Vaccine preparation time, errors, satisfaction, and preference of prefilled syringes versus RSV vaccines requiring reconstitution: randomized, time and motion study.

AIM: The current study compared preparation time, errors, satisfaction, and preference for a prefilled syringe (PFS) versus two RSV vaccines requiring reconstitution (VRR1 and VRR2) in a randomized, single-blinded time and motion study. METHODS: Pharmacists, nurses, and pharmacy technicians were randomized to a preparation sequence of the three vaccines. Participants read instructions, then consecutively prepared the three vaccines with a 3-5-min washout period in between. Preparations were video recorded and reviewed by a trained pharmacist for preparation time and errors using predefined, vaccine-specific checklists. Participant demographics, satisfaction with vaccine preparation, and vaccine preference were recorded. Within-subjects analysis of variance was used to compare preparation time. Mixed-effects Poisson and ordered logistic regression models were used to compare the number of preparation errors and satisfaction scores, respectively. RESULTS: Sixty-three pharmacists (60%), nurses (35%), and pharmacy technicians (5%) participated at four sites in the United States. The least squares mean preparation time per dose for PFS was 141.8 s (95% CI = 156.8-126.7; p <.0001) faster than for VRR1, 103.6 s (95% CI = 118.7-88.5; p <.0001) faster than for VRR2, and 122.7 s (95% CI = 134.2-111.2; p <.0001) faster than the pooled VRRs. Overall satisfaction (combined "Very" and "Extremely") was 87.3% for PFS, 28.6% for VRR1, and 47.6% for VRR2. Most participants (81.0%) preferred the PFS vaccine. LIMITATIONS: The study is limited by the inability to completely blind observers. To minimize the effects of order, we utilized a 3-sequence block design; however, the order in which the vaccines were prepared may have affected outcomes. Participants were assessed once, whereas if repeated preparations were performed there may have been trained efficiencies gained for each vaccine. CONCLUSION: PFS vaccines can greatly simplify the vaccine preparation process, allowing administrators to prepare almost four times more doses per hour than with vial and syringe systems.

Comparative Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccines Among Older Adults: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis Using the GRADE Framework.

INTRODUCTION: The mRNA vaccines mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 demonstrated high efficacy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in phase 3 clinical trials, including among older adults. To inform coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine selection, this systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis assessed the comparative effectiveness of mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 in older adults. METHODS: We systematically searched for relevant studies reporting COVID-19 outcomes with mRNA vaccines in older adults aged ≥ 50 years by first cross-checking relevant published SLRs. Based on the cutoff date from a previous similar SLR, we then searched the WHO COVID-19 Research Database for relevant articles published between April 9, 2022, and June 2, 2023. Outcomes of interest were SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalization, and COVID-19-related death following ≥ 2 vaccine doses. Random effects meta-analysis models were used to pool risk ratios (RRs) across studies. Heterogeneity was evaluated using chi-square testing. Evidence certainty was assessed per GRADE framework. RESULTS: Twenty-four non-randomized real-world studies reporting clinical outcomes with mRNA vaccines in individuals aged ≥ 50 years were included in the meta-analysis. Vaccination with mRNA-1273 was associated with significantly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.72 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64‒0.80]), symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.72 [95% CI 0.62‒0.83]), severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.67 [95% CI 0.57‒0.78]), and COVID-19-related hospitalization (RR 0.65 [95% CI 0.53‒0.79]) but not COVID-19-related death (RR 0.80 [95% CI 0.64‒1.00]) compared with BNT162b2. There was considerable heterogeneity between studies for all outcomes (I2 > 75%) except death (I2 = 0%). Multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses excluding specific studies generally demonstrated consistent results. Certainty of evidence across outcomes was rated as low (type 3) or very low (type 4), reflecting the lack of randomized controlled trial data. CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis of 24 observational studies demonstrated significantly lower risk of asymptomatic, symptomatic, and severe infections and hospitalizations with the mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 vaccine in older adults aged ≥ 50 years.

Network meta-analysis for indirect comparison of lanadelumab and berotralstat for the treatment of hereditary angioedema.

Aim: With no head-to-head studies comparing the effectiveness of lanadelumab and berotralstat for prevention of hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks, this network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to indirectly compare the effectiveness of these treatments. Materials & methods: The NMA, using the published data from Phase III trials, was performed using a frequentist weighted regression-based approach following Rücker et al. Efficacy outcomes of interest were HAE attack rate per 28 days and ≥90% reduction in monthly HAE attacks. Results & conclusion: In this NMA, lanadelumab 300 mg administered every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks was associated with statistically significantly higher effectiveness versus berotralstat 150 mg once daily (q.d.) or 110 mg q.d. for both efficacy outcomes assessed.

Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) Triple Therapy Compared with Other Therapies for the Treatment of COPD: A Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple therapies (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS], long-acting ß2-agonist [LABA], and long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) investigated the comparative efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus any triple (ICS/LABA/LAMA) combinations and dual therapies in patients with COPD. METHODS: This NMA was conducted on the basis of a systematic literature review (SLR), which identified RCTs in adults aged at least 40 years with COPD. The RCTs compared different ICS/LABA/LAMA combinations or an ICS/LABA/LAMA combination with any dual therapy (ICS/LABA or LAMA/LABA). Outcomes of interest included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), annualized rate of combined moderate and severe exacerbations, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and SGRQ responders, transition dyspnea index focal score, and rescue medication use (RMU). Analyses were conducted at 24 weeks (primary endpoint), and 12 and 52 weeks (if feasible). RESULTS: The NMA was informed by five trials reporting FEV1 at 24 weeks. FF/UMEC/VI was statistically significantly more effective at increasing trough FEV1 (based on change from baseline) than all triple comparators in the network apart from UMEC + FF/VI. The NMA was informed by 17 trials reporting moderate or severe exacerbation endpoints. FF/UMEC/VI demonstrated statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus single-inhaler budesonide/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR). At 24 weeks, the NMA was informed by five trials. FF/UMEC/VI showed statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus UMEC + FF/VI and BUD/GLY/FOR. FF/UMEC/VI also demonstrated improvements in mean SGRQ score versus other triple therapy comparators at 24 weeks, and a significant reduction in RMU compared with BUD/GLY/FOR (160/18/9.6). CONCLUSION: The findings of this NMA suggest favorable efficacy with single-inhaler triple therapy comprising FF/UMEC/VI. Further analysis is required as additional evidence becomes available.

Comparative Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Other Bronchodilators for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus other dual and mono-bronchodilator therapies in symptomatic patients with COPD. METHODS: A systematic literature review (October 2015-November 2020) was performed to identify RCTs ≥ 8 weeks long in adult patients with COPD that compared LAMA/LABA combinations against any long-acting bronchodilator-containing dual therapy or monotherapy. Data extracted on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbation rate were analysed using an NMA in a frequentist framework. The primary comparison was at 24 weeks. Fixed effects model results are presented. RESULTS: The NMA included 69 full-length publications (including 10 GSK clinical study reports) reporting 49 studies. At 24 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significant greater improvements in FEV1 versus all dual therapy and monotherapy comparators. UMEC/VI provided similar improvements in SGRQ total score compared with all other LAMA/LABAs, and significantly greater improvements versus UMEC 125 µg, glycopyrronium 50 µg, glycopyrronium 18 µg, tiotropium 18 µg and salmeterol 50 µg. UMEC/VI also provided significantly better outcomes versus some comparators for TDI focal score, rescue medication use, annualised moderate/severe exacerbation rate, and time to first moderate/severe exacerbation. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI provided generally better outcomes compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapies, and consistent improvements in lung function (measured by change from baseline in trough FEV1 at 24 weeks) versus dual therapies. Treatment with UMEC/VI may improve outcomes for symptomatic patients with COPD compared with alternative maintenance treatments.

Bronchodilators are medicines that open the airways, allowing patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to breathe more easily. There are two different types of bronchodilators, namely long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting ß₂-agonists (LABAs), which can be used on their own or combined (LAMA/LABAs). Only a few clinical trials have compared different LAMA/LABA combinations with each other, so it is unclear which LAMA/LABA combination provides the greatest benefits for patients.In this study, we used network meta-analysis to compare a LAMA/LABA combination medicine called umeclidinium and vilanterol (UMEC/VI) with other LAMAs and LABAs used alone or in combination to treat patients with COPD. Network meta-analysis is a way of comparing two or more medicines by analysing data from many studies. We systematically searched for evidence from clinical trials in adult patients with COPD that were at least 8 weeks long and that compared LAMA/LABA combinations with a LAMA, a LABA, or another LAMA/LABA combination. We analysed data from 49 clinical trials that met these criteria.We found that patients treated with UMEC/VI had better lung function than patients treated with alternative LAMA/LABA combinations or bronchodilators used on their own. Patients treated with UMEC/VI had better quality of life than those receiving some other treatments, but not all. All the medicines we compared had similar side effects.Our results suggest that treating patients with COPD with UMEC/VI might improve their lung function and quality of life more than alternative bronchodilators.

