Patients' Perspectives and Feasibility of Home Monitoring in Acute Care: The AcuteCare@Home Flash Mob Study.

Objective: To determine patients' perspectives on home monitoring at emergency department (ED) presentation and shortly after admission and compare these with their physicians' perspectives. Methods: Forty Dutch hospitals participated in this prospective flash mob study. Adult patients with acute medical conditions, treated by internal medicine specialties, presenting at the ED or admitted at the admission ward within the previous 24 h were included. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who were able and willing to undergo home monitoring. Secondary outcomes included identifying barriers to home monitoring, patient's prerequisites, and assessing the agreement between the perspectives of patients and treating physicians. Results: On February 2, 2023, in total 665 patients [median age 69 (interquartile range: 55-78) years; 95.5% community dwelling; 29.3% Modified Early Warning Score ≥3; 29.5% clinical frailty score ≥5] were included. In total, 19.6% of ED patients were admitted and 26% of ward patients preferred home monitoring as continuation of care. Guaranteed readmission (87.8%), ability to contact the hospital 24/7 (77.3%), and a family caregiver at home (55.7%) were the most often reported prerequisites. Barriers for home monitoring were feeling too severely ill (78.8%) and inability to receive the required treatment at home (64.4%). The agreement between patients and physicians was fair (Cohens kappa coefficient 0.26). Conclusions: A substantial proportion of acutely ill patients stated that they were willing and able to be monitored at home. Guaranteed readmission, availability of a treatment team (24/7), and a home support system are needed for successful implementation of home monitoring in acute care.

Coagulation and inflammatory response after intramuscular or intradermal mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: secondary analysis of a randomized trial.

Background: Fractional-dosed intradermal (i.d.) vaccination produces antibody concentrations above the proposed proxy for protection against severe disease as compared with intramuscular (i.m.) vaccination and may be associated with a decreased prothrombotic effect. Objectives: To assess changes in coagulation following standard dosed i.m. or fractional-dosed i.d. (one-fifth of i.m.) mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and to determine the association between the inflammatory response and coagulation. Methods: This study was embedded in a randomized controlled trial assessing the immunogenicity of an i.d. fractional-dosed mRNA-1273 vaccine. Healthy participants, aged 18 to 30 years, were randomized (2:1) to receive either 2 doses of i.d. or i.m. vaccine. Blood was drawn prior to first and second vaccination doses and 1 and 2 weeks after the second dose. The outcomes were changes in coagulation parameters (primary endpoint peak height of the thrombin generation curve) and inflammation (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP]). Results: One hundred twenty-three participants were included (81 i.d.; 42 i.m.). Peak height increased after vaccination (i.m., 28.8 nmol; 95% CI, 6.3-63.8; i.d., 17.3 nmol; 95% CI, 12.5-47.2) and recovered back to baseline within 2 weeks. I.m. vaccination showed a higher inflammatory response compared with i.d. vaccination (extra increase hs-CRP, 0.92 mg/L; 95% CI, 0.2-1.7). Change in endogenous thrombin potential was associated with change in hs-CRP (beta, 28.0; 95% CI, 7.6-48.3). Conclusion: A transient increase in coagulability after mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccination occurred, which was associated with the inflammatory response. While i.d. administration showed antibody concentrations above the proposed proxy for protection against severe disease, it was associated with less systemic inflammation. Hence, i.d. vaccination may be safer.

Intradermal delivery of the third dose of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: safety and immunogenicity of a fractional booster dose.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the safety and immunogenicity of a dose-sparing fractional intradermal (ID) booster strategy with the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: COVID-19 naive adults aged 18-30 years were recruited from a previous study on primary vaccination regimens that compared 20 µg ID vaccinations with 100 µg intramuscular (IM) vaccinations with mRNA-1273 as the primary vaccination series. Participants previously immunized with ID regimens were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a fractional ID booster dose (20 µg) or the standard-of-care intramuscular (IM) booster dose (50 µg) of the mRNA-1273 vaccine, 6 months after completing their primary series (ID-ID and ID-IM group, respectively). Participants that had received a full dose IM regimen as the primary series, received the IM standard-of-care booster dose (IM-IM group). In addition, COVID-19 naive individuals aged 18-40 years who had received an IM mRNA vaccine as the primary series were recruited from the general population to receive a fractional ID booster dose (IM-ID group). Immunogenicity was assessed using IgG anti-spike antibody responses and neutralizing capacity against SARS-CoV-2. Cellular immune responses were measured in a sub-group. Safety and tolerability were monitored. RESULTS: In January 2022, 129 participants were included in the study. Fractional ID boosting was safe and well tolerated, with fewer systemic adverse events compared with IM boosting. At day 28 post-booster, anti-spike S1 IgG geometric mean concentrations were 9106 (95% CI, 7150-11 597) binding antibody units (BAU)/mL in the IM-IM group and 4357 (3003-6322) BAU/mL; 6629 (4913-8946) BAU/mL; and 5264 (4032-6873) BAU/mL in the ID-IM, ID-ID, and IM-ID groups, respectively. DISCUSSION: Intradermal boosting provides robust immune responses and is a viable dose-sparing strategy for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. The favourable side-effect profile supports its potential to reduce vaccine hesitancy. Fractional dosing strategies should be considered early in the clinical development of future mRNA vaccines to enhance vaccine availability and pandemic preparedness.

Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of intradermal mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: a non-inferiority, randomized-controlled trial.

