Safety and Immunogenicity of a Messenger RNA-Based Cytomegalovirus Vaccine in Healthy Adults: Results From a Phase 1, Randomized, Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: This phase 1 trial evaluated the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of mRNA-1647, an mRNA-based cytomegalovirus (CMV) vaccine, in CMV-seronegative and -seropositive adults. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to receive 30, 90, 180, or 300 µg of mRNA-1647 or placebo on a 0-, 2-, and 6-month schedule and followed for 12 months after the last dose. RESULTS: A total of 154 (80 CMV-seronegative and 74 CMV-seropositive) participants were enrolled; 118 participants were randomized to mRNA-1647 and 36 to placebo. Mean (SD) age was 32.5 (8.6) and 35.1 (8.9) years in the placebo and mRNA-1647 groups, respectively, in phase B (63% and 64% female) and 42.5 (6.2) and 33.3 (8.7) years, respectively, in phase C (2% and 16% female). No deaths, related serious adverse events, or adverse events of special interest were reported. Most adverse reactions were grade ≤2 severity. Increased neutralizing antibody, binding antibody, and antigen-specific cell-mediated responses were observed across mRNA-1647 treatment groups, regardless of CMV serostatus. CONCLUSIONS: This phase 1, first-in-human trial demonstrated mRNA-1647 has an acceptable safety profile in adults and elicits humoral and cellular immune responses. TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03382405; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03382405.

The safety and immunogenicity of two Zika virus mRNA vaccine candidates in healthy flavivirus baseline seropositive and seronegative adults: the results of two randomised, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging, phase 1 clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Developing a safe and immunogenic vaccine against Zika virus remains an unmet medical need. We did two phase 1 studies that evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of two mRNA-based Zika virus vaccines (mRNA-1325 and mRNA-1893) in adults. METHODS: Two randomised, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging, multicentre, phase 1 trials, one of mRNA-1325 (mRNA-1325 trial) and one of mRNA-1893 (mRNA-1893 trial), were done. For both studies, eligible participants were healthy adults (aged 18-49 years) who were flavivirus seronegative or flavivirus seropositive at baseline. Participants in the mRNA-1325 trial, which was done at three centres in the USA, were randomly assigned centrally (1:4), using a randomisation table, to the placebo group or one of three mRNA-1325 dose groups (10, 25, or 100 µg). All participants received two doses. The mRNA-1325 vaccine encoded the premembrane and envelope E structural proteins (prME) from a Micronesia 2007 Zika virus isolate. Participants in the mRNA-1893 trial, which was done at three centres in the USA and one centre in Puerto Rico, were randomly assigned (1:4) to the placebo group or one of four mRNA-1893 dose groups (10, 30, 100, or 250 µg) using centralised interactive response technology. All participants in the mRNA-1893 trial received dose one on day 1 and then dose two on day 29. The mRNA-1893 vaccine encoded the prME from the RIO-U1 Zika virus isolate. Safety was the primary outcome of each study, which was evaluated in the respective safety populations (mRNA-1325 trial: participants who received at least one dose and provided safety data; mRNA-1893 trial: participants who received at least one dose) and the solicited safety population (mRNA-1893 trial only: received at least 1 dose and contributed solicited adverse reaction data). Endpoints in both trials included solicited adverse reactions within 7 days after vaccination and unsolicited adverse events within 28 days after vaccination. The secondary outcome of both trials was immunogenicity assessed by Zika virus-specific neutralising antibodies (nAbs) in the per-protocol populations in either trial (participants with no major protocol deviations received full dose[s] of assigned dose level within the acceptable time window, had samples drawn within acceptable time window, and had prevaccination and corresponding post-vaccination serum samples for testing). These were descriptive studies, with no formal hypothesis testing in either trial. Both trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03014089 (mRNA-1325 trial) and NCT04064905 (mRNA-1893 trial). FINDINGS: The mRNA-1325 trial was done from Dec 14, 2016, to Aug 16, 2018. 90 participants were enrolled: 53 (59%) participants were women and 37 (41%) were men; 84 (93%) were White; and 74 (82%) were not Hispanic or Latino. All three dose levels of mRNA-1325 (10, 25, and 100 µg) were generally well tolerated, but the vaccine elicited poor Zika virus-specific nAb responses. At 28 days after dose two, geometric mean titres (GMTs) were highest for mRNA-1325 10 µg (10·3 [95% CI 5·9-18·2]). The mRNA-1893 trial was done from July 23, 2019, to March 22, 2021. 120 participants (70 [58%] women and 50 [42%] men) were enrolled, most participants were White (89 [74%]), and not Hispanic or Latino (91 [76%]). In the mRNA-1893 trial, solicited adverse reactions in participants who received a vaccine were mostly grade 1 or 2 and occurred more frequently at higher dose levels and after dose two. No participants withdrew due to an unsolicited treatment-emergent adverse event and most of these events were not treatment related. On day 57, all evaluated mRNA-1893 dose levels induced robust Zika virus-specific nAb responses, independent of flavivirus serostatus, that persisted until month 13. At day 57 in participants who were flavivirus seronegative, plaque reduction neutralisation titre test nAb GMTs were highest for mRNA-1893 100 µg (454·2 [330·0-619·6]); in participants who were flavivirus seropositive, GMTs were highest for mRNA-1893 10 µg (224·1 [43·5-1153·5]) and mRNA-1893 100 µg (190·5 [19·2-1887·2]). INTERPRETATION: These findings support the continued development of mRNA-1893 against Zika virus, which was well tolerated at all evaluated dose levels and induced strong Zika virus-specific serum nAb responses after two doses, regardless of baseline flavivirus serostatus. FUNDING: Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and Moderna.

