Overcoming Engineering Challenges to Enable Commercial-Scale mRNA Vaccine Manufacturing

Increasing production capacity may necessitate the facility to cater for higher hazardous area category (e.g., H-Occupancy) design features, such as specialized building construction and potential blast zones. [...]an assessment should cover: * Quantification of flammable material use for production steps, including buffer preparation and LNP storage * Equipment and facility cleaning strategies that contribute to the facility flammable materials inventory * Impact of HVAC design to avoid hazardous atmospheres (e.g., full fresh air), use of local exhaust ventilation (LEV) or fume hoods * Solvent distribution methods (e.g., closed solvent delivery and waste removal systems) * Location of solvent bulk storage outside of the processing area/ facility, and piping in what is necessary plus removing spent solvent in a timely manner (e.g., piped transfer to a waste tank for removal by a specialist contractor). At present, the process cannot be fully single-use, so thought needs to be put into the cleaning and sterilization processes, plus the analytical support infrastructure needed for reusable product-contact surfaces. [...]it is recommended that for each mRNA project, consideration is given to the following aspects to determine the link between the equipment available and the facility design: * Need for custom/proprietary equipment * Independent production rooms with "through-wall" buffer transfer through iris ports in from logistics corridor (Buffer Prep/Hold) * Room electrical classification needs versus process step. * Equipment selection versus electrical and fire code requirements * Benefits and limitations of implementing single-use technologies, given that the process will be hybrid (with stainless steel). [...]the limited capacity for outsourcing of supporting functions, such as facility environmental monitoring or product sterility testing, should be considered during concept design.

The relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and COVID-19 in children

Objective: To analyze the vaccination status of SARS-CoV-2 in children, and explore the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and COVID-19 in children. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted to analyze the clinical data of 335 cases of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection from February 15, 2022 to March 18, 2022 in Shenzhen Third People's Hospital. Results: Among 335 children with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 174(51.9%) cases were vaccinated with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine;33(31.4%) cases were vaccinated in the 3-<6 years old group;141(61.3%) cases were vaccinated in the 6-<14 years old group. There was a statistically significant difference in the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination between the 6-<14 years old group and the 3-<6 years old group (X2=26.1, P < 0.05). In the study cohort, 3-<6 years old group and 6-<14 years old group, there was no significant difference in the incidence of COVID-19 in the vaccinated group compared with the unvaccinated group (P > 0.05). In the study cohort, the proportion of confirmed cases of 1 dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and 2 doses or more of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was 89.5% (68 cases) and 77.6% (76 cases), respectively;in the 6~<14 years old group, the proportion of confirmed cases of 1 dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and 2 doses or more of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was 90.0% (54 cases) and 76.5% (62 cases), respectively;the differences were statistically significant (X2=4.264, P < 0.05;X2=4.279, P < 0.05). The IgG levels of 18.28 (6.61, 55.2) AU/mL and 58.3 (25.85, 131.41) AU/mL in the study cohort who were vaccinated for 1 dose, 2 doses and more, respectively;the IgG levels of 20.13 (8.33, 44.33) AU/mL and 56.57 (25.85, 150.07) AU/mL in the 6~<14 years old group who were vaccinated for 1 dose, 2 doses and more, respectively;and the differences were statistically significant (Z=-4.37, P < 0.05;Z=-3.96, P < 0.05). Conclusions: Children who received 2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine have a lower incidence of COVID-19 and higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies compared with who received 1 dose. It is recommended that children are advised to be vaccinated against the COVID-19.

COVID-19 breakthrough infection after four doses of the vaccines: a case report

The COVID-19 vaccines provide a high degree of protection against severe disease, hospitalisation, and death. However, no vaccine claimed 100% effectiveness and it is expected that a small proportion of vaccinated individuals may develop a breakthrough infection due to individual differences, virus variants and other factors. We conducted an epidemiological investigation and analysis of an imported case who had finished four doses of vaccination, and in order to provide a relevant reference for regular epidemic prevention and control in the post-pandemic era.

COVID-19 virus: the immune reaction to vaccines

The immune system is developed to preserve its hosts from an ever-expanding cluster of pathogenic microbes. The elimination of toxic substances, allergens, or any other harmful existences that come in, passing the mucosal surfaces, is as well the responsibility of this special system. Its ability to distinguish self (our bodies' functioning cells and tissues) from non-self is the key aspect to its ability to mobilize some reaction to an invasion initiated by the stranger substances listed above. To identify and kill unsafe microorganisms, the host applies both natural and versatile systems, our innate and adaptive immune systems. Vaccines are used to combat the current SARS-CoV-2 strain by utilizing immune system mechanisms, specifically the adaptive immune system. Vectored vaccines, protein vaccines, genetic vaccine, and monoclonal antibody for passive vaccination are among the vaccine platforms under consideration for SARS-CoV-2. Each vaccine has its own benefits and drawbacks. This paper is written to describe the three major forms of COVID-19 vaccines, as well as the unique mechanisms of elements of the immune system associated with the virus. © 2023 SPIE.

RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS FLARE FOLLOWING COVID-19 VACCINATION IN MALAYSIAN POPULATION AND ITS ASSOCIATED RISK FACTORS

BackgroundFlare of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) following COVID-19 vaccination has been reported with a low occurrence observed in those patients with disease remission. However, no local data is available in our multi-ethnic Malaysian population.ObjectivesTo evaluate the prevalence of RA flare in Malaysian patients following COVID-19 vaccination and its associated risk factors.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study assessing RA flare based on patient-reported disease flare through self-administered questionnaires and physician-reported flare. Patient self-reported disease flare was defined as ‘a sudden worsening of rheumatology condition or arthritis within 1 month post-vaccination' while physician-reported flare was defined as ‘an increment of disease activity score 28-joint documented within 3 months post-vaccination‘ from either a scheduled or unscheduled clinic visit. A total of 186 RA patients attended the rheumatology clinic in Hospital Putrajaya from May to July 2022 who completed the primary COVID-19 vaccination under the Malaysian National Vaccination Programme were recruited. Demographic data, disease parameters including serology for rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies (ACPA), cessation of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) around vaccination, type of vaccines and adverse events were examined using descriptive and univariate analyses.ResultsMajority (93%) of RA patients enrolled were female with a mean age of 58 years old (standard deviation, SD 12.2) and mean disease duration was 12 years (SD 7.7). More than half were seropositive (66% RF, 63% ACPA) with 47.4% had double seropositivity (RF and ACPA positive). All patients received DMARDs with the majority (71%) were on methotrexate (MTX), 21.5% were on leflunomide, 17.7% on other DMARDs, with a small proportion (14%) of patients were receiving prednisolone. Only 4.8% of patients were on biologics or targeted synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. Half of the patients were in remission prior to vaccination. 62% of patients received Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as the primary vaccine, followed by Sinovac-CoronaVac (24.6%) and Oxford-AstraZeneca (13.4%) vaccines. A booster dose had been administered to 80% of patients, of which 88.7% was Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. MTX therapy were discontinued in 39.4% of patients (n=52) post-vaccination for a week duration. The prevalence of RA flare was only 12.9% (n=24) in which 14 were self-reported and 10 were physician-reported flares (4 severe flare, 6 mild-moderate flare). Flare rates were higher during the first and second dose of vaccination with 29.2% respectively, and only 12.5% were reported after booster vaccination. Common vaccine adverse effects were fever (16.8%), myalgia (8.6%) and arthralgia (6.4%). There were no significant differences in the occurrence of flare post-vaccination between age, gender, disease activity prior to vaccination, types of vaccine, usage of MTX and prednisolone, and discontinuation of MTX post-vaccination. Although seropositivity did not exhibit statistically significant flare rate post vaccination, sub-analysis revealed four times higher rate of flare in those who has double positivity compared to seronegative RA patients (12% vs 4%).ConclusionPrevelance of RA flare post-COVID-19 vaccination in Malaysian RA population is low. No significant associated risk factors were identified although double seropositivity appeared to have higher number of flares.References[1]Bixio, R., Bertelle, D., Masia, M., Pistillo, F., Carletto, A. and Rossini, M. (2021), Incidence of Disease Flare After BNT162b2 Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in Remission. ACR Open Rheumatology, 3: 832-833.[2]Li X, Tong X, Yeung WWY, Kuan P, Yum SHH, Chui CSL, Lai FTT, Wan EYF, Wong CKH, Chan EWY, Lau CS, Wong ICK. Two-dose COVID-19 vaccination and possible arthritis flare among patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Hong Kong. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 Apr;81(4):564-568.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

IMPAIRED HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE IN PATIENTS WITH IDIOPATHIC INFLAMMATORY MYOPATHIES: A CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSIS FROM AN INTERNATIONAL E-SURVEY

