Search

Background The recombinant protein-based vaccine, NVX-CoV2373, demonstrated 89.7% efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in the United Kingdom. The protocol was amended to include a blinded crossover. Data to the end of the placebo-controlled phase are reported. Methods Adults aged 18–84 years received 2 doses of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo (1:1) and were monitored for virologically confirmed mild, moderate, or severe COVID-19 (onset from 7 days after second vaccination). Participants who developed immunoglobulin G (IgG) against nucleocapsid protein but did not show symptomatic COVID-19 were considered asymptomatic. Secondary outcomes included anti-spike (S) IgG responses, wild-type virus neutralization, and T-cell responses. Results Of 15 185 participants, 13 989 remained in the per-protocol efficacy population (6989 NVX-CoV2373, 7000 placebo). At a maximum of 7.5 months (median, 4.5) postvaccination, there were 24 cases of COVID-19 among NVX-CoV2373 recipients and 134 cases among placebo recipients, a vaccine efficacy of 82.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73.3%–88.8%). Vaccine efficacy was 100% (95% CI, 17.9%–100.0%) against severe disease and 76.3% (95% CI, 57.4%–86.8%) against asymptomatic disease. High anti-S and neutralization responses to vaccination were evident, together with S-protein–specific induction of interferon-γ secretion in peripheral blood T cells. Incidence of serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest were similar between groups. Conclusions A 2-dose regimen of NVX-CoV2373 conferred a high level of ongoing protection against asymptomatic, symptomatic, and severe COVID-19 through >6 months postvaccination. A gradual decrease of protection suggests that a booster may be indicated. Clinical Trials Registration EudraCT, 2020-004123-16.

This phase 3 observer-blind, randomized, controlled study was conducted in adults ≥18 years of age to assess the safety and immunogenicity of NVX-CoV2373 as a heterologous booster compared to BBIBP-CorV when utilized as a homologous booster. Approximately 1,000 participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a single dose of NVX-CoV2373 or BBIBP-CorV after prior vaccination with 2 or 3 doses of BBIBP-CorV. Solicited adverse events (AEs) were collected for 7 days after vaccination. Unsolicited AEs were collected for 28 days following the booster dose and serious adverse and adverse events of special interest (AESI) were collected throughout the study. For this interim analysis, anti-spike IgG and neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were measured at baseline, day 14, and day 28. The study achieved its primary non-inferiority endpoint and also demonstrated statistically higher neutralization responses of approximately 6-fold when NVX-CoV2373 was utilized as a heterologous booster compared with BBIBP-CorV as a homologous booster. Both vaccines had an acceptably low reactogenicity profile and no new safety concerns were found. Heterologous boosting with NVX-CoV2373 was a highly immunogenic and safe vaccine regimen in those previously vaccinated with BBIBP-CorV.

PREVENT-19, the pivotal phase 3 trial of the Novavax adjuvanted, recombinant spike protein COVID-19 vaccine (NVX-CoV2373) demonstrated that the vaccine was safe and efficacious (vaccine efficacy, VE= 90%) for the prevention of symptomatic COVID-19. In the trial, participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive 2 doses of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo 21 days apart. Throughout the study, SARS-CoV-2 circulating variant was predominantly alpha, but other variants circulated (i.e., beta, gamma, epsilon, and iota). VE among the per-protocol efficacy analysis population was calculated according to pre-specified disease severity (mild, moderate, or severe) criteria, but the impact on the risk of COVID-19– associated hospitalization was not specifically investigated. During the placebo-controlled portion of the trial (January 25, 2021, to April 30, 2021), 4 hospitalizations occurred among the 77 events analyzed for the primary endpoint using the per-protocol population, 0 among vaccine recipients and 4 among placebo recipients, yielding a VE against hospitalization of 100% (95% CI: 28.8, 100). Among an expanded efficacy population, which included COVID-19–associated hospitalizations without a requirement for diagnostic polymerase chain reaction testing performed at the study central laboratory, 12 total hospitalizations were identified, 0 among vaccine recipients and 12 among placebo recipients, yielding apost hocVE against hospitalization of 100% (95% CI: 83.1, 100). These additional data from the PREVENT-19 trial provide relevant public health information concerning the attributes of NVX-CoV2373.

