A respiratory syncytial virus vaccine based on the small hydrophobic protein ectodomain presented with a novel lipid-based formulation is highly immunogenic and safe in adults : a first-in-humans study

Background: Respiratory syncytial virus infection can cause lower respiratory tract infection in older adults comparable to influenza, but no vaccines are available. Methods: This was a randomized, observer-blinded, first-in-humans study of a novel synthetic RSV antigen based on the ectodomain of the small hydrophobic glycoprotein (SHe) of RSV subgroup A, formulated with either the lipid and oil-based vaccine platform DepoVax (DPX-RSV[A]) or alum (RSV[A]-Alum), in healthy, 50-64-year-old individuals. Two dose levels (10 or 25 mu g) of SHe with each formulation were compared to placebo. A booster dose was administered on day 56. Results: There was no indication that the vaccine was unsafe. Mild pain, drowsiness, and muscles aches were the most common solicited adverse events (AEs), and the frequencies of the AEs did not increase after dose 2. Robust anti-SHe-specific immune responses were demonstrated in the DPX-RSV(A) 10-mu g and 25-mu g groups (geometric mean titer, approximately 10-fold and 100-fold greater than that of placebo at days 56 and 236, respectively), and responses were sustained in the DPX-RSV(A) 25-mu g group at day 421. Responses to the RSV(A)-Alum vaccines were very low. Conclusions: A novel antigen from the SH protein of RSV, formulated in a lipid and oil-based vaccine platform, was highly immunogenic, with sustained antigen-specific antibody responses, and had an acceptable safety profile

Exposure-based Interventions for the management of individuals with high levels of needle fear across the lifespan: a clinical practice guideline and call for further research

Needle fear typically begins in childhood and represents an important health-related issue across the lifespan. Individuals who are highly fearful of needles frequently avoid health care. Although guidance exists for managing needle pain and fear during procedures, the most highly fearful may refuse or abstain from such procedures. The purpose of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to provide actionable instruction on the management of a particular health concern; this guidance emerges from a systematic process. Using evidence from a rigorous systematic review interpreted by an expert panel, this CPG provides recommendations on exposure-based interventions for high levels of needle fear in children and adults. The AGREE-II, GRADE, and Cochrane methodologies were used. Exposure-based interventions were included. The included evidence was very low quality on average. Strong recommendations include the following. In vivo (live/in person) exposure-based therapy is recommended (vs. no treatment) for children seven years and older and adults with high levels of needle fear. Non-in vivo (imaginal, computer-based) exposure (vs. no treatment) is recommended for individuals (over seven years of age) who are unwilling to undergo in vivo exposure. Although there were no included trials which examined children \u3c 7 years, exposure-based interventions are discussed as good clinical practice. Implementation considerations are discussed and clinical tools are provided. Utilization of these recommended practices may lead to improved health outcomes due to better health care compliance. Research on the understanding and treatment of high levels of needle fear is urgently needed; specific recommendations are provided

THE VAXED PROJECT: An Assessment of Immunization Education in Canadian Health Professional Programs

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Knowledge & attitudes of healthcare providers (HCP) have significant impact on frequency with which vaccines are offered & accepted but many HCP are ill equipped to make informed recommendations about vaccine merits & risks. We performed an assessment of the educational needs of trainees regarding immunization and used the information thus ascertained to develop multi-faceted, evaluable, educational tools which can be integrated into formal education curricula.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>(i) A questionnaire was sent to all Canadian nursing, medical & pharmacy schools to assess immunization-related curriculum content (ii) A 77-item web-based, validated questionnaire was emailed to final-year students in medicine, nursing, & pharmacy at two universities in Nova Scotia, Canada to assess knowledge, attitudes, & behaviors reflecting current immunization curriculum.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The curriculum review yielded responses from 18%, 48%, & 56% of medical, nursing, & pharmacy schools, respectively. Time spent on immunization content varied substantially between & within disciplines from <1 to >50 hrs. Most schools reported some content regarding vaccine preventable diseases, immunization practice & clinical skills but there was considerable variability and fewer schools had learning objectives or formal evaluation in these areas. 74% of respondents didn't feel comfortable discussing vaccine side effects with parents/patients & only 21% felt they received adequate teaching regarding immunization during training.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Important gaps were identified in the knowledge of graduating nursing, medical, & pharmacy trainees regarding vaccine indications/contraindications, adverse events & safety. The national curriculum review revealed wide variability in immunization curriculum content & evaluation. There is clearly a need for educators to assess current curricula and adapt existing educational resources such as the Immunization Competencies for Health Professionals in Canada.</p

ACC/AHA 2005 Guideline Update for the Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Heart Failure in the Adult: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure)

"The committee elected to focus this document on the prevention of HF and on the diagnosis and management of chronic HF in the adult patient with normal or low LVEF. It specifically did not consider acute HF, which might merit a separate set of guidelines and is addressed in part in the ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (8) and the ACC/AHA 2003 Update of the Guidelines for the Management of Unstable Angina and Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (9). We have also excluded HF in children, both because the underlying causes of HF in children differ from those in adults and because none of the controlled trials of treatments for HF have included children. We have not considered the management of HF due to primary valvular disease [see ACC/AHA Guidelines on the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease (10)] or congenital malformations, and we have not included recommendations for the treatment of specific myocardial disorders (e.g., hemochromatosis, sarcoidosis, or amyloidosis). These practice guidelines are intended to assist healthcare providers in clinical decision making by describing a range of generally acceptable approaches for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of HF. The guidelines attempt to define practices that meet the needs of most patients under most circumstances. However, the ultimate judgment regarding the care of a particular patient must be made by the healthcare provider in light of all of the circumstances that are relevant to that patient. These guidelines do not address cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective. The guidelines are not meant to assist policy makers faced with the necessity to make decisions regarding the allocation of finite healthcare resources. In fact, these guidelines assume no resource limitation. They do not provide policy makers with sufficient information to be able to choose wisely between options for resource allocation. The various therapeutic strategies described in this document can be viewed as a checklist to be considered for each patient in an attempt to individualize treatment for an evolving disease process. Every patient is unique, not only in terms of his or her cause and course of HF, but also in terms of his or her personal and cultural approach to the disease. Guidelines can only provide an outline for evidence-based decisions or recommendations for individual care; these guidelines are meant to provide that outline.