Indirect Comparison of Lanadelumab and Intravenous C1-INH Using Data from the HELP and CHANGE Studies: Bayesian and Frequentist Analyses.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) with C1-esterase inhibitor (C1-INH) deficiency is a rare disease associated with painful, potentially fatal swelling episodes affecting subcutaneous or submucosal tissues. HAE attacks recur with unpredictable severity and frequency throughout patients' lives; long-term prophylaxis is essential for some patients. In the absence of head-to-head studies, indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of long-term prophylactic agents is a valid approach to evaluate comparative efficacy. METHODS: We conducted an ITC using data from the placebo-controlled HELP study (assessing patients receiving lanadelumab 300 mg every 2 or 4 weeks) and the 12-week, parallel arm, crossover CHANGE study (assessing intravenous C1-INH). Outcomes of interest were attack rate ratio (ARR) and time to attack after day 0 (TTA0) and after day 70 (TTA70). Two ITC methodologies were used: a Bayesian approach using study results to update non-informative prior distributions to posterior distributions on relative treatment effects, and a frequentist approach using patient-level data from HELP and CHANGE to generate Poisson regressions (for ARR) and Cox models (for TTA0 and TT70). RESULTS: Both Bayesian and frequentist analyses suggested that lanadelumab reduced HAE attack rate by 46-73% versus intravenous C1-INH. Relative to intravenous C1-INH, risk of first attack after day 0 was comparable between intravenous C1-INH and both lanadelumab doses; risk of first attack after day 70 was reduced by 81-83% with lanadelumab 300 mg every 2 weeks, compared with C1-INH. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from these two ITC methodologies support the favorable efficacy of lanadelumab in reducing the HAE attack rate and extending attack-free intervals in patients with HAE.

Experience of mismatch repair/microsatellite instability (MMR/MSI) testing among patients with advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer in the US.

Objective: We assessed knowledge and awareness of MMR/MSI testing among advanced/metastatic CRC patients in the US who had previously taken the test.Methods: A non-interventional, cross-sectional online survey was conducted among 150 US CRC patients invited through a research panel. Eligible patients had to be ≥18 years, with stage III or IV CRC (self-reported), had undergone MMR/MSI testing for CRC in past 12 months and could recall the test, and provided informed consent. Descriptive analyses were performed.Results: 81.3% of patients received MMR/MSI testing information from their doctor. Of 64.7% of patients who were a member of a patient support group, 86.6% received information from their groups. Most patients (82.7%) also searched for information on their own (internet searches). Most patients (93.5 to 96.9%) were satisfied with information received from these sources. Reasons for having testing done included increasing knowledge about their cancer (69.3%), being beneficial to determining treatment options (60.7%), and doctor recommendation (62.7%). Key barriers to testing included personal reservations regarding benefits of the test (29.3%), insurance coverage (27.3%), and out-of-pocket costs (18.7%); 45.3% reported no barriers.Conclusions: Patients were well informed about MMR/MSI testing. Increased education of testing benefits and addressing financial barriers may help to further improve testing rates.

Mismatch Repair/Microsatellite Instability Testing Practices among US Physicians Treating Patients with Advanced/Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

The study objective was to assess US physicians' Mismatch Repair/Microsatellite Instability (MMR/MSI) testing practices for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. A non-interventional, cross-sectional online survey was conducted among 151 physicians (91 oncologists, 15 surgeons and 45 pathologists) treating mCRC patients in the US. Eligible physicians were US-based with at least 5 years of experience treating CRC patients, had at least one mCRC patient in their routine care in the past 6 months, and had ordered at least one MMR/MSI test for CRC in the past 6 months. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were performed. Awareness of specific MMR/MSI testing guidelines was high (n = 127, 84.1%). Of those, 93.7% (119/127) physicians had awareness of specific published guidelines with majority 67.2% (80/119) being aware of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Universal testing for all CRC patients was performed by 68.9% (104/151) physicians, while 29.8% (45/151) selectively order the test for some CRC patients. Key barriers for testing included insufficient tissue sample (48.3%, 73/151), patient declined to have the test done (35.8%, 54/151) and insurance cost concerns for patients (31.1%, 47/151), while 27.2% (41/151) reported no barriers. The survey demonstrated high awareness and compliance with MMR/MSI testing guidelines although universal testing rates seem to be suboptimal.

Fabry International Prognostic Index: a predictive severity score for Anderson-Fabry disease.

BACKGROUND: Anderson-Fabry disease (AFD) is a disorder of glycosphingolipid metabolism resulting from deficiency of α-galactosidase A and accumulation of globotriaosylceramide. Presentation is heterogeneous and, despite guidelines for initiation of therapy, there is no basis for defining subgroups that will progress more rapidly, whether treated or not. The authors of this study used clinical and pathological data recorded on 1483 patients in the Fabry Outcome Survey, a large international registry, to develop a prognostic severity score. METHODS: Parameters relevant to disease progression or outcome were initially selected, using variables that are readily available in clinical practice. Individual end points for renal, cardiac, neurological disease, and death were selected, and a composite end point developed. Potential prognostic variables were correlated with each end point, before multivariate analysis. Variables retaining significance were then used to construct organ specific and composite prognostic scores. Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis, according to score, was performed for each end point. RESULTS: Analysis demonstrated that it is possible to differentiate groups of patients with different outcome probabilities. Cardiac, renal and neurological end points could each be categorised into three separate groups. The 80% event-free survival for these groups differed by approximately 10 years. The overall composite score, the Fabry International Prognostic Index (FIPI), distinguished two distinct groups where the 50% event-free survival differed by 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: A prognostic scoring system for AFD has been developed and retrospective validation performed. The FIPI should prove to be a valuable tool in the counselling and management of AFD patients, and in comparative analyses of outcome using different therapies.