Background The safety and immunogenicity profile of COVID-19 vaccines when administered concomitantly with seasonal influenza vaccines have not yet been reported. We therefore aimed to report the results of a substudy within a phase 3 UK trial, by evaluating the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 when co-administered with licensed seasonal influenza vaccines. Methods We did a planned exploratory substudy as part of the randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine (NVX-CoV2373) by co-administrating the influenza vaccine at four study hospitals in the UK. Approximately, the first 400 participants meeting the main study entry criteria—with no contraindications to influenza vaccination—were invited to join the substudy. Participants of the main study were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two intramuscular injections of either NVX-CoV2373 (5 μg) or placebo (normal saline) 21 days apart; participants enrolled into the substudy were co-vaccinated with a single (0·5 mL) intramuscular, age-appropriate (quadrivalent influenza cell-based vaccine [Flucelvax Quadrivalent; Seqirus UK, Maidenhead] for those aged 18–64 years and adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine [Fluad; Seqirus UK, Maidenhead] for those ≥65 years), licensed, influenza vaccine on the opposite deltoid to that of the first study vaccine dose or placebo. The influenza vaccine was administered in an open-label manner and at the same time as the first study injection. Reactogenicity was evaluated via an electronic diary for 7 days after vaccination in addition to monitoring for unsolicited adverse events, medically attended adverse events, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was assessed with influenza haemagglutination inhibition and SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike protein IgG assays. Vaccine efficacy against PCR-confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 was assessed in participants who were seronegative at baseline, received both doses of study vaccine or placebo, had no major protocol deviations affecting the primary endpoint, and had no confirmed cases of symptomatic COVID-19 from the first dose until 6 days after the second dose (per-protocol efficacy population). Immunogenicity was assessed in participants who received scheduled two doses of study vaccine, had a baseline sample and at least one post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol violations before unmasking (per-protocol immunogenicity population). Reactogenicity was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo and had data collected for reactogenicity events. Safety was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo. Comparisons were made between participants of the substudy and the main study (who were not co-vaccinated for influenza). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04583995. Findings Between Sept 28, 2020, and Nov 28, 2020, a total of 15 187 participants were randomised into the main phase 3 trial, of whom 15 139 received treatment (7569 received dose one of NVX-CoV2373 and 7570 received dose one of placebo). 431 participants were co-vaccinated with a seasonal influenza vaccine in the substudy (217 received NVX-CoV2373 plus the influenza vaccine and 214 received placebo plus the influenza vaccine). In general, the substudy participants were younger, more racially diverse, and had fewer comorbid conditions than those in the main study. Reactogenicity events were more common in the co-administration group than in the NVX-CoV2373 alone group: tenderness (113 [64·9%] of 174 vs 592 [53·3%] of 1111) or pain (69 [39·7%] vs 325 [29·3%]) at injection site, fatigue (48 [27·7%] vs 215 [19·4%]), and muscle pain (49 [28·3%] vs 237 [21·4%]). Incidences of unsolicited adverse events, treatment-related medically attended adverse events, and serious adverse events were low and balanced between the co-administration group and the NVX-CoV2373 alone group. No episodes of anaphylaxis or deaths were reported within the substudy. Co-administration resulted in no change to influenza vaccine immune response although a reduction in antibody responses to the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine was noted. NVX-CoV2373 vaccine efficacy in the substudy (ie, participants aged 18 to