A phase 1 trial of lipid-encapsulated mRNA encoding a monoclonal antibody with neutralizing activity against Chikungunya virus.

Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) infection causes acute disease characterized by fever, rash and arthralgia, which progresses to severe and chronic arthritis in up to 50% of patients. Moreover, CHIKV infection can be fatal in infants or immunocompromised individuals and has no approved therapy or prevention. This phase 1, first-in-human, randomized, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept trial conducted from January 2019 to June 2020 evaluated the safety and pharmacology of mRNA-1944, a lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated messenger RNA encoding the heavy and light chains of a CHIKV-specific monoclonal neutralizing antibody, CHKV-24 ( NCT03829384 ). The primary outcome was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of escalating doses of mRNA-1944 administered via intravenous infusion in healthy participants aged 18-50 years. The secondary objectives included determination of the pharmacokinetics of mRNA encoding for CHKV-24 immunoglobulin heavy and light chains and ionizable amino lipid component and the pharmacodynamics of mRNA-1944 as assessed by serum concentrations of mRNA encoding for CHKV-24 immunoglobulin G (IgG), plasma concentrations of ionizable amino lipid and serum concentrations of CHKV-24 IgG. Here we report the results of a prespecified interim analysis of 38 healthy participants who received intravenous single doses of mRNA-1944 or placebo at 0.1, 0.3 and 0.6 mg kg-1, or two weekly doses at 0.3 mg kg-1. At 12, 24 and 48 h after single infusions, dose-dependent levels of CHKV-24 IgG with neutralizing activity were observed at titers predicted to be therapeutically relevant concentrations (≥1 µg ml-1) across doses that persisted for ≥16 weeks at 0.3 and 0.6 mg kg-1 (mean t1/2 approximately 69 d). A second 0.3 mg kg-1 dose 1 week after the first increased CHKV-24 IgG levels 1.8-fold. Adverse effects were mild to moderate in severity, did not worsen with a second mRNA-1944 dose and none were serious. To our knowledge, mRNA-1944 is the first mRNA-encoded monoclonal antibody showing in vivo expression and detectable ex vivo neutralizing activity in a clinical trial and may offer a treatment option for CHIKV infection. Further evaluation of the potential therapeutic use of mRNA-1944 in clinical trials for the treatment of CHIKV infection is warranted.

In-Situ Simulation Enhances Emergency Preparedness in Pediatric Care Practices.

Background It is not uncommon for emergencies to present at primary care offices. As such, it is necessary for those offices to be prepared to handle, at a minimum, the most common types of emergencies. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of in-situ simulation training in improving emergency preparedness within pediatric primary care settings. Methods Simulation training was provided at 20 primary care offices in Central Florida. The participants were asked to complete a pre-simulation survey that utilized a five-point Likert-type scale to evaluate office preparedness and the confidence of staff members in managing emergency presentations within their settings. Subsequent to the simulation, participants were asked to complete a post-survey to evaluate the effectiveness of the simulation training. Results Primary care office staff members reported an enhanced preparedness in managing emergencies post-simulation training (pre-simulation 2.95 vs. post-simulation 4.02; p-value<0.05). They also reported higher levels of comfort in managing emergency situations after the simulation training (pre-simulation 3.22 vs. post-simulation 4.53; p-value<0.05). Overall, 100% of participants found the simulation to be effective or extremely effective. Conclusions Our data suggests that the simulation training has improved office preparedness in managing emergencies in a pediatric primary care setting. The simulation training has also been shown to improve the comfort level of pediatric primary care office staff in handling emergency situations. This study was limited to pediatric primary care settings in the Central Florida region, and it is unclear if the findings of this study are generalizable to all primary care practices. Further studies are required to explore whether such training can result in practice change and improve outcomes for more patients.

Primary Care Office Preparedness for Pediatric Emergencies.

Emergencies do occur in pediatric primary care offices. The American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Pediatric Emergency Medicine recommends that primary care offices perform a self-assessment of office readiness for emergencies. Primary care offices should develop an emergency response plan to recognize, stabilize, and transfer sick children. They should also ensure their offices have the essential equipment, supplies, and medications readily available in case of emergencies. Primary care offices can prepare and practice for office emergencies through "mock codes" and by maintaining certification in basic and advanced life support courses. Partnership with local emergency medical services and emergency departments will allow seamless transfer of an acutely ill child. Careful planning and preparation will help improve outcomes for emergencies in the primary care setting. [Pediatr Ann. 2018;47(3):e93-e96.].

Parental perception of urgency of illness.

OBJECTIVE: To assess parental perception of urgency of illness and compare this with an emergency department (ED) physician's assessment of the same. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted on convenience sample of parents/legal guardians of 800 patients presenting to the pediatric ED. Parents and physicians were asked to classify the urgency of their child's illness. RESULTS: For this study, we grouped the urgency of illness as "urgent" (care needed within 24 hours) and "nonurgent" (care could safely wait until the next day). Ninety-four percent of parents considered their child's illness as urgent and 6% as nonurgent. Of the patients whose parents perceived the illness as nonurgent, 31% were assessed by physicians as requiring urgent attention. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, there was a significant discrepancy between the parental perceptions of urgency of illness and the ED physician assessment of the same. A significant proportion of children whose visits are perceived as nonurgent do require urgent care.