Robyn Moucka, Erica Chilson, Brittany Conrad, Sarah Weiser, Simon Moss, Michael Bruchsaler
{"title":"市售冻干呼吸道合胞病毒疫苗的制备时间和可用性评价。","authors":"Robyn Moucka, Erica Chilson, Brittany Conrad, Sarah Weiser, Simon Moss, Michael Bruchsaler","doi":"10.1080/14760584.2025.2559672","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study compared health-care practitioners (HCPs) preparation times, preferences, and perception of usability benefits between two respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine reconstitution systems.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>HCPs with experience reconstituting vaccines prepared two vaccines, the RSVpreF vaccine in a dual chamber vial system (Act-O-Vial; AOV) and the RSVPreF3 vaccine in a vial and vial system (V/V). Following a set of noncommercial instructions, participants completed four timed reconstitution trials with each system. Participants were blinded to systems. After timing trials, feedback was solicited from participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty participants completed the study. A timing advantage for the AOV was observed for 55 (92%) participants. Mean (SD) reconstitution times were 88 (22) and 119 (39) seconds for the AOV and V/V, respectively. Forty-five (75%) participants preferred the AOV, with 21 preferring it very strongly. AOV was perceived to be less prone for needle sticks (90%) and medication error (90%), faster (87%), and was considered safer (85%) than the V/V. Overall, 82% of participants reported that the AOV fit their workflow better.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with the V/V, the AOV was faster, preferred by participants, and reported to have more usability benefits. Findings suggest that AOV will be well accepted by HCPs.</p>","PeriodicalId":12326,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Vaccines","volume":" ","pages":"873-881"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preparation time and usability assessment of commercially available freeze-dried respiratory syncytial virus vaccine presentations.\",\"authors\":\"Robyn Moucka, Erica Chilson, Brittany Conrad, Sarah Weiser, Simon Moss, Michael Bruchsaler\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14760584.2025.2559672\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study compared health-care practitioners (HCPs) preparation times, preferences, and perception of usability benefits between two respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine reconstitution systems.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>HCPs with experience reconstituting vaccines prepared two vaccines, the RSVpreF vaccine in a dual chamber vial system (Act-O-Vial; AOV) and the RSVPreF3 vaccine in a vial and vial system (V/V). Following a set of noncommercial instructions, participants completed four timed reconstitution trials with each system. Participants were blinded to systems. After timing trials, feedback was solicited from participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty participants completed the study. A timing advantage for the AOV was observed for 55 (92%) participants. Mean (SD) reconstitution times were 88 (22) and 119 (39) seconds for the AOV and V/V, respectively. Forty-five (75%) participants preferred the AOV, with 21 preferring it very strongly. AOV was perceived to be less prone for needle sticks (90%) and medication error (90%), faster (87%), and was considered safer (85%) than the V/V. Overall, 82% of participants reported that the AOV fit their workflow better.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with the V/V, the AOV was faster, preferred by participants, and reported to have more usability benefits. Findings suggest that AOV will be well accepted by HCPs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12326,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert Review of Vaccines\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"873-881\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert Review of Vaccines\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14760584.2025.2559672\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/9/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Vaccines","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14760584.2025.2559672","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Preparation time and usability assessment of commercially available freeze-dried respiratory syncytial virus vaccine presentations.
Background: This study compared health-care practitioners (HCPs) preparation times, preferences, and perception of usability benefits between two respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine reconstitution systems.
Research design and methods: HCPs with experience reconstituting vaccines prepared two vaccines, the RSVpreF vaccine in a dual chamber vial system (Act-O-Vial; AOV) and the RSVPreF3 vaccine in a vial and vial system (V/V). Following a set of noncommercial instructions, participants completed four timed reconstitution trials with each system. Participants were blinded to systems. After timing trials, feedback was solicited from participants.
Results: Sixty participants completed the study. A timing advantage for the AOV was observed for 55 (92%) participants. Mean (SD) reconstitution times were 88 (22) and 119 (39) seconds for the AOV and V/V, respectively. Forty-five (75%) participants preferred the AOV, with 21 preferring it very strongly. AOV was perceived to be less prone for needle sticks (90%) and medication error (90%), faster (87%), and was considered safer (85%) than the V/V. Overall, 82% of participants reported that the AOV fit their workflow better.
Conclusions: Compared with the V/V, the AOV was faster, preferred by participants, and reported to have more usability benefits. Findings suggest that AOV will be well accepted by HCPs.
期刊介绍:
Expert Review of Vaccines (ISSN 1476-0584) provides expert commentary on the development, application, and clinical effectiveness of new vaccines. Coverage includes vaccine technology, vaccine adjuvants, prophylactic vaccines, therapeutic vaccines, AIDS vaccines and vaccines for defence against bioterrorism. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review.
The vaccine field has been transformed by recent technological advances, but there remain many challenges in the delivery of cost-effective, safe vaccines. Expert Review of Vaccines facilitates decision making to drive forward this exciting field.