Improving Ebola virus disease outbreak control through targeted post-exposure prophylaxis.

Ebola virus disease kills more than half of people infected. Since the disease is transmitted via close human contact, identifying individuals at the highest risk of developing the disease is possible on the basis of the type of contact (correlated with viral exposure). Different candidates for post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP; ie, vaccines, antivirals, and monoclonal antibodies) each have their specific benefits and limitations, which we discuss in this Viewpoint. Approved monoclonal antibodies have been found to reduce mortality in people with Ebola virus disease. As monoclonal antibodies act swiftly by directly targeting the virus, they are promising candidates for targeted PEP in contacts at high risk of developing disease. This intervention could save lives, halt viral transmission, and, ultimately, help curtail outbreak propagation. We explore how a strategic integration of monoclonal antibodies and vaccines as PEP could provide both immediate and long-term protection against Ebola virus disease, highlighting ongoing clinical research that aims to refine this approach, and discuss the transformative potential of a successful PEP strategy to help control viral haemorrhagic fever outbreaks.

Ebola outbreak in Guinea, 2021: Clinical care of patients with Ebola virus disease.

Background: Experience from the Zaire Ebolavirus epidemic in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (2018-2020) demonstrates that early initiation of essential critical care and administration of Zaire Ebolavirus specific monoclonal antibodies may be associated with improved outcomes among patients with Ebola virus disease (EVD). Objectives: This series describes 13 EVD patients and 276 patients with suspected EVD treated during a Zaire Ebolavirus outbreak in Guinea in 2021. Method: Patients with confirmed or suspected EVD were treated in two Ebola treatment centres (ETC) in the region of N'zérékoré. Data were reviewed from all patients with suspected or confirmed EVD hospitalised in these two ETCs during the outbreak (14 February 2021 - 19 June 2021). Ebola-specific monoclonal antibodies, were available 2 weeks after onset of the outbreak. Results: Nine of the 13 EVD patients (age range: 22-70 years) survived. The four EVD patients who died, including one pregnant woman, presented with multi-organ dysfunction and died within 48 h of admission. All eight patients who received Ebola-specific monoclonal antibodies survived. Four of the 13 EVD patients were health workers. Improvement of ETC design facilitated implementation of WHO-recommended 'optimized supportive care for EVD'. In this context, pragmatic clinical training was integrated in routine ETC activities. Initial clinical manifestations of 13 confirmed EVD patients were similar to those of 276 patients with suspected, but subsequently non confirmed EVD. These patients suffered from other acute infections (e.g. malaria in 183 of 276 patients; 66%). Five of the 276 patients with suspected EVD died. One of these five patients had Lassa virus disease and a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) co-infection. Conclusion: Multidisciplinary outbreak response teams can rapidly optimise ETC design. Trained clinical teams can provide WHO-recommended optimised supportive care, including safe administration of Ebola-specific monoclonal antibodies. Pragmatic training in essential critical care can be integrated in routine ETC activities. Contribution: This article describes clinical realities associated with implementation of WHO-recommended standards of 'optimized supportive care' and administration of Ebola virus specific treatments. In this context, the importance of essential design principles of ETCs is underlined, which allow continuous visual contact and verbal interaction of health workers and families with their patients. Elements that may contribute to further quality of care improvements for patients with confirmed or suspected EVD are discussed.

