Background: The hospitalized acute respiratory tract infection (HARTI) study used the Respiratory Intensity and Impact Questionnaire (RiiQ (TM)) Symptom Scale, derived from FluiiQ (TM), to assess and compare the burden of respiratory infection symptoms for patients with influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and human metapneumovirus (hMPV) infection, with or without core risk factors (CRF) (age >= 65; chronic heart, renal, obstructive pulmonary disease; asthma). Methods: This was a prospective cohort study in adult patients hospitalized with acute respiratory tract infection (40 centers, 12 countries) during two consecutive influenza/RSV/hMPV seasons (2017-2019). The RiiQ (TM) Symptom Scale and EuroQol 5-Dimensions 5-Levels (EQ-5D-5L) were assessed by interview at two timepoints during hospitalization and at 1, 2, and 3 months post-discharge. Results: Mean lower respiratory tract (LRT) symptom scores were higher for RSV and hMPV participants compared to influenza at 48 h after enrollment/early discharge (p = 0.001) and 3 months post-discharge (p = 0.007). This was driven by LRT symptoms, including shortness of breath (SOB) (p < 0.01) and wheezing (p < 0.01) during hospitalization, and SOB (p < 0.05) and cough (p < 0.05) post-discharge. Participants with CRF reported more moderate-to-severe SOB (p < 0.05) and wheezing (p < 0.05) compared to CRF(-) participants post-discharge. EQ-5D-5L scores were moderately associated with RiiQ (TM) LRT and systemic symptoms domains. Conclusions: Results from the HARTI study suggest that in the study population, LRT symptoms were more severe for RSV and hMPV groups and for patients with CRF. RiiQ (TM) Symptom Scale scores shows a moderate association with EQ-5D-5L indicating that the RiiQ (TM) may provide useful insights and offer advantages over other measures for use in interventional RSV adult clinical studies.

Abstract Background Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) can cause serious lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD) in older adults. Despite a high burden of disease, there is currently no licensed vaccine for RSV. Here, we report the primary efficacy and immunogenicity results from a Phase 2b proof-of-concept trial of an Ad26.RSV.preF-based vaccine for the prevention of RSV-mediated LRTD in adults aged ≥65 years. Methods CYPRESS (NCT03982199) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2b trial. Adults ≥65 years of age were randomized 1:1 prior to the RSV season to receive an Ad26.RSV.preF-based vaccine or placebo. Symptoms of acute respiratory infection (ARI) were collected through an RSV-specific patient-reported Respiratory Infection Intensity and Impact Questionnaire (RiiQ) and/or by a clinician assessment until the end of the RSV season. The primary endpoint was the first occurrence of RT-PCR-confirmed RSV-mediated LRTD according to any of 3 case definitions: (1) ≥3 symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI), (2) ≥2 symptoms of LRTI, or (3) ≥2 symptoms of LRTI or ≥1 symptom of LRTI with ≥1 systemic symptom. The secondary endpoint was the first occurrence of any RT-PCR-confirmed RSV-mediated ARI. Immunogenicity assessments were performed in a subset of approximately 200 participants. Results A total of 5782 participants (2891 in each study arm) received study treatment (92.5% white, 57.7% female, median age 71 years). Vaccine efficacy was 80% (94.2% CI, 52.2–92.9%), 75% (50.1–88.5%), and 69.8% (43.7–84.7%) for case definition 1, 2, and 3, respectively (all P values < 0.001). Efficacy for any RSV-mediated ARI was 69.8% (95% CI, 42.7–85.1%). In the vaccine arm of the immunogenicity subset, geometric mean fold increase in antibody titers 14 days after vaccination was 13.5 for RSV neutralizing antibodies and 8.6 for RSV prefusion F-specific binding antibodies. Median frequency of RSV-F-specific INFγ T-cells increased from 34 to 444 SFC/106 PBMC 14 days after vaccination in the vaccine arm; no relevant changes were observed in the placebo arm. Conclusion In CYPRESS, the Ad26.RSV.preF-based vaccine was highly effective against RSV-mediated LRTD through the first RSV season and elicited robust humoral and cellular immune responses in adults aged ≥65 years. Disclosures Ann R. Falsey, MD, AstraZeneca (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; BioFire Diagnostics (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; Janssen (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; Merck, Sharpe and Dohme (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; Novavax (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Other Financial or Material Support, Paid DSMB member; Pfizer (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support Kristi Williams, PhD, Janssen R&D US (Employee) Efi Gymnopoulou, MSc, Janssen Infectious Diseases BV (Employee) Arangassery Rosemary Bastian, PhD, Janssen Vaccines & Prevention BV (Employee) Joris Menten, n/a, Janssen Infectious Diseases BV (Employee) Els De Paepe, MSc, Janssen Infectious Diseases BV (Employee) Hilde de Boer, MSc, Janssen-Cilag (Employee) Sjoukje Vandenberghe, n/a, Janssen Infectious Diseases BV (Employee) Eric Chan, PhD, Janssen Global Services, LLC (Employee) Jerald Sadoff, MD, Johnson & Johnson (Employee, Shareholder) Macaya Douoguih, MD, MPH, Janssen (Employee) Benoit Callendret, PhD, Janssen Vaccines & Prevention BV (Employee) Christy Comeaux, MD, Janssen Vaccines & Prevention BV (Employee) Esther Heijnen, MD, Janssen Vaccines & Prevention BV (Employee)

This article reports on the investigation of collaborative learning processes in an online course that examined students' communication during whole-gro u p discussions and small-group activities. Content analysis and social network analysis methods were employed to code and categorize text messages to uncover students’ communication behaviour. The results show that individuals’ participation patterns were similar during the two different settings, but some inactive students during whole-group discussions were more active in small-groups. The social-out (sent-out messages) during whole-group discussions was a significant variable associated with cognitive contributions in whole-group as well as social and managerial contributions in small-group activities. This article also identified three indices, i.e., quantity, equality, shareness, that can be used as quantitative measures for evaluating small-group collaboration.