BackgroundThe recombinant protein-based vaccine, NVX-CoV2373, demonstrated 89.7% efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in the United Kingdom. The protocol was amended to include a blinded crossover. Data to the end of the placebo-controlled phase are reported.MethodsAdults aged 18–84 years received 2 doses of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo (1:1) and were monitored for virologically confirmed mild, moderate, or severe COVID-19 (onset from 7 days after second vaccination). Participants who developed immunoglobulin G (IgG) against nucleocapsid protein but did not show symptomatic COVID-19 were considered asymptomatic. Secondary outcomes included anti-spike (S) IgG responses, wild-type virus neutralization, and T-cell responses.ResultsOf 15 185 participants, 13 989 remained in the per-protocol efficacy population (6989 NVX-CoV2373, 7000 placebo). At a maximum of 7.5 months (median, 4.5) postvaccination, there were 24 cases of COVID-19 among NVX-CoV2373 recipients and 134 cases among placebo recipients, a vaccine efficacy of 82.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73.3%–88.8%). Vaccine efficacy was 100% (95% CI, 17.9%–100.0%) against severe disease and 76.3% (95% CI, 57.4%–86.8%) against asymptomatic disease. High anti-S and neutralization responses to vaccination were evident, together with S-protein–specific induction of interferon-γ secretion in peripheral blood T cells. Incidence of serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest were similar between groups.ConclusionsA 2-dose regimen of NVX-CoV2373 conferred a high level of ongoing protection against asymptomatic, symptomatic, and severe COVID-19 through >6 months postvaccination. A gradual decrease of protection suggests that a booster may be indicated.

Background Large volume delayed sampling (LVDS) and pathogen reduction technology (PRT) are strategies for platelet processing to minimize transfusion of contaminated platelet components (PCs). This study holistically compares the economic and clinical impact of LVDS and PRT in the United States. Study design and methods A decision model was constructed to simulate collection, processing, and use of PCs and to compare processing strategies: PRT with 5-day shelf life, LVDS with 7-day shelf life (LVDS7), and LVDS with 5-day shelf life extended to 7 days with secondary testing (LVDS5/2). Target population was adults requiring two or more transfusions. Collection, processing, storage, and distribution data were obtained from the National Blood Collection and Utilization Survey and published literature. Patient outcomes associated with transfusions were obtained from AABB guidelines, meta-analyses, and other published clinical studies. Costs were obtained from reimbursement schedules and other published sources. Results Given 10,000 donated units, 9512, 9511, and 9651 units of PRT, LVDS5/2, and LVDS7 PCs were available for transfusion, respectively. With these units, 1502, 2172, and 2329 transfusions can be performed with similar levels of adverse events. Assuming 30 transfusions a day, a hospital would require 69,325, 47,940, and 45,383 units of PRT, LVDS5/2, and LVDS7 platelets to perform these transfusions. The mean costs to perform transfusions were significantly higher with PRT units. Conclusions Compared with PRT, LVDS strategies were associated with lower costs and higher PC availability while patients experienced similar levels of adverse events. Increased utilization of LVDS has the potential to improve efficiency, expand patient access to platelets, and reduce health care costs.

SummaryBackgroundThe safety and immunogenicity profile of COVID-19 vaccines when administered concomitantly with seasonal influenza vaccines has not yet been reported.MethodsA sub-study on influenza vaccine co-administration was conducted as part of the phase 3 randomized trial of the safety and efficacy of NVX-CoV2373. The first ∼400 participants meeting main study entry criteria and with no contraindications to influenza vaccination were invited to join the sub-study. After randomization in a 1:1 ratio to receive NVX-CoV2373 (n=217) or placebo (n=214), sub-study participants received an age-appropriate, licensed, open-label influenza vaccine with dose 1 of NVX-CoV2373. Reactogenicity was evaluated via electronic diary for 7 days post-vaccination in addition to monitoring for unsolicited adverse events (AEs), medically-attended AEs (MAAEs), and serious AEs (SAEs). Influenza haemagglutination inhibition and SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG assays were performed. Vaccine efficacy against PCR-confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 was assessed. Comparisons were made between sub-study and main study participants.FindingsSub-study participants were younger, more racially diverse, and had fewer comorbid conditions than main study participants. Reactogenicity events more common in the co-administration group included tenderness (70.1% vs 57.6%) or pain (39.7% vs 29.3%) at injection site, fatigue (27.7% vs 19.4%), and muscle pain (28.3% vs 21.4%). Rates of unsolicited AEs, MAAEs, and SAEs were low and balanced between the two groups. Co-administration resulted in no change to influenza vaccine immune response, while a reduction in antibody responses to the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine was noted. Vaccine efficacy in the sub-study was 87.5% (95% CI: -0.2, 98.4) while efficacy in the main study was 89.8% (95% CI: 79.7, 95.5).InterpretationThis is the first study to demonstrate the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy profile of a COVID-19 vaccine when co-administered with seasonal influenza vaccines. The results suggest concomitant vaccination may be a viable immunisation strategy.FundingThis study was funded by Novavax, Inc.Research in ContextEvidence before this studyWe searched PubMed for research articles published from December 2019 until 1 April 2021 with no language restrictions for the terms “SARS-CoV-2”, “COVID-19”, “vaccine”, “co-administration”, and “immunogenicity”. There were no peer-reviewed publications describing the simultaneous use of any SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and another vaccine. Several vaccine manufacturers had recent publications on phase 3 trials results (Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and the Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology). Neither these publications nor their clinical trials’ protocols (when publicly available) described co-administration and they often had trial criteria specifically excluding those with recent or planned vaccination with any licenced vaccine near or at the time of any study injection.Added value of this studyImmune interference and safety are always a concern when two vaccines are administered at the same time. This is the first study to demonstrate the safety and immunogenicity profile and clinical vaccine efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine when co-administered with a seasonal influenza vaccine.Implications of all the available evidenceThis study provides much needed information to help guide national immunisation policy decision making on the critical issue of concomitant use of COVID-19 vaccines with influenza vaccines.