ACC/AHA 2005 Guideline Update for the Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Heart Failure in the Adult: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure)

"The committee elected to focus this document on the prevention of HF and on the diagnosis and management of chronic HF in the adult patient with normal or low LVEF. It specifically did not consider acute HF, which might merit a separate set of guidelines and is addressed in part in the ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (8) and the ACC/AHA 2003 Update of the Guidelines for the Management of Unstable Angina and Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (9). We have also excluded HF in children, both because the underlying causes of HF in children differ from those in adults and because none of the controlled trials of treatments for HF have included children. We have not considered the management of HF due to primary valvular disease [see ACC/AHA Guidelines on the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease (10)] or congenital malformations, and we have not included recommendations for the treatment of specific myocardial disorders (e.g., hemochromatosis, sarcoidosis, or amyloidosis). These practice guidelines are intended to assist healthcare providers in clinical decision making by describing a range of generally acceptable approaches for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of HF. The guidelines attempt to define practices that meet the needs of most patients under most circumstances. However, the ultimate judgment regarding the care of a particular patient must be made by the healthcare provider in light of all of the circumstances that are relevant to that patient. These guidelines do not address cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective. The guidelines are not meant to assist policy makers faced with the necessity to make decisions regarding the allocation of finite healthcare resources. In fact, these guidelines assume no resource limitation. They do not provide policy makers with sufficient information to be able to choose wisely between options for resource allocation. The various therapeutic strategies described in this document can be viewed as a checklist to be considered for each patient in an attempt to individualize treatment for an evolving disease process. Every patient is unique, not only in terms of his or her cause and course of HF, but also in terms of his or her personal and cultural approach to the disease. Guidelines can only provide an outline for evidence-based decisions or recommendations for individual care; these guidelines are meant to provide that outline.

RRx-001, A novel dinitroazetidine radiosensitizer

The ‘holy grail’ in radiation oncology is to improve the outcome of radiation therapy (RT) with a radiosensitizer—a systemic chemical/biochemical agent that additively or synergistically sensitizes tumor cells to radiation in the absence of significant toxicity. Similar to the oxygen effect, in which DNA bases modified by reactive oxygen species prevent repair of the cellular radiation damage, these compounds in general magnify free radical formation, leading to the permanent “fixation” of the resultant chemical change in the DNA structure. The purpose of this review is to present the origin story of the radiosensitizer, RRx-001, which emerged from the aerospace industry. The activity of RRx-001 as a chemosensitizer in multiple tumor types and disease states including malaria, hemorrhagic shock and sickle cell anemia, are the subject of future reviews

Genetic associations at 53 loci highlight cell types and biological pathways relevant for kidney function.

Reduced glomerular filtration rate defines chronic kidney disease and is associated with cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. We conducted a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), combining data across 133,413 individuals with replication in up to 42,166 individuals. We identify 24 new and confirm 29 previously identified loci. Of these 53 loci, 19 associate with eGFR among individuals with diabetes. Using bioinformatics, we show that identified genes at eGFR loci are enriched for expression in kidney tissues and in pathways relevant for kidney development and transmembrane transporter activity, kidney structure, and regulation of glucose metabolism. Chromatin state mapping and DNase I hypersensitivity analyses across adult tissues demonstrate preferential mapping of associated variants to regulatory regions in kidney but not extra-renal tissues. These findings suggest that genetic determinants of eGFR are mediated largely through direct effects within the kidney and highlight important cell types and biological pathways

Healthcare provider awareness, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors regarding the role of pharmacists as immunizers

We explored perceptions of healthcare providers in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick about pharmacists as immunizers. Pharmacists’ scopes of practice are increasingly broadening to include immunization, and providers and policymakers may find meaning in the lessons we learned. Invitations to participate in our online survey were circulated by professional associations, health authorities, and in social media posts. A total of 204 healthcare providers completed our survey, of whom 59.3% were pharmacists, 17.6% were nurses, and 23.0% were physicians. Nurses (30.6%) and physicians (34.0%) experienced fewer logistical barriers to immunizing compared to pharmacists, 71.1% of whom identified practice logistics as a determinant in offering vaccines to patients (p  < .001). Pharmacists were most supportive of the expansion of their own scope of practice to include the provision of vaccines to adults (95.9%) and children as young as five years (92.6%) compared to nurses (72.2% and 69.4%) and physicians (61.7% and 40.4%) (p  < .001). Diversity of opinion was evident even among pharmacists about whether they should be permitted to vaccinate children younger than five years. Nurse and physician respondents had lower odds of thinking pharmacists have enough training to vaccinate (p  < .001), that vaccines should be given in a pharmacy (p  < .001), and of supporting the expansion of pharmacists’ scope of practice (p  < .001) than pharmacists did in the multivariable analyses. Pharmacists are well-positioned and willing to vaccinate and generally have support from their nurse and physician peers, but logistical challenges and interprofessional complexities persist as barriers to optimizing immunization by pharmacists