A Phase 2 Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety, Reactogenicity, and Immunogenicity of Different Prime-Boost Vaccination Schedules of 2013 and 2017 A(H7N9) Inactivated Influenza Virus Vaccines Administered with and without AS03 Adjuvant in Healthy US Adults.

INTRODUCTION: A surge of human influenza A(H7N9) cases began in 2016 in China due to an antigenically distinct lineage. Data are needed about the safety and immunogenicity of 2013 and 2017 A(H7N9) inactivated influenza vaccines (IIVs) and the effects of AS03 adjuvant, prime-boost interval, and priming effects of 2013 and 2017 A(H7N9) IIVs. METHODS: Healthy adults (n=180), ages 19-50 years, were enrolled into this partially-blinded, randomized, multi-center Phase 2 clinical trial. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 vaccination groups evaluating homologous versus heterologous prime-boost strategies with two different boost intervals (21 versus 120 days) and two dosages (3.75 or 15 µg of hemagglutinin) administered with or without AS03 adjuvant. Reactogenicity, safety, and immunogenicity measured by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) and neutralizing antibody titers were assessed. RESULTS: Two doses of A(H7N9) IIV were well tolerated, and no safety issues were identified. Although most participants had injection site and systemic reactogenicity, these symptoms were mostly mild to moderate in severity; injection site reactogenicity was greater in vaccination groups receiving adjuvant. Immune responses were greater after an adjuvanted second dose, and with a longer interval between prime and boost. The highest HAI GMT (95%CI) observed against the 2017 A(H7N9) strain was 133.4 (83.6, 212.6) among participants who received homologous, adjuvanted 3.75 ug+AS03/2017 doses with delayed boost interval. CONCLUSIONS: Administering AS03 adjuvant with the second H7N9 IIV dose and extending the boost interval to 4 months resulted in higher peak antibody responses. These observations can broadly inform strategic approaches for pandemic preparedness. (NCT03589807).

Safety and Immunogenicity of a Delayed Heterologous Avian Influenza A(H7N9) Vaccine Boost Following Different Priming Regimens: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Influenza A (H7N9) has caused multiple disease waves with evidence of strain diversification. Optimal influenza A (H7N9) prime-boost vaccine strategies are unknown. METHODS: We recruited participants who had received monovalent inactivated A/Shanghai/2/2013 (H7N9) vaccine (MIV) approximately 5 years earlier, as follows: MIV with MF59 (MF59 × 2 group), MIV with AS03 (AS03 × 2 group), unadjuvanted MIV (No Adj group), MIV with MF59 or AS03 followed by unadjuvanted MIV (Adjx1 group), and A/H7-naive (unprimed group). Participants were randomized to receive 1 dose of AS03-adjuvanted or unadjuvanted A/Hong Kong/125/2017 (H7N9) MIV and were followed for safety and immunogenicity using hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) and neutralizing antibody assays. RESULTS: We enrolled 304 participants: 153 received the adjuvanted boost and 151 received the unadjuvanted boost. At 21 days postvaccination, the proportion of participants with HAI antibody titers against the boosting vaccine strain of ≥40 in the adjuvanted and unadjuvanted arms, respectively, were 88% and 49% in MF59 × 2 group, 89% and 75% in AS03 × 2 group, 59% and 20% in No Adj group, 94% and 55% in Adjx1group, and 9% and 11% in unprimed group. CONCLUSIONS: Serologic responses to a heterologous A(H7N9) MIV boost were highest in participants primed and boosted with adjuvant-containing regimens. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03738241.

