What are the preferences of health care professionals in Germany regarding fully liquid, ready-to-use hexavalent pediatric vaccine versus hexavalent pediatric vaccine that needs reconstitution?

Diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis (DTaP) based combined vaccines have led to significant reduction in incidence of several serious pediatric infectious diseases. A new, fully liquid combined hexavalent vaccine has been introduced and has been shown to reduce administration time. This fully liquid vaccine may also be simpler to administer and could reduce handling errors. The present study was designed to understand the value that health care providers (HCPs) place on aspects of injection devices for combined hexavalent vaccine programs in Germany. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was designed to elicit the views of HCPs regarding hexavalent vaccines. The key attributes of injection devices were identified through a focused literature search and interviews with HCPs. Five key attributes, each with two or three levels were described which included: type of device, experience of this hexavalent vaccine on the German market, preparation time, probability of handling errors, and dosage errors. Physicians (n=150) and nurses (n=150) who administered hexavalent vaccines in Germany completed the survey. Choice data were analyzed using the conditional logit procedure. All attributes were significant and important independent influences on physicians' and nurses' choices. Reducing any "probability of dosage errors" was the most important attribute. Both physicians and nurses had a strong preference to reduce preparation time. All other things equal both groups also significantly preferred a fully liquid hexavalent vaccine. They also preferred vaccines that had been on the market for a few years compared to ones that had not (especially the physicians). Additional analyses explored participants' preferences in more detail through interaction terms. The DCE choice data provide useful insights into how HCPs view each aspect of the vaccination device. Overall, the HCPs preferred fully liquid vaccines. The survey also highlighted the importance of handling and dosage errors, reducing preparation time, and also experience of the HCPs with the use of a vaccine. The survey work included physicians and nurses and explored their views separately.

Assessment of preparation time with fully-liquid versus non-fully liquid paediatric hexavalent vaccines. A time and motion study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Simplified vaccine preparation steps would save time and reduce potential immunisation errors. The aim of the study was to assess vaccine preparation time with fully-liquid hexavalent vaccine (DTaP-IPV-HB-PRP-T, Sanofi Pasteur MSD) versus non-fully liquid hexavalent vaccine that needs reconstitution (DTPa-HBV-IPV/Hib, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals). METHODS: Ninety-six Health Care Professionals (HCPs) participated in a randomised, cross-over, open-label, time and motion study in Belgium (2014). HCPs prepared each vaccine in a cross-over manner with a wash-out period of 3-5min. An independent nurse assessed preparation time and immunisation errors by systematic review of the videos. HCPs satisfaction and preference were evaluated by a self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: Average preparation time was 36s for the fully-liquid vaccine and 70.5s for the non-fully liquid vaccine. The time saved using the fully-liquid vaccine was 34.5s (p≤0.001). On 192 preparations, 57 immunisation errors occurred: 47 in the non-fully liquid vaccine group (including one missing reconstitution of Hib component), 10 in the fully-liquid vaccine group. 71.9% of HCPs were very or somewhat satisfied with the ease of handling of both vaccines; 66.7% and 67.7% were very or somewhat satisfied with speed of preparation in the fully-liquid vaccine and the non-fully liquid vaccine groups, respectively. Almost all HCPs (97.6%) stated they would prefer the use of the fully-liquid vaccine in their daily practice. CONCLUSIONS: Preparation of a fully-liquid hexavalent vaccine can be completed in half the time necessary to prepare a non-fully liquid vaccine. The simplicity of the fully-liquid hexavalent vaccine preparation helps optimise reduction of immunisation errors.

In vitro primary human and animal cell-based blood-brain barrier models as a screening tool in drug discovery.

Brain penetration is characterized by its extent and rate and is influenced by drug physicochemical properties, plasma exposure, plasma and brain protein binding and BBB permeability. This raises questions related to physiology, interspecies differences and in vitro/in vivo extrapolation. We herein discuss the use of in vitro human and animal BBB model as a tool to improve CNS compound selection. These cell-based BBB models are characterized by low paracellular permeation, well-developed tight junctions and functional efflux transporters. A study of twenty drugs shows similar compound ranking between rat and human models although with a 2-fold higher permeability in rat. cLogP < 5, PSA < 120 Å, MW < 450 were confirmed as essential for CNS drugs. An in vitro/in vivo correlation in rat (R² = 0.67; P = 2 × 10⁻4) was highlighted when in vitro permeability and efflux were considered together with plasma exposure and free fraction. The cell-based BBB model is suitable to optimize CNS-drug selection, to study interspecies differences and then to support human brain exposure prediction.