BackgroundCovid-19 vaccines are urgently needed, especially against emerging variants. NVX-CoV2373 is a recombinant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 rS) nanoparticle vaccine containing trimeric full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and Matrix-M adjuvant.MethodsA phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in adults 18-84 years old who received two intramuscular 5-µg doses, 21 days apart, of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo (1:1) across 33 sites in the United Kingdom. The primary efficacy endpoint was virologically confirmed symptomatic Covid-19 with onset 7 days after second vaccination in serologically negative participants.ResultsA total of 15,187 participants were randomized, of whom 7569 received NVX-CoV2373 and 7570 received placebo; 27.2% were 65 years or older, 44.7% had comorbidities and 4.2% had baseline serological evidence of SARS-CoV-2. There were 10 cases of Covid-19 among NVX-CoV2373 recipients and 96 cases among placebo recipients, with symptom onset at least 7 days after second vaccination; NVX-CoV2373 was 89.7% (95% confidence interval, 80.2 to 94.6) effective in preventing Covid-19, with no hospitalizations or deaths reported. There were five cases of severe Covid-19, all in the placebo group. Post hoc analysis revealed efficacies of 96.4% (73.8 to 99.5) and 86.3% (71.3 to 93.5) against the prototype strain and B.1.1.7 variant, respectively. Vaccine efficacy was similar across subgroups, including participants with comorbidities and those ≥65 years old. Reactogenicity was generally mild and transient. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and similar in the two groups.ConclusionA two-dose regimen of NVX-CoV2373 conferred 89.7% protection against a blend of prototype and variant Covid-19, demonstrated high efficacy against the B.1.1.7 variant, and had a reassuring safety profile.(Funded by Novavax, Inc. EudraCT number, 2020-004123-16).

Purpose: To evaluate the budget impact of adding a diagnostic test of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 2 and insulin-like growth factor binding protein 7 ([TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7]), which identifies patients at risk of moderate-to-severe acute kidney injury (AKI), to the current standard of care (SOC) in a hospital setting. Materials and methods: A budget impact model (2017 USD) was developed from the perspective of a hypothetical US hospital system serving 10,000 inpatients annually. The model estimated the impact of assessing the risk of AKI using SOC vs a combination of SOC and the US Food and Drug Administration-approved assay [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] over a 1-year period. Potential cost implications were assessed using estimates for payer mix among patients, diagnostic efficacy, and patient healthcare resource utilization. The model also considered provider adoption rates and the estimated costs of [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7]. Results: Compared to SOC alone, adding [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] to SOC was associated with a $1,855 reduction in uncompensated care per patient tested, which, after accounting for the additional costs of the test ($277), resulted in net savings of $1,578 per patient tested. The findings were robust to input parameter variations, as demonstrated by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. In the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, net cost savings to the hospital ranged from $50,308–$3,971,514, or $101–$7,943 per tested patient (mean = $1,710; 95% confidence interval = $1,691–$1,729). Conclusions: The introduction of [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] as a novel tool in the identification of AKI risk may result in considerable cost savings from a hospital perspective under this model’s base-case assumptions. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings in a real-world setting.Key points for decision makersAn economic model was constructed to determine the budget impact of adding a diagnostic test ([TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7]), which identifies patients at risk of moderate-to-severe acute kidney injury, to the current standard of care (SOC) in a hospital setting.According to the present model, the use of [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] to identify acute kidney injury risk may reduce costs for hospitals by ∼$1,578 per patient tested. An economic model was constructed to determine the budget impact of adding a diagnostic test ([TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7]), which identifies patients at risk of moderate-to-severe acute kidney injury, to the current standard of care (SOC) in a hospital setting. According to the present model, the use of [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] to identify acute kidney injury risk may reduce costs for hospitals by ∼$1,578 per patient tested.

