Healthcare Providers' and Frontline Workers' Experiences of an Ebola Vaccine Trial in the Boende Health District of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

This study explored the experiences of healthcare providers (HCPs) and frontline workers who were involved in an Ebola vaccine trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The researchers interviewed a total of 99 participants (HCPs and frontline workers) living and working in the Boende health district during the period of the study, from February to March 2022. These individuals included a mix of trial participants and non-trial participants (staff of the trial, local health authorities, and head nurses of health centers). In-depth individual interviews, as well as focus group discussions (FGDs), were used to understand interviewees' experiences and perceptions. The data were analyzed to identify the main themes. The findings unveiled a multitude of positive experiences among interviewees/FGD participants. The commitment of the trial investigators to improve the study site and to equip the volunteers with necessary skills and knowledge greatly contributed to a positive trial experience. However, some interviewees felt that the reimbursement for time and travel expenses during their trial visits was insufficient in comparison with their expectations. Additionally, there were expressions of worry about the frequency of blood draws during scheduled trial visits. Our findings emphasize the critical importance of addressing and continuously considering the perspectives and concerns of trial participants before designing and implementing vaccine trials. By actively incorporating their inputs, researchers can mitigate concerns and tailor communication strategies, potentially enhancing the overall success and impact of the vaccine trial.

An ancillary care policy in a vaccine trial conducted in a resource-constrained setting: evaluation and policy recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Clear guidelines to implement ancillary care (AC) in clinical trials conducted in resource-constrained settings are lacking. Here, we evaluate an AC policy developed for a vaccine trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and formulate policy recommendations. METHODS: To evaluate the AC policy, we performed a longitudinal cohort study, nested in an open-label, single-centre, randomised Ebola vaccine trial conducted among healthcare personnel. Participants' demographic information, residence distance to the study site and details on the financial and/or medical support provided for any (serious) adverse events ((S)AE) were combined and analysed. To assess the feasibility of the AC policy, an expenditure analysis of the costs related to AC support outcomes was performed. RESULTS: Enrolment in this evaluation study started on 29 November 2021. The study lasted 11 months and included 655 participants from the Ebola vaccine trial. In total, 393 participants used the AC policy, mostly for AE management (703 AE and 94 SAE) via medication provided by the study pharmacy (75.3%). Men had a 35.2% (95% CI 4.0% to 56.6%) lower likelihood of reporting AE compared with women. Likewise, this was 32.3% lower (95% CI 5.8% to 51.4%) for facility-based compared with community-based healthcare providers. The daily AE reporting was 78.8% lower during the passive vs the active trial stage, and 97.4% lower during unscheduled vs scheduled visits (p<0.001). Participants living further than 10 km from the trial site more frequently reported the travel distance as a reason for not using the policy (p<0.04). In practice, only 1.1% of the operational trial budget was used for AC policy support. CONCLUSION: The trial design, study population and local health system impacted the use of the AC policy. Nonetheless, the AC policy implementation in this remote and resource-constrained setting was feasible, had negligible budgetary implications and contributed to participants' healthcare options and well-being.

Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo Ebola virus disease vaccine regimen plus Ad26.ZEBOV booster at 1 year versus 2 years in health-care and front-line workers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: secondary and exploratory outcomes of an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Health-care providers and front-line workers are at risk of contracting Ebola virus disease during an Ebola virus outbreak and consequently of becoming drivers of the disease. We aimed to assess the long-term immunogenicity of the Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen and the safety of and immune memory response to an Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination at 1 year or 2 years after the first dose in this at-risk population. METHODS: This open-label, single-centre, randomised, phase 2 trial was conducted at one study site within a hospital in Boende, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Adult health-care providers and front-line workers, excluding those with a known history of Ebola virus disease, were vaccinated with a two-dose heterologous regimen administered at a 56-day interval via a 0·5 mL intramuscular injection in the deltoid muscle, comprising Ad26.ZEBOV as the first dose and MVA-BN-Filo as the second dose. After the initial vaccination on day 1, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via randomisation envelopes, opened in a sequential order, to receive an Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination at 1 year (group 1) or 2 years (group 2) after the first dose. We present the secondary and exploratory objectives of the trial-results of the primary objective have been published elsewhere. We measured immunogenicity at six timepoints per group as geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific IgG binding antibodies, using the Filovirus Animal Non-Clinical Group ELISA. We assessed serious adverse events occurring up to 6 months after the last dose and local and systemic solicited and unsolicited adverse events reported for 7 days after the booster vaccination. Antibody responses were analysed per protocol, serious adverse events per full analysis set (FAS), and adverse events for all boosted FAS participants. This trial is registered as completed on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04186000). FINDINGS: Between Dec 18, 2019, and Feb 8, 2020, 699 health-care providers and front-line workers were enrolled and 698 were randomly assigned (350 to group 1 and 348 to group 2 [FAS]); 534 (77%) participants were male and 164 (23%) were female. 319 in group 1 and 317 in group 2 received the booster. 29 (8%) in group 1 and 26 (7%) in group 2 did not complete the study, mostly due to loss to follow-up or moving out of the study area. In both groups, injection-site pain or tenderness (87 [27%] of 319 group 1 participants vs 90 [28%] of 317 group 2 participants) and headache (91 [29%] vs 93 [29%]) were the most common solicited adverse events related to the investigational product. One participant (in group 2) had a related serious adverse event after booster vaccination (fever of ≥40·0°C). Before booster vaccination, Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific IgG binding antibody GMCs were 279·9 ELISA units (EU) per mL (95% CI 250·6-312·7) in 314 group 1 participants (1 year after first dose) and 274·6 EU/mL (242·1-311·5) in 310 group 2 participants (2 years after first dose). These values were 5·2 times higher in group 1 and 4·9 times higher in group 2 than before vaccination on day 1. 7 days after booster vaccination, these values increased to 10 781·6 EU/mL (9354·4-12 426·4) for group 1 and 10 746·9 EU/mL (9208·7-12 542·0) for group 2, which were approximately 39 times higher than before booster vaccination in both groups. 1 year after booster vaccination in 299 group 1 participants, a GMC that was 7·6-times higher than before booster vaccination was still observed (2133·1 EU/mL [1827·7-2489·7]). INTERPRETATION: Overall, the vaccine regimen and booster dose were well tolerated. A similar and robust humoral immune response was observed for participants boosted 1 year and 2 years after the first dose, supporting the use of the regimen and flexibility of booster dose administration for prophylactic vaccination in at-risk populations. FUNDING: Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking and Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

Longitudinal assessment of an Ebola vaccine trial understanding among healthcare providers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

BACKGROUND: The long-term retention of information disclosed during the informed consent in clinical trials lasting over a year cannot be guaranteed for all volunteers. This study aimed to assess the level of participants' retention and understanding of the trial information after two years of participation in a vaccine trial. METHODS: In total, 699 health care providers (HCPs) and frontline workers were enrolled in the EBL2007 vaccine trial conducted between February 2019 and September 2022 in the Health District of Boende, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Individual scores obtained from a questionnaire (test of understanding, TOU), specifically designed to assess the understanding of the consent at baseline, were collected before the clinical trial started and at one-year and two-year intervals. RESULTS: TOU scores were high in the beginning of the trial (median TOU = 10/10), but significantly decreased in both the first and second years following (median TOU = 8/10 in year 1 and median TOU = 9/10 in year 2, p-value < 0.0001). The decrease in scores was significantly higher among individuals with occupations requiring shorter education such as midwives (median TOU = 7/10 in year 1 and 8/10 in year 2, pvalue = 0.025). Furthermore, older participants exhibited poorer retention of information compared to younger individuals (median TOU = 8/10 vs 9/10, p-value = 0.007). CONCLUSION: We observed a significant decline in the informational knowledge of informed consent, specifically in terms of basic knowledge on the study vaccine and trial procedures. As participant safety and understanding is a paramount ethical concern for researchers, it is crucial for participants to fully comprehend the study's objectives and potential risks. Therefore, our findings suggest the need for clinical researchers to re-explain participants to optimize the protection of their rights and wellbeing during the research.

Safety and Immunogenicity of the Heterologous 2-Dose Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo Vaccine Regimen in Health Care Providers and Frontliners of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

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.

Conducting an Ebola vaccine trial in a remote area of the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Challenges, mitigations, and lessons learned.

