Pre-Clinical Evaluation of a Replication-Competent Recombinant Adenovirus Serotype 4 Vaccine Expressing Influenza H5 Hemagglutinin

Influenza virus remains a significant health and social concern in part because of newly emerging strains, such as avian H5N1 virus. We have developed a prototype H5N1 vaccine using a recombinant, replication-competent Adenovirus serotype 4 (Ad4) vector, derived from the U.S. military Ad4 vaccine strain, to express the hemagglutinin (HA) gene from A/Vietnam/1194/2004 influenza virus (Ad4-H5-Vtn). Our hypothesis is that a mucosally-delivered replicating Ad4-H5-Vtn recombinant vector will be safe and induce protective immunity against H5N1 influenza virus infection and disease pathogenesis.The Ad4-H5-Vtn vaccine was designed with a partial deletion of the E3 region of Ad4 to accommodate the influenza HA gene. Replication and growth kinetics of the vaccine virus in multiple human cell lines indicated that the vaccine virus is attenuated relative to the wild type virus. Expression of the HA transgene in infected cells was documented by flow cytometry, western blot analysis and induction of HA-specific antibody and cellular immune responses in mice. Of particular note, mice immunized intranasally with the Ad4-H5-Vtn vaccine were protected against lethal H5N1 reassortant viral challenge even in the presence of pre-existing immunity to the Ad4 wild type virus.Several non-clinical attributes of this vaccine including safety, induction of HA-specific humoral and cellular immunity, and efficacy were demonstrated using an animal model to support Phase 1 clinical trial evaluation of this new vaccine

Interaction of daptomycin with two recombinant thromboplastin reagents leads to falsely prolonged patient prothrombin time/International Normalized Ratio results

A cluster of patients experiencing elevations of International Normalized Ratio without clinical bleeding in temporal association with daptomycin therapy was identified during postmarketing safety surveillance. A common element was the thromboplastin reagent used for the laboratory assay. The present study evaluated the effect of daptomycin on measured prothrombin time using commercially available thromboplastin reagent kits commonly used in the United States. Thirty reagent kits were obtained. Daptomycin was added to pooled normal human plasma samples to achieve final concentrations of 0-200 μg/ml. Quality control ranges were established for each reagent kit using normal and abnormal control plasmas. Triplicate assays of the prothrombin time were performed on the daptomycin-spiked plasma samples using each of the 30 kits. The activated partial thromboplastin time and thrombin time were also assessed. Statistical comparisons of interest were performed using analysis of variance with the Bonferroni t-test for multiple comparisons; α = 0.05 was used. Addition of daptomycin to human plasma samples dose-dependently prolonged measured prothrombin times when two recombinant thromboplastin reagents were utilized. The findings were statistically and clinically significant. No clinically meaningful effect was observed with the other reagents. The activated partial thromboplastin time and thrombin time were not affected. Prolonged International Normalized Ratio patient values were an artifact caused by the interaction of daptomycin with the in-vitro prothrombin time test reagent; an in-vivo anticoagulant effect was not observed. Healthcare providers should consider a possible drug-laboratory test interaction if prolonged prothrombin time or elevated International Normalized Ratio values are observed in patients receiving daptomycin

Using electronic health record system triggers to target delivery of a patient-centered intervention to improve venous thromboembolism prevention for hospitalized patients: Is there a differential effect by race?

BackgroundRacial disparities are common in healthcare. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of preventable harm, and disparities observed in prevention practices. We examined the impact of a patient-centered VTE education bundle on the non-administration of preventive prophylaxis by race.MethodsA post-hoc, subset analysis (stratified by race) of a larger nonrandomized trial. Pre-post comparisons analysis were conducted on 16 inpatient units; study periods were October 2014 through March 2015 (baseline) and April through December 2015 (post-intervention). Patients on 4 intervention units received the patient-centered, nurse educator-led intervention if the electronic health record alerted a non-administered dose of VTE prophylaxis. Patients on 12 control units received no intervention. We compared the conditional odds of non-administered doses of VTE prophylaxis when patient refusal was a reason for non-administration, stratified by race.ResultsOf 272 patient interventions, 123 (45.2%) were white, 126 (46.3%) were black, and 23 (8.5%) were other races. A significant reduction was observed in the odds of non-administration of prophylaxis on intervention units compared to control units among patients who were black (OR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46-0.81, pConclusionOur finding suggests that the patient education materials, developed collaboratively with a diverse group of patients, improved patient's understanding and the importance of VTE prevention through prophylaxis. Quality improvement interventions should examine any differential effects by patient characteristics to ensure disparities are addressed and all patients experience the same benefits

Alert‐Triggered Patient Education Versus Nurse Feedback for Nonadministered Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Doses: A Cluster‐Randomized Controlled Trial

Background Many hospitalized patients are not administered prescribed doses of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Methods and Results In this cluster‐randomized controlled trial, all adult non–intensive care units (10 medical, 6 surgical) in 1 academic hospital were randomized to either a real‐time, electronic alert–triggered, patient‐centered education bundle intervention or nurse feedback intervention to evaluate their effectiveness for reducing nonadministration of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Primary outcome was the proportion of nonadministered doses of prescribed pharmacologic prophylaxis. Secondary outcomes were proportions of nonadministered doses stratified by nonadministration reasons (patient refusal, other). To test our primary hypothesis that both interventions would reduce nonadministration, we compared outcomes pre‐ versus postintervention within each cohort. Secondary hypotheses were tested comparing the effectiveness between cohorts. Of 11 098 patient visits, overall dose nonadministration declined significantly after the interventions (13.4% versus 9.2%; odds ratio [OR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.57–0.71]). Nonadministration decreased significantly (P<0.001) in both arms: patient‐centered education bundle, 12.2% versus 7.4% (OR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.48–0.66]), and nurse feedback, 14.7% versus 11.2% (OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.62–0.84]). Patient refusal decreased significantly in both arms: patient‐centered education bundle, 7.3% versus 3.7% (OR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.37–0.58]), and nurse feedback, 9.5% versus 7.1% (OR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.59–0.86]). No differential effect occurred on medical versus surgical units. The patient‐centered education bundle was significantly more effective in reducing all nonadministered (P=0.03) and refused doses (P=0.003) compared with nurse feedback (OR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.0–1.61]; P=0.03 for interaction). Conclusions Information technology strategies like the alert‐triggered, targeted patient‐centered education bundle, and nurse‐focused audit and feedback can improve venous thromboembolism prophylaxis administration. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03367364