Immunogenicity and safety of varying dosages of a fifth-wave influenza A/H7N9 inactivated vaccine given with and without AS03 adjuvant in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: Human infections with the avian influenza A(H7N9) virus were first reported in China in 2013 and continued to occur in annual waves. In the 2016/2017 fifth wave, Yangtze River Delta (YRD) lineage viruses, which differed antigenically from those of earlier waves, predominated. METHODS: In this phase 2 double-blinded trial we randomized 720 adults ≥ 19 years of age to receive two injections of a YRD lineage inactivated A/Hong Kong/125/2017 fifth-wave H7N9 vaccine, given 21 days apart, at doses of 3.75, 7.5, and 15 µg of hemagglutinin (HA) with AS03A adjuvant and at doses of 15 and 45 µg of HA without adjuvant. RESULTS: Two doses of adjuvanted vaccine were required to induce HA inhibition (HI) antibody titers ≥ 40 in most participants. After two doses of the 15 µg H7N9 formulation, given with or without AS03 adjuvant, the proportion achieving a HI titer ≥ 40 against the vaccine strain at 21 days after the second vaccination was 65 % (95 % CI, 57 %-73 %) and 0 % (95 % CI, 0 %-4%), respectively. Among those who received two doses of the 15 µg adjuvanted formulation the proportion with HI titer ≥ 40 at 21 days after the second vaccination was 76 % (95 % CI, 66 %-84 %) in those 19-64 years of age and 49 % (95 % CI, 37 %-62 %) in those ≥ 65 years of age. Responses to the adjuvanted vaccine formulations did not vary by HA content. Antibody responses declined over time and responses against drifted H7N9 strains were diminished. Overall, the vaccines were well tolerated but, as expected, adjuvanted vaccines were associated with more frequent solicited systemic and local adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: AS03 adjuvant improved the immune responses to an inactivated fifth-wave H7N9 influenza vaccine, particularly in younger adults, but invoked lower responses to drifted H7N9 strains. These findings may inform future influenza pandemic preparedness strategies.

Daily fosfomycin versus levofloxacin for complicated urinary tract infections.

IMPORTANCE: Concerns over resistance and safety have been identified in the current treatment regimen for complicated urinary tract infections. Fosfomycin is a drug that is routinely used for the treatment of uncomplicated cystitis. This study shows that fosfomycin could be an oral alternative as step-down therapy for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, with a clinical cure rate comparable to levofloxacin but a lower microbiological success rate 3 weeks from start of antibiotics.

Immunogenicity of a 2-Dose Regimen of Moderna mRNA Beta/Omicron BA.1 Bivalent Variant Vaccine Boost in a Randomized Clinical Trial.

We compared the serologic responses of 1 dose versus 2 doses of a variant vaccine (Moderna mRNA-1273 Beta/Omicron BA.1 bivalent vaccine) in adults. A 2-dose boosting regimen with a variant vaccine did not increase the magnitude or the durability of the serological responses compared to a single variant vaccine boost.

Comparison of bivalent and monovalent SARS-CoV-2 variant vaccines: the phase 2 randomized open-label COVAIL trial.

Vaccine protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection wanes over time, requiring updated boosters. In a phase 2, open-label, randomized clinical trial with sequentially enrolled stages at 22 US sites, we assessed safety and immunogenicity of a second boost with monovalent or bivalent variant vaccines from mRNA and protein-based platforms targeting wild-type, Beta, Delta and Omicron BA.1 spike antigens. The primary outcome was pseudovirus neutralization titers at 50% inhibitory dilution (ID50 titers) with 95% confidence intervals against different SARS-CoV-2 strains. The secondary outcome assessed safety by solicited local and systemic adverse events (AEs), unsolicited AEs, serious AEs and AEs of special interest. Boosting with prototype/wild-type vaccines produced numerically lower ID50 titers than any variant-containing vaccine against all variants. Conversely, boosting with a variant vaccine excluding prototype was not associated with decreased neutralization against D614G. Omicron BA.1 or Beta monovalent vaccines were nearly equivalent to Omicron BA.1 + prototype or Beta + prototype bivalent vaccines for neutralization of Beta, Omicron BA.1 and Omicron BA.4/5, although they were lower for contemporaneous Omicron subvariants. Safety was similar across arms and stages and comparable to previous reports. Our study shows that updated vaccines targeting Beta or Omicron BA.1 provide broadly crossprotective neutralizing antibody responses against diverse SARS-CoV-2 variants without sacrificing immunity to the ancestral strain. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05289037 .

