Search

Background In response to recent Ebola epidemics, vaccine development against the Zaire ebolavirus (EBOV) has been fast-tracked in the past decade. Health care providers and frontliners working in Ebola-endemic areas are at high risk of contracting and spreading the virus. Methods This study assessed the safety and immunogenicity of the 2-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen (administered at a 56-day interval) among 699 health care providers and frontliners taking part in a phase 2, monocentric, randomized vaccine trial in Boende, the Democratic Republic of Congo. The first participant was enrolled and vaccinated on 18 December 2019. Serious adverse events were collected up to 6 months after the last received dose. The EBOV glycoprotein FANG ELISA (Filovirus Animal Nonclinical Group enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) was used to measure the immunoglobulin G–binding antibody response to the EBOV glycoprotein. Results The vaccine regimen was well tolerated with no vaccine-related serious adverse events reported. Twenty-one days after the second dose, an EBOV glycoprotein–specific binding antibody response was observed in 95.2% of participants. Conclusions The 2-dose vaccine regimen was well tolerated and led to a high antibody response among fully vaccinated health care providers and frontliners in Boende. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conducting a vaccine trial in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC) can present unique challenges and lessons learned. This Ebola vaccine trial, enrolling 699 healthcare providers and frontliners and jointly set up by the University of Antwerp (Sponsor) and the University of Kinshasa (Principal Investigator (PI)), was conducted in Boende, a remote city in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), between December 2019 and October 2022 (ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT04186000). While being bound by strict ICH-GCP and international funder regulations, this trial, exemplary for being a public–private partnership, required collaboration between several international stakeholders (e.g., two universities, a pharmaceutical company, and a clinical research organization), local communities and government agencies. Here we address several logistical and administrative challenges, cultural differences, language barriers and regulatory, political, and ethical considerations over the trial's 2.5-year duration, while tailoring and adapting the study to the specific local context. Lessons learned include the importance of clear communication with participants in all phases of the study, but also within the study team and among different stakeholders. Challenges, mitigations, and lessons learned are presented in nine categories (e.g., safety management; trial documentation, tools, and materials; communication, staff training and community engagement/sensitization; financial and administrative hurdles; and more). Ultimately, to reach the successful end of the vaccine trial in this remote Ebola endemic area in the DRC, careful planning, collaboration, and great flexibility and adaptability was often required from all involved partners. Despite the encountered challenges, the vaccine trial discussed in this paper was able to obtain high participant retention rates (i.e., 92% of participants completed the study). We hope that other international teams aspiring to conduct similar trials in remote areas of LMICs can learn from the way our challenges were addressed, mitigations developed, and lessons were learned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A serosurvey among health care providers (HCPs) and frontliners of an area previously affected by Ebola virus disease (EVD) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) was conducted to assess the seroreactivity to Ebola virus antigens. Methods: Serum samples were collected in a cohort of HCPs and frontliners (n = 698) participants in the EBL2007 vaccine trial (December 2019 to October 2022). Specimens seroreactive for EBOV were confirmed using either the Filovirus Animal Nonclinical Group (FANG) ELISA or a Luminex multiplex assay. Results: The seroreactivity to at least two EBOV-Mayinga (m) antigens was found in 10 (1.4%: 95% CI, 0.7–2.6) samples for GP-EBOV-m + VP40-EBOV-m, and 2 (0.3%: 95% CI, 0.0–1.0) samples for VP40-EBOV-m + NP-EBOV-m using the Luminex assay. Seroreactivity to GP-EBOV-Kikwit (k) was observed in 59 (8.5%: 95%CI, 6.5–10.9) samples using FANG ELISA. Conclusion: In contrast to previous serosurveys, a low seroprevalence was found in the HCP and frontline population participating in the EBL2007 Ebola vaccine trial in Boende, DRC. This underscores the high need for standardized antibody assays and cutoffs in EBOV serosurveys to avoid the broad range of reported EBOV seroprevalence rates in EBOV endemic areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Clinical trial regulations are becoming increasingly complex and demanding for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) • International collaboration based on equal partnership can help LMICs perform high quality vaccine trials. • Maintaining acquired capacity while conducting clinical trials in LMICs is key and needs long term international support. • Transparency of lessons learned during clinical trials can assist for a more efficient conduct of trials. • This article describes the challenges, mitigations and lessons learned during the setup of a vaccine trial in a LMIC. Since the largest Ebola outbreak in West Africa (2013–2016) highlighted the potential threat of the Ebola virus to the world, several vaccines have been under development by different pharmaceutical companies. To obtain vaccine licensure, vaccine trials assessing the safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of new vaccines among different populations (e.g. different in age, gender, race, and ethnicity) play a crucial role. However, while this deadly disease mainly affects Central and West Africa, clinical trial regulations are becoming increasingly complex and consequently more expensive, influencing the affected low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in performing high quality clinical trials. Consequently, the completion