BackgroundComprehensive and large-scale assessment of health-related quality of life in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) worldwide is lacking. The second COVID-19 vaccination in autoimmune disease (COVAD-2) study [1] is an international, multicentre, self-reported e-survey assessing several aspects of COVID-19 infection and vaccination as well as validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to outline patient experience in various autoimmune diseases (AIDs), with a particular focus on IIMs.ObjectivesTo investigate physical and mental health in a global cohort of IIM patients compared to those with non-IIM autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), non-rheumatic AIDs (NRAIDs), and those without AIDs (controls), using Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global health data obtained from the COVAD-2 survey.MethodsDemographics, AID diagnoses, comorbidities, disease activity, treatments, and PROMs were extracted from the COVAD-2 database. The primary outcomes were PROMIS Global Physical Health (GPH) and Global Mental Health (GMH) scores. Secondary outcomes included PROMIS physical function short form-10a (PROMIS PF-10a), pain visual analogue scale (VAS), and PROMIS Fatigue-4a scores. Each outcome was compared between IIMs, non-IIM AIRDs, NRAIDs, and controls. Factors affecting GPH and GMH scores in IIMs were identified using multivariable regression analysis.ResultsA total of 10,502 complete responses from 1582 IIMs, 4700 non-IIM AIRDs, 545 NRAIDs, and 3675 controls, which accrued as of May 2022, were analysed. Patients with IIMs were older [59±14 (IIMs) vs. 48±14 (non-IIM AIRDs) vs. 45±14 (NRAIDs) vs. 40±14 (controls) years, p<0.001] and more likely to be Caucasian [82.7% (IIMs) vs. 53.2% (non-IIM AIRDs) vs. 62.4% (NRAIDs) vs. 34.5% (controls), p<0.001]. Among IIMs, dermatomyositis (DM) and juvenile DM were the most common (31.4%), followed by inclusion body myositis (IBM) (24.9%). Patients with IIMs were more likely to have comorbidities [68.1% (IIMs) vs. 45.7% (non-IIM AIRDs) vs. 45.1% (NRAIDs) vs. 26.3% (controls), p<0.001] including mental disorders [33.4% (IIMs) vs. 28.2% (non-IIM AIRDs) vs. 28.4% (NRAIDs) vs. 17.9% (controls), p<0.001].GPH median scores were lower in IIMs compared to NRAIDs or controls [13 (interquartile range 10–15) IIMs vs. 13 (11–15) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 15 (13–17) NRAIDs vs. 17 (15–18) controls, p<0.001] and PROMIS PF-10a median scores were the lowest in IIMs [34 (25–43) IIMs vs. 40 (34–46) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 47 (40–50) NRAIDs vs. 49 (45–50) controls, p<0.001]. GMH median scores were lower in AIDs including IIMs compared to controls [13 (10–15) IIMs vs. 13 (10–15) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 13 (11–16) NRAIDs vs. 15 (13–17) controls, p<0.001]. Pain VAS median scores were higher in AIDs compared to controls [3 (1–5) IIMs vs. 4 (2–6) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 2 (0–4) NRAIDs vs. 0 (0–2) controls, p<0.001]. Of note, PROMIS Fatigue-4a median scores were the highest in IIMs [11 (8–14) IIMs vs. 8 (10–14) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 9 (7–13) NRAIDs vs. 7 (4–10) controls, p<0.001].Multivariable regression analysis in IIMs identified older age, male sex, IBM, comorbidities including hypertension and diabetes, active disease, glucocorticoid use, increased pain and fatigue as the independent factors for lower GPH scores, whereas coexistence of interstitial lung disease, mental disorders including anxiety disorder and depression, active disease, increased pain and fatigue were the independent factors for lower GMH scores.ConclusionBoth physical and mental health are significantly impaired in patients with IIMs compared to those with non-IIM AIDs or those without AIDs. Our results call for greater attention to patient-reported experience and comorbidities including mental disorders to provide targeted approaches and optimise global well-being in patients with IIMs.Reference[1]Fazal ZZ, Sen P, Joshi M, et al. COVAD survey 2 long-term outcomes: unmet need and protocol. Rheumatol Int. 2022;42:2151–58.AcknowledgementsThe authors a e grateful to all respondents for completing the questionnaire. The authors also thank The Myositis Association, Myositis India, Myositis UK, the Myositis Global Network, Cure JM, Cure IBM, Sjögren's India Foundation, EULAR PARE for their contribution to the dissemination of the survey. Finally, the authors wish to thank all members of the COVAD study group for their invaluable role in the data collection.Disclosure of InterestsAkira Yoshida: None declared, Yuan Li: None declared, Vahed Maroufy: None declared, Masataka Kuwana Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Ono Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Janssen, Astellas, Bayer, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Chugai, Eisai, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Nippon Shinyaku, Pfizer, Consultant of: Corbus, Mochida, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Naveen Ravichandran: None declared, Ashima Makol Consultant of: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Parikshit Sen: None declared, James B. Lilleker: None declared, Vishwesh Agarwal: None declared, Sinan Kardes: None declared, Jessica Day Grant/research support from: CSL Limited, Marcin Milchert: None declared, Mrudula Joshi: None declared, Tamer A Gheita: None declared, Babur Salim: None declared, Tsvetelina Velikova: None declared, Abraham Edgar Gracia-Ramos: None declared, Ioannis Parodis Grant/research support from: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Elena Nikiphorou Speakers bureau: Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Consultant of: Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Ai Lyn Tan Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Arvind Nune: None declared, Lorenzo Cavagna: None declared, Miguel A Saavedra Consultant of: AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Samuel Katsuyuki Shinjo: None declared, Nelly Ziade Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Johannes Knitza: None declared, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Medscape, Novartis, Consultant of: 4P-Pharma, AbbVie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Altavant, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galderma, Galapagos, Glenmark, Gossamer, iQvia, Horizon, Inventiva, Janssen, Kymera, Lupin, Medscape, Merck, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Prometheus, Redxpharma, Roivant, Sanofi, Topadur, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kymera, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Hector Chinoy Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly, UCB, Vikas Agarwal: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Consultant of: Mallinckrodt, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Bristol Myers-Squibb, EMD Serono, Kezar, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Alexion, Argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim (BI), Corbus, Janssen, Kyverna, Roivant, Merck, Galapagos, Actigraph, Abbvie, Scipher, Horizontal Therapeutics, Teva, Biogen, Beigene, ANI Pharmaceutical, Nuvig, Capella, CabalettaBio, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Mallinckrodt, Janssen, Q32, EMD Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Latika Gupta: None declared.