Fractional dosing can be a cost-effective vaccination strategy to accelerate individual and herd immunity in a pandemic. We assessed the immunogenicity and safety of primary intradermal (ID) vaccination, with a 1/5th dose compared with the standard intramuscular (IM) dose of mRNA-1273 in SARS-CoV-2 naïve persons. We conducted an open-label, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands between June and December 2021. One hundred and fifty healthy and SARS-CoV-2 naïve participants, aged 18-30 years, were randomized (1:1:1) to receive either two doses of 20 µg mRNA-1273 ID with a standard needle (SN) or the Bella-mu® needle (BM), or two doses of 100 µg IM, 28 days apart. The primary outcome was non-inferiority in seroconversion rates at day 43 (D43), defined as a neutralizing antibody concentration threshold of 465 IU/mL, the lowest response in the IM group. The non-inferiority margin was set at -15%. Neutralizing antibody concentrations at D43 were 1789 (95% CI: 1488-2150) in the IM and 1263 (951-1676) and 1295 (1020-1645) in the ID-SN and ID-BM groups, respectively. The absolute difference in seroconversion proportion between fractional and standard-dose groups was -13.95% (-24.31 to -3.60) for the ID-SN and -13.04% (-22.78 to -3.31) for the ID-BM group and exceeded the predefined non-inferiority margin. Although ID vaccination with 1/5th dose of mRNA-1273 did not meet the predefined non-inferior criteria, the neutralizing antibody concentrations in these groups are far above the proposed proxy for protection against severe disease (100 IU/mL), justifying this strategy in times of vaccine scarcity to accelerate mass protection against severe disease.

Establishing immunogenicity and safety of needle-free intradermal delivery by nanoporous ceramic skin patch of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine as a revaccination strategy in healthy volunteers.

INTRODUCTION: Nanoporous microneedle arrays (npMNA) are being developed as skin patches for vaccine delivery. As alternative for needle-based immunisation, they may potentially result in higher vaccine acceptance, which is important for future mass vaccination campaigns to control outbreaks, such as COVID-19, and for public vaccination in general. In this study we investigated the safety and immunogenicity of needle-free intradermal delivery of a fractional third or fourth dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine by npMNA. METHODS: This study was an open-label, randomised-controlled, proof-of-concept study. Healthy adults were eligible if they had received a primary immunisation series against SARS-CoV-2 with two doses of mRNA-1273 (Moderna) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) mRNA vaccine. A history of a COVID-19 infection or booster vaccination with mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 was allowed if it occurred at least three months before inclusion. Participants were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive 20 µg mRNA-1273 vaccine, either through npMNA patch applied on the skin (ID-patch group), or through intramuscular (IM) injection (IM-control group). Primary outcomes were reactogenicity up to two weeks after vaccination, and fold-increase of SARS-CoV-2 spike S1-specific IgG antibodies 14 days post-vaccination. RESULTS: In April 2022, 20 participants were enroled. The geometric mean concentration (GMC) did not increase in the ID-patch group after vaccination, in contrast to the IM-control group (GMC was 1,006 BAU/mL (95% CI 599-1,689), 3,855 (2,800-5,306), and 3,513 (2,554-4,833) at day 1, 15 and 29, respectively). In addition, SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses were lower after ID vaccination through npMNA. CONCLUSION: Needle-free delivery of 20 µg mRNA-1273 vaccine by npMNA failed to induce antibody and T cell responses. As this is a potentially very useful vaccination method, it is important to determine which adjustments are needed to make this npMNA successful. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY (ON CLINICALTRIAL.GOV): NCT05315362.

Viral clearance, pharmacokinetics and tolerability of ensovibep in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19: A phase 2a, open-label, single-dose escalation study.

AIM: To assess viral clearance, pharmacokinetics, tolerability and symptom evolution following ensovibep administration in symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients. METHODS: In this open-label, first-in-patient study a single dose of either 225 mg (n = 6) or 600 mg (n = 6) of ensovibep was administered intravenously in outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 symptoms. Pharmacokinetic profiles were determined (90-day period). Pharmacodynamic assessments consisted of viral load (qPCR and cultures) and symptom questionnaires. Immunogenicity against ensovibep and SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing activity were determined. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout a 13-week follow-up. RESULTS: Both doses showed similar pharmacokinetics (first-order) with mean half-lives of 14 (SD 5.0) and 13 days (SD 5.7) for the 225- and 600-mg groups, respectively. Pharmacologically relevant serum concentrations were maintained in all subjects for at least 2 weeks postdose, regardless of possible immunogenicity against ensovibep. Viral load changes from baseline at day 15 were 5.1 (SD 0.86) and 5.3 (SD 2.2) log10 copies/mL for the 225- and 600-mg doses, respectively. COVID-19 symptom scores decreased from 10.0 (SD 4.1) and 11.3 (SD 4.0) to 1.6 (SD 3.1) and 3.3 (SD 2.4) in the first week for the 225- and 600-mg groups, respectively. No anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity was present predose and all patients had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at day 91. Adverse events were of mild-to-moderate severity, transient and self-limiting. CONCLUSION: Single-dose intravenous administration of 225 or 600 mg of ensovibep appeared safe and well tolerated in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Ensovibep showed favourable pharmacokinetics in patients and the pharmacodynamic results warrant further research in a larger phase 2/3 randomized-controlled trail.