Immunogenicity of a Two Dose Regimen of Moderna mRNA Beta/Omicron BA.1 Bivalent Variant Vaccine Boost in a Randomized Clinical Trial.

In this brief report, we compare the magnitude and durability of the serologic response of one versus two doses (separated by 56 days) of a variant vaccine (Moderna mRNA-1273 Beta/Omicron BA.1 bivalent vaccine) in adults.

Research unit network (RUN) as a learning research system.

The clinical research units (CRUs) are one of the main spaces where both translational research and science take place. However, there is a lack of information about both best practices for CRU operations and, ultimately, benchmarks to evaluate CRU performance. The Research Unit Network (RUN) was created with the purpose to enable direct communication and collaboration among CRUs. An online survey was administered to further illustrate the functionality and impact of RUN. Thirty-one individual survey responses (39.2%) were included in the final analysis. The members value RUN monthly meetings (87.1%) as the most useful aspect of this network and CRU budgeting (67.7%) and staffing (61.3%) were the most relevant topics discussed. This is followed by EPIC - Research (58.1%), delegation of authority logs, unit signatures, and policies (51.6%), COVID-19 pandemic response (41.9%), the implementation of clinical trial management system (29.0%), and protocol deviations (19.4%). The intermediate goal of RUN is to identify best practices CRUs are establishing, implementing, and sharing these experiences with the goal to adopt them in different CRUs. The network's long-term goal is to establish standard benchmarks that can be used for evaluating the performance of CRUs across the nation.

Bivalent and Monovalent SARS-CoV-2 Variant Vaccine Boosters Improve coverage of the known Antigenic Landscape: Results of the COVID-19 Variant Immunologic Landscape (COVAIL) Trial.

Vaccine protection against COVID-19 wanes over time and has been impacted by the emergence of new variants with increasing escape of neutralization. The COVID-19 Variant Immunologic Landscape (COVAIL) randomized clinical trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT05289037) compares the breadth, magnitude and durability of antibody responses induced by a second COVID-19 vaccine boost with mRNA (Moderna mRNA-1273 and Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2), or adjuvanted recombinant protein (Sanofi CoV2 preS DTM-AS03) monovalent or bivalent vaccine candidates targeting ancestral and variant SARS-CoV-2 spike antigens (Beta, Delta and Omicron BA.1). We found that boosting with a variant strain is not associated with loss in neutralization against the ancestral strain. However, while variant vaccines compared to the prototype/wildtype vaccines demonstrated higher neutralizing activity against Omicron BA.1 and BA.4/5 subvariants for up to 3 months after vaccination, neutralizing activity was lower for more recent Omicron subvariants. Our study, incorporating both antigenic distances and serologic landscapes, can provide a framework for objectively guiding decisions for future vaccine updates.

Immunogenicity of the BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5 SARS-CoV-2 Bivalent Boosts: Preliminary Results from the COVAIL Randomized Clinical Trial.

In a randomized clinical trial, we compare early neutralizing antibody responses after boosting with bivalent SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines based on either BA.1 or BA.4/BA.5 Omicron spike protein combined with wildtype spike. Responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants exhibited the greatest reduction in titers against currently circulating Omicron subvariants for both bivalent vaccines.

Immunogenicity of the BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Bivalent Boosts: Preliminary Results From the COVAIL Randomized Clinical Trial.

In a randomized clinical trial, we compare early neutralizing antibody responses after boosting with bivalent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines based on either BA.1 or BA.4/BA.5 Omicron spike protein combined with wild-type spike. Responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants exhibited the greatest reduction in titers against currently circulating Omicron subvariants for both bivalent vaccines.

