Randomized Trial of Vaccines for Zaire Ebola Virus Disease.

BACKGROUND: Questions remain concerning the rapidity of immune responses and the durability and safety of vaccines used to prevent Zaire Ebola virus disease. METHODS: We conducted two randomized, placebo-controlled trials - one involving adults and one involving children - to evaluate the safety and immune responses of three vaccine regimens against Zaire Ebola virus disease: Ad26.ZEBOV followed by MVA-BN-Filo 56 days later (the Ad26-MVA group), rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP followed by placebo 56 days later (the rVSV group), and rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP followed by rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP 56 days later (the rVSV-booster group). The primary end point was antibody response at 12 months, defined as having both a 12-month antibody concentration of at least 200 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay units (EU) per milliliter and an increase from baseline in the antibody concentration by at least a factor of 4. RESULTS: A total of 1400 adults and 1401 children underwent randomization. Among both adults and children, the incidence of injection-site reactions and symptoms (e.g., feverishness and headache) was higher in the week after receipt of the primary and second or booster vaccinations than after receipt of placebo but not at later time points. These events were largely low-grade. At month 12, a total of 41% of adults (titer, 401 EU per milliliter) and 78% of children (titer, 828 EU per milliliter) had a response in the Ad26-MVA group; 76% (titer, 992 EU per milliliter) and 87% (titer, 1415 EU per milliliter), respectively, had a response in the rVSV group; 81% (titer, 1037 EU per milliliter) and 93% (titer, 1745 EU per milliliter), respectively, had a response in the rVSV-booster group; and 3% (titer, 93 EU per milliliter) and 4% (titer, 67 EU per milliliter), respectively, had a response in the placebo group (P<0.001 for all comparisons of vaccine with placebo). In both adults and children, antibody responses with vaccine differed from those with placebo beginning on day 14. CONCLUSIONS: No safety concerns were identified in this trial. With all three vaccine regimens, immune responses were seen from day 14 through month 12. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; PREVAC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02876328; EudraCT numbers, 2017-001798-18 and 2017-001798-18/3rd; and Pan African Clinical Trials Registry number, PACTR201712002760250.).

Partnership for Research on Ebola VACcination (PREVAC): protocol of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial evaluating three vaccine strategies against Ebola in healthy volunteers in four West African countries.

INTRODUCTION: The Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in 2014-2016 in West Africa was the largest on record and provided an opportunity for large clinical trials and accelerated efforts to develop an effective and safe preventative vaccine. Multiple questions regarding the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of EVD vaccines remain unanswered. To address these gaps in the evidence base, the Partnership for Research on Ebola Vaccines (PREVAC) trial was designed. This paper describes the design, methods, and baseline results of the PREVAC trial and discusses challenges that led to different protocol amendments. METHODS: This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial of three vaccine strategies against the Ebola virus in healthy volunteers 1 year of age and above. The three vaccine strategies being studied are the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine, with and without a booster dose at 56 days, and the Ad26.ZEBOV,MVA-FN-Filo vaccine regimen with Ad26.ZEBOV given as the first dose and the MVA-FN-Filo vaccination given 56 days later. There have been 4 versions of the protocol with those enrolled in Version 4.0 comprising the primary analysis cohort. The primary endpoint is based on the antibody titer against the Ebola virus surface glycoprotein measured 12 months following the final injection. RESULTS: From April 2017 to December 2018, a total of 5002 volunteers were screened and 4789 enrolled. Participants were enrolled at 6 sites in four countries (Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Mali). Of the 4789 participants, 2560 (53%) were adults and 2229 (47%) were children. Those < 18 years of age included 549 (12%) aged 1 to 4 years, 750 (16%) 5 to 11 years, and 930 (19%) aged 12-17 years. At baseline, the median (25th, 75th percentile) antibody titer to Ebola virus glycoprotein for 1090 participants was 72 (50, 116) EU/mL. DISCUSSION: The PREVAC trial is evaluating-placebo-controlled-two promising Ebola candidate vaccines in advanced stages of development. The results will address unanswered questions related to short- and long-term safety and immunogenicity for three vaccine strategies in adults and children. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02876328 . Registered on 23 August 2016.

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Ebola Virus Disease Therapeutics.

BACKGROUND: Although several experimental therapeutics for Ebola virus disease (EVD) have been developed, the safety and efficacy of the most promising therapies need to be assessed in the context of a randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: We conducted a trial of four investigational therapies for EVD in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where an outbreak began in August 2018. Patients of any age who had a positive result for Ebola virus RNA on reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction assay were enrolled. All patients received standard care and were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to intravenous administration of the triple monoclonal antibody ZMapp (the control group), the antiviral agent remdesivir, the single monoclonal antibody MAb114, or the triple monoclonal antibody REGN-EB3. The REGN-EB3 group was added in a later version of the protocol, so data from these patients were compared with those of patients in the ZMapp group who were enrolled at or after the time the REGN-EB3 group was added (the ZMapp subgroup). The primary end point was death at 28 days. RESULTS: A total of 681 patients were enrolled from November 20, 2018, to August 9, 2019, at which time the data and safety monitoring board recommended that patients be assigned only to the MAb114 and REGN-EB3 groups for the remainder of the trial; the recommendation was based on the results of an interim analysis that showed superiority of these groups to ZMapp and remdesivir with respect to mortality. At 28 days, death had occurred in 61 of 174 patients (35.1%) in the MAb114 group, as compared with 84 of 169 (49.7%) in the ZMapp group (P = 0.007), and in 52 of 155 (33.5%) in the REGN-EB3 group, as compared with 79 of 154 (51.3%) in the ZMapp subgroup (P = 0.002). A shorter duration of symptoms before admission and lower baseline values for viral load and for serum creatinine and aminotransferase levels each correlated with improved survival. Four serious adverse events were judged to be potentially related to the trial drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Both MAb114 and REGN-EB3 were superior to ZMapp in reducing mortality from EVD. Scientifically and ethically sound clinical research can be conducted during disease outbreaks and can help inform the outbreak response. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; PALM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03719586.).

