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.

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.

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.

Burden of onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy: first estimates and research priorities.

BACKGROUND: Since the 1990s, evidence has accumulated of an increased prevalence of epilepsy in onchocerciasis-endemic areas in Africa as compared to onchocerciasis-free areas. Although the causal relationship between onchocerciasis and epilepsy has yet to be proven, there is likely an association. Here we discuss the need for disease burden estimates of onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy (OAE), provide them, detail how such estimates should be refined, and discuss the socioeconomic impact of OAE, including a cost-estimate for anti-epileptic drugs. MAIN BODY: Providing OAE burden estimates may aid prevention of epilepsy in onchocerciasis- endemic areas by inciting and informing collaboration between onchocerciasis control programmes and mental health services. Epilepsy not only massively impacts the health of those affected, but it also carries a high socioeconomic burden for the households and communities involved. We used previously published geospatial estimates of onchocerciasis in Africa and a separately published logistic regression model quantifying the association between onchocerciasis and epilepsy to estimate the number of OAE cases. We then applied disability weights for epilepsy to quantify the burden in terms of years of life lived with disability (YLD) and estimate the cost of treatment. We estimate that in 2015 roughly 117 000 people were affected by OAE across onchocerciasis-endemic areas previously under the African Programme for Onchocerciases control (APOC) mandate where OAE has ever been reported or suspected, and another 264 000 persons in onchocerciasis-endemic areas where OAE has never been investigated before. The total number of YLDs due to OAE was 39 300 and 88 700 in these areas respectively, based on a weighted mean disability weight of 0.336. The burden of OAE is approximately 13% of the total YLDs attributable to onchocerciasis and 10% of total YLDs attributable to epilepsy. We estimated that by 2015 the total costs of treatment with anti-epileptic drug for OAE cases would have been a minimum of 12.4 million US$. CONCLUSIONS: These estimates suggest a considerable health, social and economic burden of OAE in Africa. The treatment and care for people with epilepsy, especially in hyperendemic onchocerciasis areas with high epilepsy prevalence thus requires more financial and human resources.