REDUCED HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE USING PROMIS IN PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSIS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL COVAD-2 E-SURVEY

BackgroundThe second COVID-19 vaccination in autoimmune disease (COVAD-2) study [1] is an international, multicentre, self-reported e-survey designed to evaluate several facets covering COVID-19 infection and vaccination as well as validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a variety of autoimmune diseases (AIDs), including systemic sclerosis (SSc). Detailed assessment of the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and its drivers in patients with SSc is lacking.ObjectivesTo assess physical and mental health in a global cohort of SSc patients in comparison with non-SSc autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), non-rheumatic AIDs (NRAIDs), and those without AIDs (controls) using Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global health data from the COVAD-2 survey.MethodsThe COVAD-2 database was used to extract demographics, AID diagnosis, comorbidities, disease activity, current therapies, and PROMs. PROMIS global physical health (GPH), global mental health (GMH) scores, PROMIS physical function short form-10a (PROMIS PF-10a), pain visual analogue scale (VAS), and PROMIS Fatigue-4a scores were compared between SSc, non-SSc AIRDs, NRAIDs, and controls. Outcomes were also compared between diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc) vs limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc). Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify factors influencing GPH and GMH scores in SSc.ResultsA total of 10,502 complete responses from 276 SSc, 6006 non-SSc AIRDs, 545 NRAIDs, and 3675 controls as of May 2022 were included in the analysis. Respondents with SSc were older [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 55 (14) vs. 51 (15) vs. 45 (14) vs. 40 (14) years old, mean (SD), p < 0.001]. Among patients with SSc, 129 (47%) had dcSSc and 147 (53%) had lcSSc. SSc patients reported a significantly higher prevalence of ILD [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 30.4% vs. 5.5% vs. 1.5% vs. 0.2%, p < 0.001], and treatment with MMF [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 26.4% vs. 9.5% vs. 1.1% vs. 0%, p < 0.001].Patients with SSc had lower GPH and PROMIS PF-10a scores [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 13 (11–15) vs. 13 (11–15) vs. 15 (13–17) vs. 17 (15–18), median (IQR), p < 0.001;39 (33–46) vs. 39 (32–45) vs. 47 (40–50) vs. 49 (45–50), p < 0.001, respectively] and higher Pain VAS and PROMIS Fatigue-4a scores compared to those with NRAIDs or controls [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 3 (2–5) vs. 3 (1–6) vs. 2 (0–4) vs. 0 (0–2), p < 0.001;11 (8–14) vs. 11 (8–14) vs. 9 (7–13) vs. 7 (4–10), p < 0.001, respectively]. Patients with AIDs including SSc had lower GMH scores compared to controls [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 12.5 (10–15) vs. 13 (10–15) vs. 13 (11–16) vs. 15 (13–17), p < 0.001].Among SSc patients, GPH, GMH, and PROMIS PF-10a scores were lower in dcSSc compared to lcSSc [dcSSc vs. lcSSc: 12 (10–14) vs. 14 (11–15), p < 0.001;12 (10-14) vs. 13 (10-15), p<0.001;38 (30–43) vs. 41 (34–47), p < 0.001, respectively]. Pain VAS and PROMIS Fatigue-4a scores were higher in dcSSc compared to lcSSc [4 (2–6) vs. 3 (1–5), p < 0.001;12 (8–15) vs. 9 (8–13), p < 0.001, respectively].The independent factors for lower GPH scores in SSc were older age, Asian ethnicity, glucocorticoid use, and higher pain and fatigue scales, while mental health disorders and higher pain and fatigue scales were independently associated with lower GMH scores.ConclusionIn a global cohort, patient-reported physical and mental health were significantly worse in patients with SSc in comparison to those with non-SSc AIDs and without AIDs. Our findings support the critical need for more attention to patient's subjective experiences including pain and fatigue to improve the HRQOL in patients with SSc.Reference[1]Fazal ZZ, Sen P, Joshi M, et al. COVAD survey 2 long-term outcomes: unmet need and protocol. Rheumatol Int. 2022;42: 2151–58.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsKeina Yomono: None declared, Yuan Li: None dec ared, Vahed Maroufy: None declared, Naveen Ravichandran: None declared, Akira Yoshida: None declared, Kshitij Jagtap: None declared, Tsvetelina Velikova Speakers bureau: Pfizer and AstraZeneca, Parikshit Sen: None declared, Lorenzo Cavagna: None declared, Vishwesh Agarwal: None declared, Johannes Knitza: None declared, Ashima Makol: None declared, Dey Dzifa: None declared, Carlos Enrique Toro Gutierrez: None declared, Tulika Chatterjee: None declared, Aarat Patel: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Consultant of: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Abbvie, Janssen, Kyverna Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roivant, Merck, Galapagos, Actigraph, Scipher, Horizon Therepeutics, Teva, Beigene, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Nuvig, Capella Bioscience, and CabalettaBio, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Abbvie, Janssen, Kyverna Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roivant, Merck, Galapagos, Actigraph, Scipher, Horizon Therepeutics, Teva, Beigene, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Nuvig, Capella Bioscience, and CabalettaBio, Latika Gupta: None declared, Masataka Kuwana Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Asahi-Kasei, Astellas, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai, MBL, Mochida, Nippon Shinyaku, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Consultant of: Astra Zeneka, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Corbus, GSK, Horizon, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Grant/research support from: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Vikas Agarwal: None declared.