Objective: To characterize mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) patients in the USA, describing location of diagnosis, timing, and modality of imaging procedures, health-care resource utilization (HRU) and costs in the 12-month period post-diagnosis. Research Design: Retrospective claims analysis Methods: Anonymized data from the OptumHealth Care Solutions claims database (2006-2016). The index date was the first date with an mTBI diagnosis. HRU and costs (2016 USD) were assessed in the 12-month post-index period. Results: A total of 80,004 patients with mTBI were included: 60% were under 26 years and 54% were male. Mild TBI was most frequently diagnosed in an emergency department (ED) for all age groups, except patients aged 11-17 years, for whom the outpatient setting was the most frequent place of diagnosis. Almost half (47%) received brain imaging on the index date, with 98% of which receiving computed tomography. Mean follow-up health-care costs were $13,564 (SD = $41,071), primarily from inpatient ($4,675, SD = $29,982) and non-ED outpatient/physician office visits ($4,207, SD = $12,697). Older patients had greater HRU and higher health-care costs. Conclusions: The findings of this claims-based study show substantial HRU and costs associated with mTBI diagnosis during a 12-month follow-up period.

Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are generally used to detect respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in infants. However, midturbinate (MT) swabs may provide comparable results. In this study, we enrolled hospitalized infants aged

Background Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a seasonal infection affecting most children by 2 years of age and the leading cause of lower respiratory tract infection requiring hospitalization in infants. Novel antiviral medications are in development to improve the clinical outcomes of RSV; however, no clinical outcome assessments (COAs) for RSV have been developed in alignment with the United States Food and Drug Administration patient-reported outcome guidance to assist in the evaluation of new therapies. To address this need, an observer-reported outcome (ObsRO) measure designed to assess observable RSV symptoms was created. Methods The literature was reviewed to evaluate existing COAs and identify constructs of interest. Individual caregiver interviews elicited concepts that informed item development, and candidate items were subsequently evaluated in two rounds of cognitive testing. Separate cohorts of caregivers of RSV-infected nonhospitalized and hospitalized infants participated. Therapeutic-area experts provided input throughout the instrument development process. Results Caregivers of 39 children

Background There are no clinical outcome assessment (COA) tools developed in accordance with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance suitable for the evaluation of symptoms associated with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection among infants. The Gilead RSV Caregiver Diary (GRCD) is being developed to fulfill this need; the present research evaluates the GRCD and documents its reliability, validity, and responsiveness among children