Population pharmacokinetics and target attainment analyses to identify a rational empirical dosing strategy for cefepime in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify rational empirical dosing strategies for cefepime treatment in critically ill patients by utilizing population pharmacokinetics and target attainment analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective and opportunistic pharmacokinetic (PK) study was conducted in 130 critically ill patients in two ICU sites. The plasma concentrations of cefepime were determined using a validated LC-MS/MS method. All cefepime PK data were analysed simultaneously using the non-linear mixed-effects modelling approach. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to evaluate the PTA of cefepime at different MIC values following different dose regimens in subjects with different renal functions. RESULTS: The PK of cefepime in critically ill patients was best characterized by a two-compartment model with zero-order input and first-order elimination. Creatinine clearance and body weight were identified to be significant covariates. Our simulation results showed that prolonged 3 h infusion does not provide significant improvement on target attainment compared with the traditional intermittent 0.5 h infusion. In contrast, for a given daily dose continuous infusion provided much higher breakpoint coverage than either 0.5 h or 3 h intermittent infusions. To balance the target attainment and potential neurotoxicity, cefepime 3 g/day continuous infusion appears to be a better dosing regimen than 6 g/day continuous infusion. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous infusion may represent a promising strategy for cefepime treatment in critically ill patients. With the availability of institution- and/or unit-specific cefepime susceptibility patterns as well as individual patients' renal function, our PTA results may represent useful references for physicians to make dosing decisions.

Safety and immunogenicity of Multimeric-001 (M-001) followed by seasonal quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in young adults - A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The continuing evolution of influenza viruses poses a challenge to vaccine prevention, highlighting the need for a universal influenza vaccine. We evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of one such candidate, Multimeric-001 (M-001), when used as a priming vaccine prior to administration of quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4). METHODS: Healthy adults 18 to 49 years of age were enrolled in a phase 2 randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Participants received two doses of either 1.0-mg M-001 or saline placebo (60 per study arm) on Days 1 and 22 followed by a single dose of IIV4 on about Day 172. Safety, reactogenicity, cellular immune responses and influenza hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) and microneutralization (MN) were assessed. RESULTS: The M-001 vaccine was safe and had an acceptable reactogenicity profile. Injection site tenderness (39% post-dose 1, 29% post-dose 2) was the most common reaction after M-001 administration. Polyfunctional CD4+ T cell responses (perforin-negative, CD107α-negative, TNF-α+, IFN-γ+, with or without IL-2) to the pool of M-001 peptides increased significantly from baseline to two weeks after the second dose of M-001, and this increase persisted through Day 172. However, there was no enhancement of HAI or MN antibody responses among M-001 recipients following IIV4 administration. CONCLUSIONS: M-001 administration induced a subset of polyfunctional CD4+ T cells that persisted through 6 months of follow-up, but it did not improve HAI or MN antibody responses to IIV4. (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03058692).

Population Pharmacokinetics of Piperacillin/Tazobactam Across the Adult Lifespan.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Piperacillin/tazobactam is one of the most frequently used antimicrobials in older adults. Using an opportunistic study design, we evaluated the pharmacokinetics of piperacillin/tazobactam as a probe drug to evaluate changes in antibacterial drug exposure and dosing requirements, including in older adults. METHODS: A total of 121 adult patients were included. The population pharmacokinetic models that best characterized the observed plasma concentrations of piperacillin and tazobactam were one-compartment structural models with zero-order input and linear elimination. RESULTS: Among all potential covariates, estimated creatinine clearance had the most substantial impact on the elimination clearance for both piperacillin and tazobactam. After accounting for renal function and body size, there was no remaining impact of frailty on the pharmacokinetics of piperacillin and tazobactam. Monte Carlo simulations indicated that renal function had a greater impact on the therapeutic target attainment than age, although these covariates were highly correlated. Frailty, using the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale, was assessed in 60 patients who were ≥ 65 years of age. CONCLUSIONS: The simulations suggested that adults ≤ 50 years of age infected with organisms with higher minimum inhibitory concentrations may benefit from continuous piperacillin/tazobactam infusions (12 g/day of piperacillin component) or extended infusions of 4 g every 8 hours. However, for a target of 50% fT + minimum inhibitory concentration, dosing based on renal function is generally preferable to dosing by age, and simulations suggested that patients with creatinine clearance ≥ 120 mL/min may benefit from infusions of 4 g every 8 hours for organisms with higher minimum inhibitory concentrations.