Analysis of avian disease transmission risk and prevention measures in China

Many zoonotic diseases are found in wild animals and present a serious risk to human health, in particularly the virus carried by birds flying freely around the world is hard to control. There are three main bird migration routes which cover the most areas of China. It is important to investigate and fully understand the types of avian transmitted diseases in key areas on the bird migration routines and its impacts on both birds and human health. However, no literature is available in how about the risk of virus carried by migrating birds, and how to predict and reduce this risk of virus spreading to human being so far. In this paper, we first reviewed the main pathogen types carried by birds, including coronaviruses, influenza viruses, parasites, Newcastle disease virus (NDV), etc., and then discussed the spread risk of avian viruses to human being and animals in key areas of biosafety prevention. We also analyzed and discussed the risk of cross-spread of diseases among different bird species in nature reserves located on bird migration routes which provide sufficient food sources for migratory birds and attract numerous birds. Diseases transmitted by wild birds pose a serious threat to poultry farms, where high density of poultry may become avian influenza virus (AIV) reservoirs, cause a risk of avian influenza outbreaks. Airports are mostly built in suburban areas or remote areas with good ecological environment. There are important transit places for bird migration and densely populated areas, which have serious risk of disease transmission. Finally, this paper puts forward the following prevention suggestions from three aspects. First, establish and improve the monitoring and prediction mechanism of migratory birds, and use laser technology to prevent contact between wild birds and poultry. Second, examine and identify virus types carried by birds in their habitats and carry out vaccination. Third, protect the ecological environment of bird habitat, and keep wild birds in their natural habitat, so as to reduce the contact between wild birds and human and poultry, and thus reduce the risk of virus transmission.

The Effect of Primary School Education on Preventive Behaviours during COVID-19 in Japan

Education plays a critical role in promoting preventive behaviours against the spread of pandemics. In Japan, handwashing education in primary schools was positively correlated with preventive behaviours against COVID-19 transmission for adults in 2020, during the early stages of COVID-19. The following year, the Tokyo Olympics were held in Japan, and a state of emergency was declared several times. Public perceptions of and risks associated with the pandemic changed drastically with the emergence of COVID-19 vaccines. We re-examined whether the effect of handwashing education on preventive behaviours persisted by covering a longer period of the COVID-19 pandemic than previous studies. A total of 26 surveys were conducted nearly once a month for 30 months from March 2020 (the early stage of COVID-19) to September 2022 in Japan. By corresponding with the same individuals across surveys, we comprehensively gathered data on preventive behaviours during this period. In addition, we asked about the handwashing education they had received in their primary school. We used the data to investigate how and to what degree school education is associated with pandemic-mitigating preventive behaviours. We found that handwashing education in primary school is positively associated with behaviours such as handwashing and mask wearing as a COVID-19 preventive measure but not related to staying at home. We observed a statistically significant difference in handwashing between adults who received childhood handwashing education and those who did not. This difference persisted throughout the study period. In comparison, the difference in mask wearing between the two groups was smaller but still statistically significant. Furthermore, there was no difference in staying at home between them. Childhood hygiene education has resulted in individuals engaging in handwashing and mask wearing to cope with COVID-19. Individuals can form sustainable development-related habits through childhood education.

