Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
2.
PLoS Med ; 13(3): e1001967, 2016 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26930627

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Ebola virus disease (EVD) is a highly lethal condition for which no specific treatment has proven efficacy. In September 2014, while the Ebola outbreak was at its peak, the World Health Organization released a short list of drugs suitable for EVD research. Favipiravir, an antiviral developed for the treatment of severe influenza, was one of these. In late 2014, the conditions for starting a randomized Ebola trial were not fulfilled for two reasons. One was the perception that, given the high number of patients presenting simultaneously and the very high mortality rate of the disease, it was ethically unacceptable to allocate patients from within the same family or village to receive or not receive an experimental drug, using a randomization process impossible to understand by very sick patients. The other was that, in the context of rumors and distrust of Ebola treatment centers, using a randomized design at the outset might lead even more patients to refuse to seek care. Therefore, we chose to conduct a multicenter non-randomized trial, in which all patients would receive favipiravir along with standardized care. The objectives of the trial were to test the feasibility and acceptability of an emergency trial in the context of a large Ebola outbreak, and to collect data on the safety and effectiveness of favipiravir in reducing mortality and viral load in patients with EVD. The trial was not aimed at directly informing future guidelines on Ebola treatment but at quickly gathering standardized preliminary data to optimize the design of future studies. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Inclusion criteria were positive Ebola virus reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) test, age ≥ 1 y, weight ≥ 10 kg, ability to take oral drugs, and informed consent. All participants received oral favipiravir (day 0: 6,000 mg; day 1 to day 9: 2,400 mg/d). Semi-quantitative Ebola virus RT-PCR (results expressed in "cycle threshold" [Ct]) and biochemistry tests were performed at day 0, day 2, day 4, end of symptoms, day 14, and day 30. Frozen samples were shipped to a reference biosafety level 4 laboratory for RNA viral load measurement using a quantitative reference technique (genome copies/milliliter). Outcomes were mortality, viral load evolution, and adverse events. The analysis was stratified by age and Ct value. A "target value" of mortality was defined a priori for each stratum, to guide the interpretation of interim and final analysis. Between 17 December 2014 and 8 April 2015, 126 patients were included, of whom 111 were analyzed (adults and adolescents, ≥13 y, n = 99; young children, ≤6 y, n = 12). Here we present the results obtained in the 99 adults and adolescents. Of these, 55 had a baseline Ct value ≥ 20 (Group A Ct ≥ 20), and 44 had a baseline Ct value < 20 (Group A Ct < 20). Ct values and RNA viral loads were well correlated, with Ct = 20 corresponding to RNA viral load = 7.7 log10 genome copies/ml. Mortality was 20% (95% CI 11.6%-32.4%) in Group A Ct ≥ 20 and 91% (95% CI 78.8%-91.1%) in Group A Ct < 20. Both mortality 95% CIs included the predefined target value (30% and 85%, respectively). Baseline serum creatinine was ≥110 µmol/l in 48% of patients in Group A Ct ≥ 20 (≥300 µmol/l in 14%) and in 90% of patients in Group A Ct < 20 (≥300 µmol/l in 44%). In Group A Ct ≥ 20, 17% of patients with baseline creatinine ≥110 µmol/l died, versus 97% in Group A Ct < 20. In patients who survived, the mean decrease in viral load was 0.33 log10 copies/ml per day of follow-up. RNA viral load values and mortality were not significantly different between adults starting favipiravir within <72 h of symptoms compared to others. Favipiravir was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of an outbreak at its peak, with crowded care centers, randomizing patients to receive either standard care or standard care plus an experimental drug was not felt to be appropriate. We did a non-randomized trial. This trial reaches nuanced conclusions. On the one hand, we do not conclude on the efficacy of the drug, and our conclusions on tolerance, although encouraging, are not as firm as they could have been if we had used randomization. On the other hand, we learned about how to quickly set up and run an Ebola trial, in close relationship with the community and non-governmental organizations; we integrated research into care so that it improved care; and we generated knowledge on EVD that is useful to further research. Our data illustrate the frequency of renal dysfunction and the powerful prognostic value of low Ct values. They suggest that drug trials in EVD should systematically stratify analyses by baseline Ct value, as a surrogate of viral load. They also suggest that favipiravir monotherapy merits further study in patients with medium to high viremia, but not in those with very high viremia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02329054.


Assuntos
Amidas/uso terapêutico , Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Doença pelo Vírus Ebola/tratamento farmacológico , Pirazinas/uso terapêutico , Adolescente , Adulto , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Ebolavirus/genética , Estudos de Viabilidade , Feminino , Guiné , Doença pelo Vírus Ebola/diagnóstico , Estudo Historicamente Controlado , Humanos , Lactente , Masculino , RNA Viral/sangue , Reação em Cadeia da Polimerase Via Transcriptase Reversa , Terapias em Estudo , Resultado do Tratamento , Carga Viral , Adulto Jovem
3.
Int J Infect Dis ; 113: 166-167, 2021 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34587535

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: With the development of therapeutics and vaccine against Ebola virus disease (EVD), the question of post-exposure prophylaxis for high-risk contact has emerged. Immunotherapies (monoclonal antibodies [mAbs]) recently validated for treating infected patients appear to be a good candidate for protecting contacts. DESIGN: During the tenth EVD outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, we have administrated mAbs (Mab114 or REGN-EB3) to high and intermediate-risk contacts of EVD patients. RESULTS: Overall, 23 non-vaccinated contacts received mAbs after a median delay between contact and post-exposure prophylaxis of 1 day (interquartile range 1-2). All contacts were free of symptoms, and all had negative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction 14 days after the contact. CONCLUSION: Immunotherapies appear to be promising candidates to protect EVD contacts. Interaction with vaccine needs to be analyzed and a larger study on efficacy conducted.


Assuntos
Ebolavirus , Doença pelo Vírus Ebola , Anticorpos Monoclonais/uso terapêutico , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados , República Democrática do Congo/epidemiologia , Surtos de Doenças , Combinação de Medicamentos , Doença pelo Vírus Ebola/tratamento farmacológico , Doença pelo Vírus Ebola/prevenção & controle , Humanos , Imunoterapia , Profilaxia Pós-Exposição
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA