PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Mehta, Darshan
AU  - Kimball-Carroll, Samantha
AU  - Clark, Dayna R.
AU  - Fossati, Serena
AU  - Hunger, Matthias
AU  - Pahwa, Ankit
AU  - Malmenas, Mia
AU  - Hille, Brian
AU  - Van de Velde, Nicolas
TI  - Vaccine preparation time, errors, satisfaction, and preference of prefilled syringes versus RSV vaccines requiring reconstitution: randomized, time and motion study
AID  - 10.1101/2024.04.16.24305921
DP  - 2024 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2024.04.16.24305921
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/04/19/2024.04.16.24305921.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/04/19/2024.04.16.24305921.full
AB  - Introduction RSV infections can lead to serious outcomes, especially among older adults. Two United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vaccines, both requiring reconstitution (VRR) prior to administration, are recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for adults aged 60+ years. An alternative vaccine employing a ready-to-use prefilled syringe (PFS) is currently under evaluation by the FDA. The current study compared a PFS versus two VRRs (VRR1 and VRR2) to evaluate preparation time, errors, satisfaction, and preference in a randomized, single-blinded time and motion (T&M) study.Methods Participants were recruited and randomized to a preparation sequence of the three vaccines. Participants read instructions, then consecutively prepared the three vaccines with a 3- to 5-minute washout period in between. Preparations were video recorded and reviewed by a trained pharmacist for preparation time and errors using predefined, vaccine-specific checklists. Participant demographics, satisfaction with vaccine preparation, and vaccine preference were recorded. Within-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare preparation time. Mixed-effects Poisson and ordered logistic regression models were used to compare number of preparation errors and satisfaction scores, respectively.Results 63 pharmacists (60%), nurses (35%), and pharmacy technicians (5%) participated at four sites in the US. The least squares (LS) mean preparation time per dose for PFS was 141.8 seconds (95% CI:156.8, 126.7; p<0.0001) faster than for VRR1, 103.6 seconds (118.7, 88.5; p<0.0001) faster than for VRR2, and 122.7 seconds (95% CI: 134.2, 111.2; p<0.0001) faster than the pooled VRRs. Overall satisfaction (combined ‘Very’ and ‘Extremely’) was 87.3% for PFS, 28.6% for VRR1, and 47.6% for VRR2. Most participants (81.0%) preferred the PFS vaccine.Conclusion PFS vaccines can greatly simplify the vaccine preparation process, allowing administrators to prepare almost four times more doses per hour than with vial and syringe systems.Why carry out this study?Two US FDA approved vaccines against RSV require reconstitution. An alternative vaccine employing a ready-to-use prefilled syringe (PFS) is currently under evaluation by the FDA. ● We conducted the current study to compare the impact of RSV vaccine format on preparation time, errors, satisfaction and preference between a ready-to-use single-dose prefilled syringe (PFS) RSV vaccine versus two RSV vaccines requiring reconstitution (VRRs).What was learned from the study?Preparation time with PFS was reduced by a factor of 4 compared to VRRs.Most healthcare professionals were extremely satisfied and preferred a PFS presentation over VRRs.PFS vaccines can help vaccine administrators save time on preparation resulting in nearly quadruple their hourly vaccine preparation rate compared to VRRs.Competing Interest StatementDM, NVdV, BH are employed by Moderna, Inc. SK, SF, DC, MH, AP, MM are employed by ICON Plc and have worked with Moderna Inc., GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer Inc.Funding StatementSponsorship for this study and Rapid Service Fee were provided by Moderna Inc.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The protocol and each study site were reviewed and approved by a central institutional review board (Advarra)I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.