Bivalent Omicron BA.1-Adapted BNT162b2 Booster in Adults Older than 55 Years.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of immune-escape variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 warrants the use of sequence-adapted vaccines to provide protection against coronavirus disease 2019. METHODS: In an ongoing phase 3 trial, adults older than 55 years who had previously received three 30-µg doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine were randomly assigned to receive 30 µg or 60 µg of BNT162b2, 30 µg or 60 µg of monovalent B.1.1.529 (omicron) BA.1-adapted BNT162b2 (monovalent BA.1), or 30 µg (15 µg of BNT162b2 + 15 µg of monovalent BA.1) or 60 µg (30 µg of BNT162b2 + 30 µg of monovalent BA.1) of BA.1-adapted BNT162b2 (bivalent BA.1). Primary objectives were to determine superiority (with respect to 50% neutralizing titer [NT50] against BA.1) and noninferiority (with respect to seroresponse) of the BA.1-adapted vaccines to BNT162b2 (30 µg). A secondary objective was to determine noninferiority of bivalent BA.1 to BNT162b2 (30 µg) with respect to neutralizing activity against the ancestral strain. Exploratory analyses assessed immune responses against omicron BA.4, BA.5, and BA.2.75 subvariants. RESULTS: A total of 1846 participants underwent randomization. At 1 month after vaccination, bivalent BA.1 (30 µg and 60 µg) and monovalent BA.1 (60 µg) showed neutralizing activity against BA.1 superior to that of BNT162b2 (30 µg), with NT50 geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of 1.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17 to 2.08), 1.97 (95% CI, 1.45 to 2.68), and 3.15 (95% CI, 2.38 to 4.16), respectively. Bivalent BA.1 (both doses) and monovalent BA.1 (60 µg) were also noninferior to BNT162b2 (30 µg) with respect to seroresponse against BA.1; between-group differences ranged from 10.9 to 29.1 percentage points. Bivalent BA.1 (either dose) was noninferior to BNT162b2 (30 µg) with respect to neutralizing activity against the ancestral strain, with NT50 GMRs of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.20) and 1.30 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.58), respectively. BA.4-BA.5 and BA.2.75 neutralizing titers were numerically higher with 30-µg bivalent BA.1 than with 30-µg BNT162b2. The safety profile of either dose of monovalent or bivalent BA.1 was similar to that of BNT162b2 (30 µg). Adverse events were more common in the 30-µg monovalent-BA.1 (8.5%) and 60-µg bivalent-BA.1 (10.4%) groups than in the other groups (3.6 to 6.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The candidate monovalent or bivalent omicron BA.1-adapted vaccines had a safety profile similar to that of BNT162b2 (30 µg), induced substantial neutralizing responses against ancestral and omicron BA.1 strains, and, to a lesser extent, neutralized BA.4, BA.5, and BA.2.75 strains. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04955626.).