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.

Low seroprevalence of Ebola virus in health care providers in an endemic region (Tshuapa province) of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

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.

Within-host modeling to measure dynamics of antibody responses after natural infection or vaccination: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Within-host models describe the dynamics of immune cells when encountering a pathogen, and how these dynamics can lead to an individual-specific immune response. This systematic review aims to summarize which within-host methodology has been used to study and quantify antibody kinetics after infection or vaccination. In particular, we focus on data-driven and theory-driven mechanistic models. MATERIALS: PubMed and Web of Science databases were used to identify eligible papers published until May 2022. Eligible publications included those studying mathematical models that measure antibody kinetics as the primary outcome (ranging from phenomenological to mechanistic models). RESULTS: We identified 78 eligible publications, of which 8 relied on an Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs)-based modelling approach to describe antibody kinetics after vaccination, and 12 studies used such models in the context of humoral immunity induced by natural infection. Mechanistic modeling studies were summarized in terms of type of study, sample size, measurements collected, antibody half-life, compartments and parameters included, inferential or analytical method, and model selection. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the importance of investigating antibody kinetics and underlying mechanisms of (waning of) the humoral immunity, few publications explicitly account for this in a mathematical model. In particular, most research focuses on phenomenological rather than mechanistic models. The limited information on the age groups or other risk factors that might impact antibody kinetics, as well as a lack of experimental or observational data remain important concerns regarding the interpretation of mathematical modeling results. We reviewed the similarities between the kinetics following vaccination and infection, emphasising that it may be worth translating some features from one setting to another. However, we also stress that some biological mechanisms need to be distinguished. We found that data-driven mechanistic models tend to be more simplistic, and theory-driven approaches lack representative data to validate model results.

Change in COVID19 outbreak pattern following vaccination in long-term care facilities in Flanders, Belgium.

INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

Setting-up an Ebola vaccine trial in a remote area of the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Challenges, mitigations, and lessons learned.

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.

Open-label, randomised, clinical trial to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of a prophylactic vaccination of healthcare providers by administration of a heterologous vaccine regimen against Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: the study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: This article describes the protocol of an Ebola vaccine clinical trial which investigates the safety and immunogenicity of a two-dose prophylactic Ebola vaccine regimen comprised of two Ebola vaccines (Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo) administered 56 days apart, followed by a booster vaccination with Ad26.ZEBOV offered at either 1 year or 2 years (randomisation 1:1) after the first dose. This clinical trial is part of the EBOVAC3 project (an Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking), and is the first to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of two different booster vaccination arms in a large cohort of adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is an open-label, monocentric, phase 2, randomised vaccine trial. A total of 700 healthcare providers and frontliners are planned to be recruited from the Tshuapa province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The primary and secondary objectives of the study assess the immunogenicity of the first (Ad26.ZEBOV), second (MVA-BN-Filo) and booster (Ad26.ZEBOV) dose. Immunogenicity is assessed through the evaluation of EBOV glycoprotein binding antibody responses after vaccination. Safety is assessed through the collection of serious adverse events from the first dose until 6 months post booster vaccination and the collection of solicited and unsolicited adverse events for 1 week after the booster dose. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by the National Ethics Committee of the Ministry of Health of the DRC (n°121/CNES/BN/PMMF/2019). The clinical trial was registered on 4 December 2019 on ClinicalTrials.gov. Trial activities are planned to finish in October 2022. All participants are required to provide written informed consent and no study-related procedures will be performed until consent is obtained. The results of the trial will be added on ClinicalTrials.gov, published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04186000; Pre-results.