LONG-TERM AND BOOSTER VACCINATION RESPONSES IN PATIENTS WITH GIANT CELL ARTERITIS AND POLYMYALGIA RHEUMATICA

BackgroundVaccination remains essential in preventing morbidity of SARS-CoV-2 infections. We previously showed that >10mg/day prednisolone and methotrexate use were associated with reduced antibody concentrations four weeks after primary vaccination in patients with giant cell arteritis (GCA) and polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) [1].ObjectivesHere, we performed a follow-up study to measure the decay of antibody concentrations over time and the immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccination.MethodsGCA/PMR patients included in the primary vaccination (BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1) study were asked again to donate blood samples six months after primary vaccination (n=24) and one month after booster vaccination (n=46, BNT162b2 or mRNA1273). Data were compared to that of age-, sex-, and vaccine-matched controls (n=58 and n=42, respectively).ResultsAntibody concentrations decreased faster over time in GCA/PMR patients than in controls, but this decrease was not associated with treatment during primary vaccination. Post-booster antibody concentrations were comparable between patients and controls. Antibody concentrations post booster vaccination associated strongly with antibody concentrations post primary vaccination, but not with treatment during booster vaccination. However, the fold-change of post-booster vaccination showed a slight negative correlation with the post-primary vaccine antibodies.ConclusionThese results indicate that patients with impaired vaccine responses after primary vaccination, have slightly stronger increases in humoral immunity after booster vaccination, but this is not enough to reach a similar protection. The decrease in humoral immunity, and subsequent increase after booster vaccination, is likely not impacted by prednisolone or methotrexate treatment. Rather, these treatments put the patients at an immunogenic disadvantage during primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, which is not fully repaired by a single booster vaccination. This longitudinal study in GCA/PMR patients stresses the importance of repeat booster vaccination for patients that used >10mg/day prednisolone or methotrexate during primary vaccination.Reference[1]van Sleen Y, van der Geest, Kornelis SM, Reitsema RD, Esen I, Terpstra JH, Raveling-Eelsing E, et al. Humoral and cellular SARS-CoV-2 vaccine responses in patients with giant cell arteritis and polymyalgia rheumatica. RMD open 2022;8(2):e002479.Figure 1.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsYannick van Sleen: None declared, Kornelis van der Geest Speakers bureau: Speaker fees from Roche, Grant/research support from: Grant support from Abbvie, Annemarie Buisman: None declared, Maria Sandovici: None declared, Debbie van Baarle: None declared, Elisabeth Brouwer: None declared.

Research progress of nasal mucosal immunization vaccine against COVID-19

Respiratory mucosal immune system is the body's first line of defense against infection. Since the outbreak of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in 2019, nasal mucosal immune vaccine, with its ability to induce cellular, humoral and mucosal triple immune responses, has become a research hotspot. This article focuses on novel coronavirus, with an understanding of its structure and pathogenesis, a brief introduction to the immune mechanism of nasal mucosa, a summary of the different types of nasal mucosal immune vaccines and their clinical research, aiming to provide some theoretical reference for the development of new vaccines, and exploration of the best methods and strategies to combat COVID-19.

THE KINETICS OF HUMORAL AND CELLULAR RESPONSES AFTER THE BOOSTER DOSE OF COVID-19 VACCINE IN INFLAMMATORY ARTHRITIS PATIENTS

BackgroundImpaired immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccinations in inflammatory arthritis (IA) patients results in diminished immunity. However, optimal booster vaccination regimens are still unknown, due to unstudied kinetics of the immune response after booster vaccinations.ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the kinetics of humoral and cellular responses in IA patients after the COVID-19 booster.MethodsIn 29 IA patients and 16 healthy controls (HC) humoral responses (level of IgG antibodies) and cellular responses (IFN-γ production) were assessed before (T0), after 4 weeks (T1), and after more than 6 months (T2) from the booster vaccination with BNT162b2.ResultsIA patients, but not HC, showed lower anti-S-IgG concentration and IGRA fold change at T2 compared to T1 (p=0.026 and p=0.031). Furthermore, in IA patients the level of cellular response at T2 returned to the pre-booster level (T0). All immunomodulatory drugs, except IL-6 and IL-17 inhibitors for the humoral and IL-17 inhibitors for the cellular response, impaired the immunogenicity of the booster dose at T2. However, none of the immunomodulatory drugs affected the kinetics of both humoral and cellular responses (measured as the difference between response rates at T1 and T2).ConclusionOur study showed impaired kinetics of both humoral and cellular responses after the booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in IA patients, which, in the case of cellular response, did not allow the vaccination effect to be maintained for more than 6 months. Repetitive vaccination with subsequent booster doses seems to be necessary for IA patients.REFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