Safety and Immunogenicity of a monovalent inactivated influenza A/H5N8 virus vaccine given with and without AS03 or MF59 adjuvants in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: Avian influenza A/H5N8 virus infections have been circulating widely in wild and domestic bird populations with transmission to a few human poultry workers. This phase 1, randomized, blinded trial evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of a monovalent inactivated influenza A/H5N8 virus vaccine (H5N8 IIV) given with and without AS03 or MF59 adjuvants. METHODS: 275 healthy adults, ages 19-64 years, were randomized to one of five groups to receive two doses of 15 µg unadjuvanted influenza A/gyrfalcon/Washington/41088-6/2014(H5N8) (clade 2.3.4.4c) virus vaccine or two doses of 7.5 or 15 µg of vaccine adjuvanted with AS03 or MF59. Immunogenicity was assessed through 21 days following the second dose of vaccine using hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) and microneutralization (MN) assays for the homologous influenza A/H5N8 and three heterologous influenza A/H5 viruses. Safety was assessed through 1 year. RESULTS: The vaccines were well tolerated. Only modest immune responses were seen following receipt of a single dose of vaccine. Seroprotection (HAI titers ≥40) was more common in groups that received AS03 plus 7.5 or 15 µg of vaccine (89% and 93%, respectively) compared to the MF59-adjuvanted groups (56% and 73%), while unadjuvanted vaccine showed a poor response (27%). Higher antigen content resulted in modestly improved immune responses. HAI and MN GMTs and seroconversion rates were low across all study groups for all three heterologous strains of influenza A/H5 virus. CONCLUSIONS: AS03 or MF59-adjuvanted H5N8 IIV generated strong immunogenic responses following two doses. There was poor cross-reactivity for the three antigenically drifted H5N1 strains tested.

Evaluation of Empirical Dosing Regimens for Meropenem in Intensive Care Unit Patients Using Population Pharmacokinetic Modeling and Target Attainment Analysis.

In the present study, population pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis was performed based on meropenem data from a prospective study conducted in 114 critically ill patients with a wide range of renal functions and various disease conditions. The final model was a one-compartment model with linear elimination, with creatinine clearance and continuous renal replacement therapy affecting clearance, and total bodyweight impacting the volume of distribution. Our model is a valuable addition to the existing meropenem population PK models, and it could be particularly useful during implementation of a therapeutic drug monitoring program combined with Bayesian forecasting. Based on the final model developed, comprehensive Monte Carlo simulations were performed to evaluate the probability of target attainment (PTA) of 16 different dosing regimens. Simulation results showed that 2 g administered every 8 h with 3-h prolonged infusion (PI) and 4 g/day by continuous infusion (CI) appear to be two empirical dosing regimens that are superior to many other regimens when both target attainment and potential toxicity are considered and renal function information is not available. Following a daily CI dose of 6 g or higher, more than 30% of the population with a creatinine clearance of <60 mL/min is predicted to have neurotoxicity. With the availability of institution- and/or unit-specific meropenem susceptibility patterns, as well as an individual patient's renal function, our PTA results may represent useful references for physicians to make dosing decisions.

SARS-CoV-2 Variant Vaccine Boosters Trial: Preliminary Analyses.

Background: Protection from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines wanes over time and is compounded by emerging variants including Omicron subvariants. This study evaluated safety and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 variant vaccines. Methods: This phase 2 open-label, randomized trial enrolled healthy adults previously vaccinated with a SARS-CoV-2 primary series and a single boost. Eligible participants were randomized to one of six Moderna COVID19 mRNA vaccine arms (50µg dose): Prototype (mRNA-1273), Omicron BA.1+Beta (1 or 2 doses), Omicron BA.1+Delta, Omicron BA.1 monovalent, and Omicron BA.1+Prototype. Neutralization antibody titers (ID 50 ) were assessed for D614G, Delta, Beta and Omicron BA.1 variants and Omicron BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 subvariants 15 days after vaccination. Results: From March 30 to May 6, 2022, 597 participants were randomized and vaccinated. Median age was 53 years, and 20% had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. All vaccines were safe and well-tolerated. Day 15 geometric mean titers (GMT) against D614G were similar across arms and ages, and higher with prior infection. For uninfected participants, Day 15 Omicron BA.1 GMTs were similar across Omicron-containing vaccine arms (3724-4561) and higher than Prototype (1,997 [95%CI:1,482-2,692]). The Omicron BA.1 monovalent and Omicron BA.1+Prototype vaccines induced a geometric mean ratio (GMR) to Prototype for Omicron BA.1 of 2.03 (97.5%CI:1.37-3.00) and 1.56 (97.5%CI:1.06-2.31), respectively. A subset of samples from uninfected participants in four arms were also tested in a different laboratory at Day 15 for neutralizing antibody titers to D614G and Omicron subvariants BA.1, BA.2.12.2 and BA.4/BA.5. Omicron BA.4/BA.5 GMTs were approximately one third BA.1 GMTs (Prototype 517 [95%CI:324-826] vs. 1503 [95%CI:949-2381]; Omicron BA.1+Beta 628 [95%CI:367-1,074] vs. 2125 [95%CI:1139-3965]; Omicron BA.1+Delta 765 [95%CI:443-1,322] vs. 2242 [95%CI:1218-4128] and Omicron BA.1+Prototype 635 [95%CI:447-903] vs. 1972 [95%CI:1337-2907). Conclusions: Higher Omicron BA.1 titers were observed with Omicron-containing vaccines compared to Prototype vaccine and titers against Omicron BA.4/BA.5 were lower than against BA.1 for all candidate vaccines. Clinicaltrialsgov: NCT05289037.

