micron Biomedical.
They are developing similar technologies that may be the face of tomorrow’s vaccinations. The technology is known as microneedle array patches (MAPs), which have the potential for home-based, self-administration of both vaccines and therapeutics. MAPs are small, stamp-sized patches with microprojections coated in the dried vaccine. With a texture almost similar to a cat’s tongue, these microscopic projections can penetrate the skin, but not as deeply as a syringe. Although early-stage, MAPs show promise to be a next-generation, shelf-stable vaccine application technology.
Image source: UPMC
But do these innovators have what it takes to disrupt syringe incumbents? I used the Institute’s six-question test to evaluate that and compare Vaxxas, Vaxess Technologies, and Micron Biomedical to the industry’s status quo needle-and-syringe vial systems.
1. Does it target people whose only alternative is to buy nothing at all (non-consumers) or who are overserved by existing offerings in the market?
Yes, these companies are expanding the market with needle-free drug and vaccine delivery technology. Limited manufacturing and storage infrastructure can make traditional vaccines inaccessible in low-resource settings. Needle-and-syringe vial systems require temperature-controlled transportation and storage, which is often unavailable in these environments. Vaccinations via syringe must also be administered by a health professional, but shortages in the health workforce are most significant in areas that are often resource-poor. Given these conditions, individuals in these settings have no existing alternative, which means there are many non-consumers. These MAP models could fill a market gap while making pandemic preparedness available at home.
2. Is the offering not as good as existing offerings as judged by historical measures of performance?
Yes, when it comes to delivery efficiency and scalability. Compared to syringes, MAPs are still a work in progress for each of these innovators. They are undergoing clinical testing for delivery efficiency, volume capacity, and safety. Scalability of MAPs is also limited. Existing manufacturing capacity and supply chains would need to be improved to distribute these tools at a reasonable rate for infectious disease response. In contrast, syringes have proven their reliability, efficiency, and safety. They are available worldwide, have established supply chains, and are the generally accepted technique for vaccine administration.
No, if we are looking at pain levels and administration risk reduction. MAPs are relatively painless and effectively mitigate the risk of infection from administration. These are two key measures of performance that syringes struggle to improve on, making MAPs “better” than syringes.
3. Is the innovation simpler to use, more convenient, or more affordable than existing offerings?
Yes. These patches are a simpler and likely more affordable option compared to traditional syringe methods. For measles vaccinations, a MAP has been estimated to cost $0.95 for the first dose, whereas syringe delivery was estimated to cost $1.65. Experts estimate an 87% probability of operational cost savings (due to reduced storage requirements and labor costs) for vaccine developers and purchasers with the switch from existing systems.
4. Does the offering have a technology that enables it to improve and move upmarket?
Yes. As clinical trials progress, all three companies will be able to advance the technology to handle more vaccine content and become more precise. The technology also offers potential to handle a large number of emerging infectious diseases and other drug delivery opportunities. MAPs can shorten disease response time and relieve some of the labor burden on health care workers that we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic, making it attractive even in resource-sufficient areas.
5. Is the technology paired with an innovative business model that allows it to be sustainable?
Maybe. These three companies have identified an underserved value proposition in vaccine administration: improving preventive coverage in cost-effective ways. Then they designed their business models around serving that unmet need. They reduce their costs by leveraging the expansive and diversified network of resources available to them through strategic partnerships with other biotechnology companies and funders. This fuels their lower-cost business model. The value network keeps these companies informed on emerging diseases and provides reliable funding and research capacity to adapt to the needs of the vaccine market in real-time. Still, it’s too early to tell whether the business models implemented are innovative enough to allow these potential disruptors to be sustainable.
6. Are existing providers motivated to ignore the new innovation and not feel threatened by it at the outset?
Yes. Syringes are considered the gold-standard of care and perform very well, even at high volumes of vaccine. MAPs are not yet widely adopted, but are performing well enough for lower-end applications. Incumbents may feel less inclined to compete on that level of the vaccine market. Additionally, arguments have been made that these two can co-exist, which may make incumbents feel less threatened, even if we struggle with another syringe shortage.
Based on this six-question assessment, the business models behind MAPs from Vaxxas, Vaxess Technologies, and Micron Biomedical have disruptive potential when compared to traditional injectable syringe and vial systems.
Models with MAPs are tapping into components of the vaccine market that have been a lower priority for syringe developers in recent years, including pain and risk management as well as availability in low-resource settings. By prioritizing vaccine accessibility and thermostability, these companies have developed technologies that can change the game of vaccine development globally. As MAPs progress through clinical trials and the vaccine market continues to grow, these companies are ones to watch.