Knowledge, attitudes, and willingness of adolescents towards coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine in Bangkok, Thailand

Background: The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a COVID-19 pandemic on March 11, 2020. Therefore, the availability of vaccines will help develop immunity and protect people from this pandemic. The present systematic study examined knowledge, attitudes, and willingness of adolescents towards COVID-19 vaccine in Bangkok, Thailand. Objectives: The objective of the study was to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes, and willingness toward COVID-19 vaccine of key stage 4A-5 students at Satit Prasarnmit International Programme in Bangkok towards COVID-19 vaccine. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted using an online questionnaire. A total of 136 students participated. Knowledge, attitudes, and willingness of adolescents toward the COVID-19 vaccine were assessed. Differences between outcomes and socio-demographic characteristics of participants were analyzed through independent t-tests and the ANOVA. The level of willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 was analyzed by a generalized linear model. Results: Students revealed moderate knowledge about COVID-19, correctly answering 11.08 out of 15 points (SD = 1.74), a low level of attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine 8.49 out of 15 points (SD = 2.51), and low level of willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 vaccine 2.29 out of 5 points (SD = 1.26), in total of 35 points (28 questions). There are statistically significant positive correlations shown between attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine and the level of willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 vaccine (I2 = 0.384, P < 0.01%). Conclusion: This study revealed students in Satit Prasarnmit International Programme had moderate knowledge towards COVID-19, negative attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine and low willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19. Furthermore, it indicates that there is a casual relationship between attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine and the willingness of individuals to be vaccinated against COVID-19 vaccine. Thus, attitude toward COVID-19 vaccine acts as a major predictive factor toward the willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 vaccine. Therefore, to increase peopleA's willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19 vaccine, it is necessary to increase peopleA's attitude toward COVID-19 vaccine.

EVALUATION OF RESPONSE TO ADJUVANTED RECOMBINANT ZOSTER VACCINATION IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS RECEIVING UPADACITINIB: RESULTS FROM A RANDOMIZED TRIAL SUB-STUDY

BackgroundUpadacitinib (UPA) is an oral JAK inhibitor (JAKi) approved for the treatment of RA. JAKi have been associated with an elevated risk of herpes zoster (HZ) in patients (pts) with RA. The adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV, Shingrix) was shown to be well-tolerated and effective in preventing HZ in adults aged ≥ 50 years.[1] The efficacy and safety of RZV have not been studied in pts with RA while on UPA in combination with MTX.ObjectivesTo assess the immunogenicity of RZV in pts with RA receiving UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) with background MTX.MethodsEligible adults aged ≥ 50 years with RA enrolled in the ongoing SELECT-COMPARE phase 3 trial (NCT02629159) received two RZV doses, administered at the baseline and week (wk) 12 visits. Pts should have been on stable doses of UPA 15 mg QD and background MTX for ≥ 8 wks before the first vaccination and ≥ 4 wks after the second vaccination. Antibody titers were collected pre-vaccination (baseline), 4 wks post-dose 1 vaccination (wk 4), and 4 wks post-dose 2 vaccination (wk 16). The primary endpoint was the proportion of pts with a humoral response to RZV defined as ≥ 4-fold increase in pre-vaccination concentration of anti-glycoprotein E [gE] titer levels at wk 16. Secondary endpoints included humoral response to RZV at wk 4 and the geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in anti-gE antibody levels at wks 4 and 16. Cell-mediated immunogenicity to RZV was an exploratory endpoint evaluated by the frequencies of gE-specific CD4+ [2+] T cells (CD4+ T cells expressing ≥ 2 of 4 activation markers: IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α, and CD40 ligand) measured by flow cytometry at wks 4 and 16 in a sub-cohort of pts.ResultsOf the 95 pts who received ≥ 1 RZV dose, 93 (98%) received both RZV doses. Pts had a mean (standard deviation) age of 62.4 (7.5) years. The median (range) disease duration was 11.7 (4.9–41.6) years and duration of UPA exposure was 3.9 (2.9–5.8) years. At baseline, all but 2 pts were receiving concomitant MTX and half (50%) were taking an oral corticosteroid (CS) at a median daily dose of 5.0 mg. One pt discontinued UPA by wk 16. Blood samples were available from 90/93 pts. Satisfactory humoral responses to RZV occurred in 64% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 55–74) of pts at wk 4 and 88% (81–95) at wk 16 (Figure 1). Age (50–< 65 years: 85% [95% CI: 75–94];≥ 65 years: 94% [85–100]) and concomitant CS (yes: 87% [77–97];no: 89% [80–98]) use at baseline did not affect humoral responses at wk 16. GMFR in anti-gE antibody levels compared with baseline values were observed at wks 4 (10.2 [95% CI: 7.3–14.3]) and 16 (22.6 [15.9–32.2]). Among the sub-cohort of pts, nearly two-thirds achieved a cell-mediated immune response to RZV (wk 4: n = 21/34, 62% [95% CI: 45–78];wk 16: n = 25/38;66% [51–81]). Within 30 days post-vaccination of either RZV dose, no serious adverse events (AEs) (Table 1) or HZ were reported. AEs that were possibly related to RZV were reported in 17% of pts. One death occurred more than 30 days after wk 16 due to COVID-19 pneumonia.ConclusionMore than three-quarters (88%) of pts with RA receiving UPA 15 mg QD on background MTX achieved a satisfactory humoral response to RZV at wk 16. In a subgroup of pts, two-thirds (66%) achieved a cell-mediated immune response to RZV at wk 16. Age and concomitant CS use did not negatively affect RZV response.Reference[1]Syed YY. Drugs Aging. 2018;35:1031–40.Table 1. Safety Results Through 30-Days Post-RZV Vaccination in UPA-Treated PatientsEvent, n (%)UPA 15 mg QD (N = 95)Any AE38 (40%)AE with reasonable possibility of being related to UPAa13 (14%)AE with reasonable possibility of being related to RZVa16 (17%)Severe AEb1 (1%)Serious AE0AE leading to discontinuation of UPA0Death0AE, adverse event;QD, once daily;RZV, adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine;UPA, upadacitinib.aAs assessed by the investigator.bHypersensitivity.AcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, review, and approval of the . All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Julia Zolotarjova, MSc, MWC, of AbbVie.Disclosure of InterestsKevin Winthrop Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Justin Klaff Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanxi Liu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, CONRADO GARCIA GARCIA: None declared, Eduardo Mysler Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz, Alvin F. Wells Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi, Xianwei Bu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Nasser Khan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Michael Chen Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Heidi Camp Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Anthony Cunningham Consultant of: GSK, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and BioCSL/Sequirus.