Development of the PREDS score to predict in-hospital mortality of patients with Ebola virus disease under advanced supportive care: Results from the EVISTA cohort in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Background: As mortality remains high for patients with Ebola virus disease (EVD) despite new treatment options, the ability to level up the provided supportive care and to predict the risk of death is of major importance. This analysis of the EVISTA cohort aims to describe advanced supportive care provided to EVD patients in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and to develop a simple risk score for predicting in-hospital death, called PREDS. Methods: In this prospective cohort (NCT04815175), patients were recruited during the 10th EVD outbreak in the DRC across three Ebola Treatment Centers (ETCs). Demographic, clinical, biological, virological and treatment data were collected. We evaluated factors known to affect the risk of in-hospital death and applied univariate and multivariate Cox proportional-hazards analyses to derive the risk score in a training dataset. We validated the score in an internal-validation dataset, applying C-statistics as a measure of discrimination. Findings: Between August 1st 2018 and December 31th 2019, 711 patients were enrolled in the study. Regarding supportive care, patients received vasopressive drug (n = 111), blood transfusion (n = 101), oxygen therapy (n = 250) and cardio-pulmonary ultrasound (n = 15). Overall, 323 (45%) patients died before day 28. Six independent prognostic factors were identified (ALT, creatinine, modified NEWS2 score, viral load, age and symptom duration). The final score range from 0 to 13 points, with a good concordance (C = 86.24%) and calibration with the Hosmer-Lemeshow test (p = 0.12). Interpretation: The implementation of advanced supportive care is possible for EVD patients in emergency settings. PREDS is a simple, accurate tool that could help in orienting early advanced care for at-risk patients after external validation. Funding: This study was funded by ALIMA.

Effects of therapies for Ebola virus disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Specific treatments targeting Ebola virus are crucial in managing Ebola virus disease. To support the development of clinical practice guidelines on medications for Ebola virus disease, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of therapies for patients with Ebola virus disease. METHODS: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Global Health, African Index Medicus, World Health Organization Global Index Medicus, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, Epistemonikos, bioRxiv, medRxiv, and SSRN without language restrictions for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between database inception and Jan 1, 2022, comparing at least one therapeutic agent for Ebola virus disease against standard care or another therapeutic agent for Ebola virus disease. Two reviewers assessed study eligibility and extracted summary data independently using a standardised form. Our outcomes of interest were mortality, adverse maternal outcomes, risk of onward transmission, duration of admission to a health-care facility, functional status after Ebola virus disease, serious adverse events from medication, adverse perinatal outcomes, time to symptom resolution, and time to viral clearance. We did frequentist network meta-analyses to estimate the effect of all interventions and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the certainty of the evidence. We registered the protocol with PROSPERO, CRD42022296539. FINDINGS: We identified 7840 records through database searches, of which two RCTs with a total of 753 patients proved eligible. Only data on mortality, the duration of admission, serious adverse events, and time to viral clearance were available for meta-analysis. Compared with standard care, REGN-EB3 (relative risk [RR] 0·40, 95% CI 0·18 to 0·89; moderate certainty) and mAb114 (0·42, 0·19 to 0·93; moderate certainty) probably reduce mortality. Whether ZMapp (0·60, 0·28 to 1·26; very low certainty) and remdesivir (0·64, 0·29 to 1·39; very low certainty) reduce mortality compared with standard care is uncertain. With high certainty, REGN-EB3 reduces mortality compared with ZMapp (0·67, 0·52 to 0·88) and remdesivir (0·63, 0·49 to 0·82). With high certainty, mAb114 also reduces mortality compared with ZMapp (0·71, 0·55 to 0·91) and remdesivir (0·66, 0·52 to 0·84). Compared with standard care, REGN-EB3, mAb114, ZMapp, and remdesivir might have little or no effect on the time to viral clearance (mean difference ranged from -0·25 days to -1·14 days; low certainty). ZMapp might reduce the duration of admission compared with standard care (mean difference -2·02 days, 95% CI -4·05 to 0·01; low certainty). Findings for all comparisons suggested that there might be little or no difference in the prevalence of serious adverse events, but certainty was low or very low in all comparisons but one. INTERPRETATION: REGN-EB3 and mAb114 separately reduce mortality compared with ZMapp, remdesivir, or standard care in patients with Ebola virus disease. These findings suggest that health-care workers should prioritise the use of REGN-EB3 and mAb114 for patients with Ebola virus disease during future outbreaks. FUNDING: WHO.