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a common cause of infant hospitalizations and is increasingly recognized as a cause of considerable morbidity and mortality. No accepted antiviral treatment exists.We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of GS-5806, an oral RSV-entry inhibitor, in healthy adults who received a clinical challenge strain of RSV intranasally. Participants were monitored for 12 days. At the time of a positive test for RSV infection or 5 days after inoculation, whichever occurred first, participants were randomly assigned to receive GS-5806 or placebo in one of seven sequential cohorts. Cohorts 1 to 4 received a first dose of 50 mg of GS-5806 and then 25 mg daily for the next 4 days, cohort 5 received a first dose of 50 mg and then 25 mg daily for the next 2 days, cohort 6 received one 100-mg dose, and cohort 7 received a first dose of 10 mg and then 5 mg daily for the next 4 days. Dose selection for cohorts 5, 6, and 7 occurred after an interim analysis of data for cohorts 1 to 4. The primary end point was the area under the curve (AUC) for the viral load, which was assessed after administration of the first dose through the 12th day after inoculation. Secondary end points were mucus weight and symptom scores.Among the 54 participants in cohorts 1 to 4 who were infected with RSV, active treatment was associated with a lower viral load (adjusted mean, 250.7 vs. 757.7 log10 plaque-forming-unit equivalents [PFUe] × hours per milliliter; P0.001), lower total mucus weight (mean, 6.9 g vs. 15.1 g; P=0.03), and a lower AUC for the change from baseline in symptom scores (adjusted mean, -20.2 vs. 204.9 × hours; P=0.005). The results were similar in cohorts 5, 6, and 7. Adverse events, including low neutrophil counts and increased levels of alanine aminotransferase, were more common among participants receiving GS-5806.Treatment with GS-5806 reduced the viral load and the severity of clinical disease in a challenge study of healthy adults. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01756482.).

Background Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is the most common cause of bronchiolitis and pneumonia in infants and children. Diagnosis of RSV can be made by molecular detection of the virus in a swab of respiratory secretions. Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are the most frequent swab type validated for the detection of RSV, and are often considered the “gold standard” for quantification studies. However, NP sampling is invasive and uncomfortable. We sought to determine whether a less invasive method, a mid-turbinate (MT) swab, was comparable to NP sampling for quantification of RSV in infants. Methods We prospectively enrolled children < 24 months with a confirmed diagnosis of RSV and hospitalized at Primary Children’s Hospital (Salt Lake City, UT) during the 2015 – 2017 RSV seasons. Both an NP and MT swab were collected from each infant from different nostrils; subjects were randomized (1:1:1:1) as to the order of collection. After collection, parents were asked which collection method (NP vs. MT) they preferred. Viral loads were measured by real-time RT-qPCR. Correlation between the viral loads from the MT and NP swabs was examined. A mixed effect model was used to evaluate the mean (SD) viral loads. Results 83 infants were enrolled and had swabs collected. Median age was 4 months [range 0–23]. 20 infants had swabs collected on multiple consecutive days. Median (Q1,Q3) duration of symptoms prior to enrollment was 5 days (4,7) Median (Q1,Q3) hospital stay length was 2 days (2,4). 1 infant was RSV negative according to the RT-qPCR assay. The mean (SD) viral loads were similar: 7.34 (1.26) and 7.09 (1.25) log10 copies/mL for 77 paired NP and MT swabs, respectively; see Figure 1 for median, range and quartiles. The correlation coefficient between the paired viral loads was high (0.82); see Figure 2 for Bland-Altman plot. Most parents (49/67 [73%]) who watched the swabbing preferred the MT to the NP swab. Conclusion MT swabs perform as well as NP swabs for the quantification of RSV in infants. The difference in mean viral load is small compared with the standard deviation. The less invasive MT swabs are preferred by parents for sampling. MT swabs have the potential to replace the NP swab as the “gold standard” for quantitative respiratory viral sampling. Disclosures A. J. Blaschke, Gilead Sciences, Inc: Investigator, Research support BioFire Diagnostics, LLC: Collaborator, I have intellectual property in BioFire Diagnostics through the University of Utah and Investigator, Licensing agreement or royalty and Research support

