This story summarizes three different alternatives to the classic needle-and-syringe delivery method for vaccinations.
The story does some things well; it discusses price and effectiveness for some of the options under research. But there were some holes in the story when it came to discussing the medical evidence–and its limitations. We also think the story would have been stronger with an independent viewpoint.
Parents in particular are hopeful that one day vaccines will be delivered without needles, and many will likely read this story with high interest. They need to know how solid the evidence is for these new alternatives in a consistent way.
The article provides information about the cost of both the flu vaccine patch and the jet-injector. The cost of giving flu vaccine by nasal spray isn’t provided.
The quantification of benefits in this article is a mixed bag. The description of the Georgia Institute of Technology flu patch study does provide some information about benefits of this vaccine delivery methods, but there is no description of the measured benefits of the jet injectors. The most complete comparative data on the benefits of the vaccine delivery method are in the briefer discussion of nasal spray. There we learn that the CDC reported the effectiveness of the spray was only 3 percent, so low that “no protective benefit could be measured” for children ages 2 to 17. The effectiveness of the flu shot was about 63% for the same age group. We would have liked to have seen this kind of discussion for all three alternatives in the story.
The focus of the article headline is convenience and comfort. It follows through on that focus by doing a fairly good job of addressing side effects of the various delivery mechanisms, though again, the information is somewhat uneven. The most thorough description of harms is provided in the flu patch section of the story, where we learn that participants in the clinical trial had some redness, itching and tenderness but no serious side effects. About the jet injection we learn it is much less painful than when it was used for smallpox vaccination back in the 1960s. The story also informs us that nozzles are changed between patients so the former problem with infection from using the same equipment has been resolved. No other harms (like the redness and itching associated with the patch, for example) are mentioned. The section of the story on nasal spray vaccines is short, and it doesn’t include any information about side effects or harms.
For the experimental flu patch, readers learn this was a randomized controlled trial that lasted six months, enrolling 100 people in three different groups. But, it was a phase 1 trial, meaning it’s preliminary evidence–that should have been made clear, particularly as that explains why it’s hard to know how effective it is, for now.
There’s no information about the research behind the jet injection techniques. Regarding the nasal spray, a recent study is mentioned but the research design is only implied. This is a bit strange considering that AstraZeneca, the producer of the product, says that evidence from several other studies contradicts the CDC’s conclusion. In a case like that, readers need more information.
The headline “Beyond the Nasty Needle” seems over the top. Still, it’s true that some people are pathologically afraid of needles, and the rest of the headline and article don’t approach the issue that dramatically.
The article mentions funders for all of the efforts described. But there is no independent source–everyone in the story seems to be connected to a commercial product.
This story is all about alternatives. In places it could provide more complete information, as noted above, but it definitely considers several options.
Overall, this story adequately addresses availability. It explains that flu patches aren’t yet available on the market; it may be some time until readers can walk down to the corner pharmacy and buy their own flu patch over the counter. The jet injection and nasal spray are described as already widely available.
The main focus of the story–the possibility that flu vaccine could be delivered via a micro-needle patch–comes across as an exciting new development. In actuality, the Georgia Institute of Technology team made that announcement three years ago. The new development this time around is that the immune response of study participants who used the patch was comparable to those who received a traditional injection.
This story does not appear to rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like