Post-exposure prophylaxis following high-risk contact with Ebola virus, using immunotherapies with monoclonal antibodies, in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo: an emergency use program.

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.

Clinical presentation, outcomes and factors associated with mortality: A prospective study from three COVID-19 referral care centres in West Africa.

OBJECTIVES: The overall death toll from COVID-19 in Africa is reported to be low but there is little individual-level evidence on the severity of the disease. This study examined the clinical spectrum and outcome of patients monitored in COVID-19 care centres (CCCs) in two West-African countries. METHODS: Burkina Faso and Guinea set up referral CCCs to hospitalise all symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers, regardless of the severity of their symptoms. Data collected from hospitalised patients by November 2020 are presented. RESULT: A total of 1,805 patients (64% men, median age 41 years) were admitted with COVID-19. Symptoms lasted for a median of 7 days (IQR 4-11). During hospitalisation, 443 (25%) had a SpO2 < 94% at least once, 237 (13%) received oxygen and 266 (15%) took corticosteroids. Mortality was 5% overall, and 1%, 5% and 14% in patients aged <40, 40-59 and ≥60 years, respectively. In multivariable analysis, the risk of death was higher in men (aOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1; 3.6), people aged ≥60 years (aOR 2.9, 95% CI 1.7; 4.8) and those with chronic hypertension (aOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2; 3.4). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 is as severe in Africa as elsewhere, and there must be more vigilance for common risk factors such as older age and hypertension.

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.).

Aerial medical evacuation of health workers with suspected Ebola virus disease in Guinea Conakry-interest of a negative pressure isolation pod-a case series.

We report 4 cases of Health Workers (HW) suspected of having contracted Ebola Virus Disease (EVD), transported from the Alliance for International Medical Action (ALIMA) Ebola Treatment Centre (ETC) in N'Zerekore, Guinea to the Treatment Centre for Carers run by the medical corps of the French army in Conakry, the capital of Guinea, which was established on 17 January 2015 and closed on 7 July 2015. In total more than 500 HWs have died from EVD since the epidemic began. This mortality has had significant effects on the ability of local services to respond appropriately to the disaster. The HWs were transported by air in the "Human Stretcher Transit Isolator-Total Containment (Oxford) Limited" (HSTI-TCOL) negative pressure isolation pod. Medical evacuation of patients with suspected, potentially fatal, infectious diseases is feasible with the use of a light isolator for patients without critical dysfunctions.

Development of a Prediction Model for Ebola Virus Disease: A Retrospective Study in Nzérékoré Ebola Treatment Center, Guinea.

The 2014 Ebola epidemic has shown the importance of accurate and rapid triage tools for patients with suspected Ebola virus disease (EVD). Our objective was to create a predictive score for EVD. We retrospectively reviewed all suspected cases admitted to the Ebola treatment center (ETC) in Nzérékoré, Guinea, between December 2, 2014, and February 23, 2015. We used a multivariate logistic regression model to identify clinical and epidemiological factors associated with EVD, which were used to create a predictive score. A bootstrap sampling method was applied to our sample to determine characteristics of the score to discriminate EVD. Among the 145 patients included in the study (48% male, median age 29 years), EVD was confirmed in 76 (52%) patients. One hundred and eleven (77%) patients had at least one epidemiological risk factor. Optimal cutoff value of fever to discriminate EVD was 38.5°C. After adjustment on presence of a risk factor, temperature higher than 38.5°C (odds ratio [OR] = 18.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.6-42.9), and anorexia (OR = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.1-6.1) were independently associated with EVD. The score had an area under curve of 0.85 (95% CI = 0.78-0.91) for the prediction of laboratory-confirmed EVD. Classification of patients in a high-risk group according to the score had a lower sensitivity (71% versus 86%) but higher specificity (85% versus 41%) than the existing World Health Organization algorithm. This score, which requires external validation, may be used in high-prevalence settings to identify different levels of risk in EVD suspected patients and thus allow a better orientation in different wards of ETC.