Previous studies have described that pediatric offices are ill-prepared for medical emergencies. Pediatric "mock codes" have been utilized to increase the emergency preparedness of inpatient medical units for several decades. These practice drills have been shown to both increase practitioners' confidence and decrease anxiety during actual resuscitations. Although the use of mock codes is recommended in the outpatient setting, these benefits have yet to be demonstrated for office-based practitioners.We conducted this study to determine whether mock codes performed in pediatric primary care offices increase practitioner confidence to perform life-saving skills.Pediatric group practices participated in a clinical trial of an office-based, 2-step, emergency preparedness training. First, physicians and staffs attended a 1-hour didactic program which included staff education, office emergency protocols, emergency equipment and medications, and guidelines on instituting a mock code program. Second, each practice participated in a 10-15-minute mock code exercise. The drill was conducted by pediatric advanced life support instructors. After the code, a 30-minute feedback session was conducted which reviewed office coordination, individual skill performance, and approach to resuscitation. Each participating practice also received an infant manikin and a text complete with several mock codes scenarios written specifically for the pediatric primary care office. Evaluation of the intervention consisted of 2 components. (1) Pre- and postintervention completion of a self-administered survey assessed participants' comfort in emergency situations and confidence to perform specific life-saving skills, using an ordinal scale: 1 = "strongly agree" to 5 = "strongly disagree". (2) Practices were contacted by telephone 12 months after the training to determine whether they had implemented improvements in emergency preparedness, including instituting mock codes, preparing a written emergency protocol and purchasing new emergency equipment and medications.Eleven group pediatric practices participated, which were representative of urban, suburban, and rural offices in southwestern Pennsylvania. Ninety-seven of a total 164 (59%) physicians and staff members completed both pre- and postintervention surveys. Practitioner participants were analyzed in 2 groups. Group 1 consisted of physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants; group 2 consisted of registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and medical assistants. Comparison of pre- versus postintervention surveys in both of these groups revealed significant improvement in reported confidence to perform resuscitation skills that were included in the mock code after the training: airway positioning (group 1, 67% vs. 94%, P0.001; group 2, 55% vs. 75%, P = 0.003), airway suctioning, (group 1, 64% vs. 88%, P = 0.005; group 2, 27% vs. 51%, P0.001), and bag-mask assisted ventilation (group 1, 82% vs. 91%, P = 0.003; group 2, 39% vs. 71%, P0.001). In addition, group 1 reported more confidence in their ability to place an intraossesous line (24% vs. 39%, P = 0.003) and group 2 showed a significant increase in their confidence to administer oxygen (65% vs. 84%, P0.001). As a result of the mock code, 83% of all participants, both medical and nonmedical staffs, and 96% of physicians felt less anxious about medical emergencies in the office. Twelve months after the conclusion of the program, 18% of offices had conducted 1 or more mock codes, 64% of offices had written an emergency protocol, and 27% of offices had acquired essential resuscitation medications or equipment.The results of this study support the recommendation that mock codes should be performed in the pediatric primary care setting to improve practitioner confidence and decrease practitioner anxiety.

Objectives To describe study design considerations and to simulate a trial of biomarker-guided sepsis management aimed to reduce acute kidney injury (acute kidney injury). Tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-2 and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7 , urinary biomarkers of cell-cycle arrest, and indicators of kidney stress can detect acute kidney injury before clinical manifestations. We sought to determine the event rates for acute kidney injury as a function of serial measurements of urinary (tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-2)•(insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7) in patients at risk of sepsis-associated acute kidney injury, so that an escalating series of kidney-sparing sepsis bundles based on international guidelines could be applied. Design We described the study protocol of "Limiting acute kidney injury Progression In Sepsis," a phase 4, multicenter, adaptive, randomized controlled trial. We performed simulations to estimate the rates for the trial's primary endpoint using patient-level data from two previous studies (Sapphire and Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock). Setting Academic and community ICUs. Patients Critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock, without evidence of stage 2/3 acute kidney injury at enrollment. Interventions None. Measurements and main results Our primary endpoint is progression of two or more stages of acute kidney injury, death, or dialysis within 72 hours after enrollment. In the Sapphire simulation, 45 of 203 patients (22%) with sepsis met the endpoint. In Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock, 144 of 607 patients (24%) with septic shock met the endpoint. In both simulations, (tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-2)•(insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7) patterns, suggested by Limiting acute kidney injury Progression In Sepsis protocol, stratified the risk for the endpoint from 6% (three negative tests) to 41% (for patients eligible for the highest level of kidney-sparing sepsis bundle) in Sapphire, and 14% (two negative tests) to 46% (for the highest level of kidney-sparing sepsis bundle) in Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock. Conclusions Findings of our Limiting acute kidney injury Progression In Sepsis trial simulation confirmed that (tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-2)•(insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7) could identify patients with different rates of progression to moderate/severe acute kidney injury, death, or dialysis in 72 hours. The Limiting acute kidney injury Progression In Sepsis protocol algorithm is therefore feasible in terms of identifying suitably high-risk individuals for kidney-sparing sepsis bundle.