Vaccine Hesitancy Among African Americans

The limited participation of African Americans in clinical trials has been a topic of discussion among medical and scientific researchers for some time. With the testing of coronavirus vaccines, this discussion has continued, particularly given the disproportionate impact of the virus on members of the African American community. With the public health goal of achieving widespread or "herd" immunity, the concept of "vaccine hesitancy" has also been addressed with regard to the population in general, and in relation to the African American community, among others. Vaccine hesitancy has been reported among groups from healthcare workers to rural residents to the poor. As is the case with all segments of society, African Americans are not monolithic. However, there are aspects of the issue of vaccine hesitancy which are unique and specific to the African American community in the U.S. In particular, the nature of the information about the coronavirus itself and about the vaccine, and importantly, the increasing availability of the information about the Tuskegee experiment, Henrietta Lacks, and other cases, along with the prevalence of misinformation and disinformation on aspects of science, such as that involving vaccines, are relevant to understanding the nature of vaccine hesitancy among African Americans.

PANDEMIC ALTERS POLICIES FOR DRUG DEVELOPMENT

The desperate need for new vaccines and therapies to tame the deadly COVID-19 virus required new policies and procedures for how biopharma companies select, test, and manufacture medical products-and revised regulatory practices for evaluating clinical data, manufacturing operations, and procedures for submitting and analyzing information. Vaccine experts at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) worked overtime to clarify the size and diversity of efficacy trials and key analytical assessments needed to gain EUA status and later full approval, establishing standards and procedures that will shape research for health emergencies to come. Officials at FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) indicate that the agency will continue to utilize many of these strategies for streamlining oversight of manufacturing operations, even as on-site visits increase overseas and at home, leading to a more "hybrid" inspection process going forward.

FDA CAUGHT IN POLITICAL CROSSFIRE

FDA's oversight of medical devices and diagnostics has put it in the hot seat for shortages of critical products for protecting medical personnel and for providing fast and accurate public testing for COVID infection. The result is that the White House has delayed in selecting an FDA commissioner, even though federal rules require Woodcock to vacate her acting position by mid-November unless the administration nominates a new commissioner, permitting her to continue on during the Senate confirmation process. The approval decision by CDER officials was blasted by members of Congress, the medical community and even some patient groups, but justified by the reviewers as likely to provide some benefit to some patients who lacked any alternative treatment for this devastating disease.

DIVERSITY IN CLINICAL TRIALS GAINS GROUND AMIDST COVID

More recent policies aim to offset years of underenrollment of minority groups by expanding enrollment criteria, including more research sites in minority communities, and engaging investigators with diverse backgrounds. FDA has also sought to promote research diversity through its Drug Trials Snapshots program, established in 2015 to increase the visibility of clinical trial enrollment by age, sex, ethnicity and race. According to a recent report on the program's impact, though, there still may be a ways to go for clinical trials to reflect the diversity of the US population.