Collaboration of the NIH and PHS Commissioned Corps in the International Ebola Clinical Research Response.

The U.S. response to the Ebola epidemic resulted in many federal agencies assessing their ability to respond to global threats and improve the efficiency of humanitarian efforts.

Considerations for Use of Investigational Drugs in Public Health Emergencies.

The paradigm for the use of investigational drugs in public health emergencies has been recently tested to prevent and treat highly infectious and lethal diseases. Examples include the successful implementation of vaccine and therapeutic clinical trials during the recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa. On the other end of the spectrum was the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of peramivir in the treatment of H1N1 influenza virus that did not provide an opportunity to collect data or understand the effectiveness of the EUA program. Between the gold standard of a randomized controlled clinical trial and the problems associated with EUAs are the domain of expanded access protocols that may provide an avenue to make products available while awaiting licensure. This paper will examine the regulatory pathways in the United States (US) for the use of investigational drugs in a public health emergency as well as considerations when making these products available outside the US. Descriptions of the applications of the various approaches will be presented. Regardless of the pathway chosen, public health and clinical research planners need to work together to consider several factors associated with the respective options and maintain a goal of working toward the collection of data to support licensure before faced with future outbreaks. Finally, this paper will consider the lessons learned from public health response in the context of investigational drugs in other diseases where "right to try laws" may pose opportunities, as well as challenges.

Conventional Wisdom versus Actual Outcomes: Challenges in the Conduct of an Ebola Vaccine Trial in Liberia during the International Public Health Emergency.

Clinical trials are challenging endeavors. Planning and implementing an investigational vaccine trial in Liberia, in the midst of an Ebola virus disease (EVD) epidemic that World Health Organization classified a public health emergency of international concern, presented extraordinary challenges. Normally, years of preparation and a litany of tasks lay the groundwork for a successful, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial focused on safety and efficacy. Difficult research settings, unpredictable events, and other unique circumstances can add complexity. The setting in Liberia was especially problematic due to an infrastructure still badly damaged following a lengthy civil war and a very fragile health-care system that was further devastated by the EVD outbreak. The Partnership for Research on Vaccines in Liberia I EVD vaccine trial was planned and implemented in less than 3 months by a Liberian and U.S. research partnership, and its Phase II substudy was fully enrolled 3 months later. Contrasting conventional wisdom with trial outcomes offers an opportunity to compare early assumptions, barriers encountered, and adaptive strategies used, with end results. Understanding what was learned can inform future trial responses when disease outbreaks, especially in resource-poor locations with minimal infrastructure, pose a significant threat to public health.

Establishment of a research pharmacy to support Ebola clinical research in Liberia.

OBJECTIVE: This article describes the establishment of a research pharmacy to support the Partnership for Research on Ebola Vaccines in Liberia (PREVAIL) vaccine study for Ebola virus disease. SETTING: This article describes the establishment of the pharmacy element to support the overall research program during an Ebola outbreak in Monrovia, Liberia, in 2014 and 2015. PRACTICE INNOVATION: The need for the rapid establishment of infrastructure to support the Liberia-United States joint clinical research partnership in response to the emerging Ebola virus disease provided the opportunity for collaboration among Liberian and U.S. pharmacists. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: Resource austere and research naïve. EVALUATION: Research pharmacy prepared and randomized 1500 vaccinations in support of PREVAIL. RESULTS: Experiences of the Liberian and U.S. pharmacists involved in the program are described. CONCLUSION: The partnership was successful in the conduct of the study. More importantly, the capacity for Liberian pharmacists to support clinical research was established. In addition, the U.S. team learned several important lessons that will help prepare them for responding to research needs in future infectious disease outbreaks.

End points for testing influenza antiviral treatments for patients at high risk of severe and life-threatening disease.

Influenza infection results in substantial morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients, including those who are immunocompromised or pregnant. Antiviral therapy likely provides considerable benefit to these patients, but few studies have been successfully conducted in these high-risk populations, and no drugs are specifically licensed for treating these subgroups. One of the key challenges facing novel antiviral drug development for influenza is determining the appropriate efficacy end points that would enable rapid regulatory approval for drug use in seriously ill patients, for whom risk-benefit assessments differ from those with uncomplicated illness. All available antiviral drugs currently affect viral replication, and respiratory tract viral titers correlate with both symptoms and measures of host inflammatory responses, including cytokine and chemokine expression that are likely responsible for many of the clinical symptoms. Consequently, we outline the evidence to support the use of primary virological end points in studies of antiviral agents involving patients who are hospitalized with severe influenza or those who are at high risk of severe and life-threatening disease.