Risk factors for hazardous drinking in university students from South Africa and Belgium: a cross-cultural comparison study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have associated certain risk factors with hazardous drinking in students. However, big cultural and geographical differences exist regarding alcohol use. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not there was a difference in hazardous drinking between Belgian and South African university students and to establish the risk factors that contribute to hazardous drinking in university students (calculated using the AUDIT-C) from a developing country (South Africa) and a developed country (Belgium). METHODS: An online survey assessing hazardous drinking among university students in South Africa (University of KwaZulu-Natal, UKZN) and Belgium (University of Antwerp, UoA) was conducted, using the shortened version of the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT-C). Risk factors in males and females for hazardous drinking were explored using multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: In total, 499 students were included in the study (250 UoA and 249 UKZN students). A significant higher amount of male (94.8%) as well as female (92.4%) UoA students drank alcohol in the last year compared to the male (66.2%) and female (67.8%) UKZN students (p<0.001). Additionally, a significant higher amount of UoA students were hazardous drinkers, compared to the UKZN students (p<0.001). Multivaiate analysis showed that male UoA students were almost 6 times more likely to be hazardous drinkers than male UKZN students (OR=5.611, p=0.005). Female UoA students were more than twice as likely to be hazardous drinkers than female UKZN students (OR=2.371, p=0.016). CONCLUSION: This study found a significant difference in hazardous drinking between Belgian and South African university students.

Use of Iris Scanning for Biometric Recognition of Healthy Adults Participating in an Ebola Vaccine Trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Mixed Methods Study.

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.

Algorithm for the support of non-related (serious) adverse events in an Ebola vaccine trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Implementing an Ebola vaccine trial in a remote area in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and being confronted with a dysfunctional health care system and acute unmet health needs of participants, ethical considerations were made regarding the ancillary care obligations of the sponsor and researchers. Spurred by the occurrence of non-related (serious) adverse events (NR-SAEs), the Universities of Antwerp and Kinshasa jointly developed an algorithm, accompanied by an algorithm policy. The algorithm consists of a set of consecutive questions with binary response options, leading to structured, non-arbitrary and consistent support and management for each NR-SAE. It is the result of dialogue and collaboration between the sponsor (University of Antwerp) and the principal investigator (University of Kinshasa), consultation of literature, and input of research ethics and social sciences experts. The characteristics of the project and its budgetary framework were taken into account, as well as the local socioeconomic and healthcare situation. The algorithm and related policy have been approved by the relevant ethics committee (EC), so field implementation will begin when the study activities resume in November 2021. Lessons learnt will be shared with the relevant stakeholders within and outside DRC.If NR-SAEs are not covered by a functioning social welfare system, sponsors and researchers should develop a feasible, standardised and transparent approach to the provision of ancillary care. National legislation and contextualised requirements are therefore needed, particularly in low/middle-income countries, to guide researchers and sponsors in this process. Protocols, particularly of clinical trials conducted in areas with 'access to care' constraints, should include adequate ancillary care arrangements. Furthermore, it is essential that local ECs systematically require ancillary care provisions to enhance the well-being and protection of the rights of research participants. This project was funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

Breast Milk Antibody Levels in Tdap-Vaccinated Women After Preterm Delivery.

BACKGROUND: Enrichment of breast milk (BM) with immunoglobulin (Ig) A and IgG through maternal vaccination could help infants combat targeted pathogens. However, evidence on this effect after preterm delivery is lacking. In this study, we investigated the total and anti-pertussis toxin (anti-PT)-specific IgA and IgG production in BM after term and preterm delivery in the presence of maternal Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis) vaccination. METHODS: Serum and BM samples of lactating women who delivered at term or prematurely and did or did not receive Tdap vaccine (Boostrix, GSK Biologicals) during pregnancy were collected as part of a clinical study (N = 234). Anti-PT IgA/IgG (IBL assay; Meso Scale Discovery assay) and total IgA/IgG (Thermofisher, on BM samples only) immunosorbent assays were performed on all samples collected at 72 hours and 4, 8, and 12 weeks postpartum. RESULTS: BM after preterm delivery contained anti-PT IgA and IgG geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) comparable to those after term delivery (eg, colostrum anti-PT IgA, 5.39 IU/mL vs 6.69 IU/mL, respectively). Maternal Tdap vaccination induced significantly higher anti-PT IgG GMCs in colostrum of vaccinated compared with unvaccinated women who delivered at term (0.110 IU/mL vs 0.027 IU/mL, P = .009). Anti-PT antibodies persisted up to 12 weeks postpartum. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that maternal Tdap vaccination induces high Ig levels in BM after both term and preterm delivery and that these antibodies remain abundantly present throughout lactation, possibly offering additional mucosal protection during the most vulnerable period in early life. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02511327.