of such trials in LMICs takes more time and vaccines and drugs take longer to be licensed. To overcome some of the obstacles faced, the EBOVAC3 consortium, funded by the European Union's Innovative Medicines Initiative and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, enabled high quality vaccine trials in Central and West Africa through extensive North-South collaborations. In this article, the encountered challenges, mitigations, recommendations and lessons learned from setting-up an Ebola vaccine trial in a remote area of the Democratic Republic of Congo are presented. These challenges are grouped into eight categories: (1) Regulatory, political and ethical, (2) Trial documents, (3) International collaborations, (4) Local trial staff, (5) Community engagement and sensitization, (6) Logistics, (7) Remoteness and climate conditions, (8) Financial. By sharing the encountered challenges, implemented mitigations and lessons learned for each of these categories, we hope to prepare and inform other researchers aspiring a well-functioning clinical trial unit in similar remote settings in LMICs. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04186000. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A partnership between the University of Antwerp and the University of Kinshasa implemented the EBOVAC3 clinical trial with an Ebola vaccine regimen administered to health care provider participants in Tshuapa Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo. This randomized controlled trial was part of an Ebola outbreak preparedness initiative financed through Innovative Medicines Initiative-European Union. The EBOVAC3 clinical trial used iris scan technology to identify all health care provider participants enrolled in the vaccine trial, to ensure that the right participant received the right vaccine at the right visit.Objective: We aimed to assess the acceptability, accuracy, and feasibility of iris scan technology as an identification method within a population of health care provider participants in a vaccine trial in a remote setting.Methods: We used a mixed methods study. The acceptability was assessed prior to the trial through 12 focus group discussions (FGDs) and was assessed at enrollment. Feasibility and accuracy research was conducted using a longitudinal trial study design, where iris scanning was compared with the unique study ID card to identify health care provider participants at enrollment and at their follow-up visits.Results: During the FGDs, health care provider participants were mainly concerned about the iris scan technology causing physical problems to their eyes or exposing them to spiritual problems through sorcery. However, 99% (85/86; 95% CI 97.1-100.0) of health care provider participants in the FGDs agreed to be identified by the iris scan. Also, at enrollment, 99.0% (692/699; 95% CI 98.2-99.7) of health care provider participants accepted to be identified by iris scan. Iris scan technology correctly identified 93.1% (636/683; 95% CI 91.2-95.0) of the participants returning for scheduled follow-up visits. The iris scanning operation lasted 2 minutes or less for 96.0% (656/683; 95% CI 94.6-97.5), and 1 attempt was enough to identify the majority of study participants (475/683, 69.5%; 95% CI 66.1-73.0).Conclusions: Iris scans are highly acceptable as an identification tool in a clinical trial for health care provider participants in a remote setting. Its operationalization during the trial demonstrated a high level of accuracy that can reliably identify individuals. Iris scanning is found to be feasible in clinical trials but requires a trained operator to reduce the duration and the number of attempts to identify a participant.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04186000; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04186000. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• COVID-19 outbreaks in long term care facilities declined shortly after vaccine introduction. • This decline is observed despite increasing incidence rates in the general population. • Outbreaks after vaccination were shorter and involved fewer residents. • Unvaccinated healthcare workers were more often involved in COVID-19 outbreaks than vaccinated ones. Long term care facilities for elderly (LTCFs) in Europe encountered a high disease burden at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, these facilities were the first to receive COVID-19 vaccines in many European countries. A limited COVID-19 vaccine supply early 2021 resulted in a majority of residents and healthcare workers (HCWs) in LTCFs being vaccinated compared to a minority in the general population. This study exploits this imbalance to assess the efficiency of COVID-19 vaccination in containing outbreaks in LTCFs. Exploratory statistics were performed using data from a COVID-19 surveillance system covering all 842 LTCFs in Flanders (the northern region of Belgium). The number and size of COVID-19 outbreaks in LTCFs were compared (1) before and after introducing vaccines and (2) with the status of the pandemic in the general population. Based on individual data from 15 LTCFs, the infection rate and symptoms of vaccinated and unvaccinated residents and HCWs were compared during a COVID-19 outbreak. 95.8% of the residents and 90.9% of the HCWs in Flemish LTCFs were vaccinated before May 30, 2021. Before vaccine introduction, residents in LTCFs were 10 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than the general population of Flanders. This ratio reversed after vaccination. Furthermore, after vaccination fewer and shorter outbreaks were observed involving fewer residents. During these outbreaks, vaccinated and unvaccinated residents were equally likely to test positive, but positive vaccinated residents were less likely to develop severe symptoms. In contrast, unvaccinated HCWs were more likely to test positive. In the first half of 2021, two-dose vaccination was highly efficient in preventing and containing outbreaks in LTCFs, reducing COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths. The high likelihood of unvaccinated HCWs to be involved in COVID-19 outbreaks in vaccinated LTCFs emphasizes the importance of vaccinating HCWs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]