Barriers and solutions to developing and maintaining research networks during a pandemic: An example from the iELEVATE perinatal network.

Introduction: To improve maternal health outcomes, increased diversity is needed among pregnant people in research studies and community surveillance. To expand the pool, we sought to develop a network encompassing academic and community obstetrics clinics. Typical challenges in developing a network include site identification, contracting, onboarding sites, staff engagement, participant recruitment, funding, and institutional review board approvals. While not insurmountable, these challenges became magnified as we built a research network during a global pandemic. Our objective is to describe the framework utilized to resolve pandemic-related issues. Methods: We developed a framework for site-specific adaptation of the generalized study protocol. Twice monthly video meetings were held between the lead academic sites to identify local challenges and to generate ideas for solutions. We identified site and participant recruitment challenges and then implemented solutions tailored to the local workflow. These solutions included the use of an electronic consent and videoconferences with local clinic leadership and staff. The processes for network development and maintenance changed to address issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, aspects of the sample processing/storage and data collection elements were held constant between sites. Results: Adapting our consenting approach enabled maintaining study enrollment during the pandemic. The pandemic amplified issues related to contracting, onboarding, and IRB approval. Maintaining continuity in sample management and clinical data collection allowed for pooling of information between sites. Conclusions: Adaptability is key to maintaining network sites. Rapidly changing guidelines for beginning and continuing research during the pandemic required frequent intra- and inter-institutional communication to navigate.

Population Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Model of Oxfendazole in Healthy Adults in a Multiple Ascending Dose and Food Effect Study and Target Attainment Analysis.

Oxfendazole is a potent veterinary antiparasitic drug undergoing development for human use to treat multiple parasitic infections. Results from two recently completed phase I clinical trials conducted in healthy adults showed that the pharmacokinetics of oxfendazole is nonlinear, affected by food, and, after the administration of repeated doses, appeared to mildly affect hemoglobin concentrations. To facilitate oxfendazole dose optimization for its use in patient populations, the relationship among oxfendazole dose, pharmacokinetics, and hemoglobin concentration was quantitatively characterized using population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling. In fasting subjects, oxfendazole pharmacokinetics was well described by a one-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination. The change in oxfendazole pharmacokinetics when administered following a fatty meal was captured by an absorption model with one transit compartment and increased bioavailability. The effect of oxfendazole exposure on hemoglobin concentration in healthy adults was characterized by a life span indirect response model in which oxfendazole has positive but minor inhibitory effect on red blood cell synthesis. Further simulation indicated that oxfendazole has a low risk of posing a safety concern regarding hemoglobin concentration, even at a high oxfendazole dose of 60 mg/kg of body weight once daily. The final model was further used to perform comprehensive target attainment simulations for whipworm infection and filariasis at various dose regimens and target attainment criteria. The results of our modeling work, when adopted appropriately, have the potential to greatly facilitate oxfendazole dose regimen optimization in patient populations with different types of parasitic infections.