Single dose moxidectin versus ivermectin for Onchocerca volvulus infection in Ghana, Liberia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo: a randomised, controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The morbidity and socioeconomic effects of onchocerciasis, a parasitic disease that is primarily endemic in sub-Saharan Africa, have motivated large morbidity and transmission control programmes. Annual community-directed ivermectin treatment has substantially reduced prevalence. Elimination requires intensified efforts, including more efficacious treatments. We compared parasitological efficacy and safety of moxidectin and ivermectin. METHODS: This double-blind, parallel group, superiority trial was done in four sites in Ghana, Liberia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We enrolled participants (aged ≥12 years) with at least 10 Onchocerca volvulus microfilariae per mg skin who were not co-infected with Loa loa or lymphatic filariasis microfilaraemic. Participants were randomly allocated, stratified by sex and level of infection, to receive a single oral dose of 8 mg moxidectin or 150 µg/kg ivermectin as overencapsulated oral tablets. The primary efficacy outcome was skin microfilariae density 12 months post treatment. We used a mixed-effects model to test the hypothesis that the primary efficacy outcome in the moxidectin group was 50% or less than that in the ivermectin group. The primary efficacy analysis population were all participants who received the study drug and completed 12-month follow-up (modified intention to treat). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00790998. FINDINGS: Between April 22, 2009, and Jan 23, 2011, we enrolled and allocated 998 participants to moxidectin and 501 participants to ivermectin. 978 received moxidectin and 494 ivermectin, of which 947 and 480 were included in primary efficacy outcome analyses. At 12 months, skin microfilarial density (microfilariae per mg of skin) was lower in the moxidectin group (adjusted geometric mean 0·6 [95% CI 0·3-1·0]) than in the ivermectin group (4·5 [3·5-5·9]; difference 3·9 [3·2-4·9], p<0·0001; treatment difference 86%). Mazzotti (ie, efficacy-related) reactions occurred in 967 (99%) of 978 moxidectin-treated participants and in 478 (97%) of 494 ivermectin-treated participants, including ocular reactions (moxidectin 113 [12%] participants and ivermectin 47 [10%] participants), laboratory reactions (788 [81%] and 415 [84%]), and clinical reactions (944 [97%] and 446 [90%]). No serious adverse events were considered to be related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Skin microfilarial loads (ie, parasite transmission reservoir) are lower after moxidectin treatment than after ivermectin treatment. Moxidectin would therefore be expected to reduce parasite transmission between treatment rounds more than ivermectin could, thus accelerating progress towards elimination. FUNDING: UNICEF/UNDP/World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases.

Immunogenicity of an Extended Dose Interval for the Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo Ebola Vaccine Regimen in Adults and Children in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

During the 2018-2020 Ebola virus disease outbreak in Democratic Republic of the Congo, a phase 3 trial of the Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine (DRC-EB-001) commenced in Goma, with participants being offered the two-dose regimen given 56 days apart. Suspension of trial activities in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic led to some participants receiving a late dose 2 outside the planned interval. Blood samples were collected from adults, adolescents, and children prior to their delayed dose 2 vaccination and 21 days after, and tested for IgG binding antibodies against Ebola virus glycoprotein using the Filovirus Animal Nonclinical Group (FANG) ELISA. Results from 133 participants showed a median two-dose interval of 9.3 months. The pre-dose 2 antibody geometric mean concentration (GMC) was 217 ELISA Units (EU)/mL (95% CI 157; 301) in adults, 378 EU/mL (281; 510) in adolescents, and 558 EU/mL (471; 661) in children. At 21 days post-dose 2, the GMC increased to 22,194 EU/mL (16,726; 29,449) in adults, 37,896 EU/mL (29,985; 47,893) in adolescents, and 34,652 EU/mL (27,906; 43,028) in children. Participants receiving a delayed dose 2 had a higher GMC at 21 days post-dose 2 than those who received a standard 56-day regimen in other African trials, but similar to those who received the regimen with an extended interval.

Delivery and Safety of a Two-Dose Preventive Ebola Virus Disease Vaccine in Pregnant and Non-Pregnant Participants during an Outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

During the 2018-2020 Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak, residents in Goma, Democratic Republic of the Congo, were offered a two-dose prophylactic EVD vaccine. This was the first study to evaluate the safety of this vaccine in pregnant women. Adults, including pregnant women, and children aged ≥1 year old were offered the Ad26.ZEBOV (day 0; dose 1), MVA-BN-Filo (day 56; dose 2) EVD vaccine through an open-label clinical trial. In total, 20,408 participants, including 6635 (32.5%) children, received dose 1. Fewer than 1% of non-pregnant participants experienced a serious adverse event (SAE) following dose 1; one SAE was possibly related to the Ad26.ZEBOV vaccine. Of the 1221 pregnant women, 371 (30.4%) experienced an SAE, with caesarean section being the most common event. No SAEs in pregnant women were considered related to vaccination. Of 1169 pregnancies with a known outcome, 55 (4.7%) ended in a miscarriage, and 30 (2.6%) in a stillbirth. Eleven (1.0%) live births ended in early neonatal death, and five (0.4%) had a congenital abnormality. Overall, 188/891 (21.1%) were preterm births and 79/1032 (7.6%) had low birth weight. The uptake of the two-dose regimen was high: 15,328/20,408 (75.1%). The vaccine regimen was well-tolerated among the study participants, including pregnant women, although further data, ideally from controlled trials, are needed in this crucial group.

Prevalence of immunoglobulin G and M to SARS-CoV-2 and other human coronaviruses in The Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, and Uganda: A longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the prevalence of immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM against four endemic human coronaviruses and two SARS-CoV-2 antigens among vaccinated and unvaccinated staff at health care centers in Uganda, Sierra Leone, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. METHODS: The government health facility staff who had patient contact in Goma (Democratic Republic of Congo), Kambia District (Sierra Leone), and Masaka District (Uganda) were enrolled. Questionnaires and blood samples were collected at three time points over 4 months. Blood samples were analyzed with the Luminex MAGPIXⓇ. RESULTS: Among unvaccinated participants, the prevalence of IgG/IgM antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain or nucleocapsid protein at enrollment was 70% in Goma (138 of 196), 89% in Kambia (112 of 126), and 89% in Masaka (190 of 213). The IgG responses against endemic human coronaviruses at baseline were not associated with SARS-CoV-2 sero-acquisition during follow-up. Among the vaccinated participants, those who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM at baseline tended to have higher IgG responses to vaccination than those who were SARS-CoV-2 seronegative at baseline, controlling for the time of sample collection since vaccination. CONCLUSION: The high levels of natural immunity and hybrid immunity should be incorporated into both vaccination policies and prediction models of the impact of subsequent waves of infection in these settings.

Safety and immunogenicity of an Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccine in Human Immunodeficiency Virus positive (HIV+) adults previously vaccinated with the Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen against Ebola: A single-arm, open-label Phase II clinical trial in Kenya and Uganda.

BACKGROUND: People living with HIV constitute an important part of the population in regions at risk of Ebola virus disease outbreaks. The two-dose Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen induces strong immune responses in HIV-positive (HIV+) adults but the durability of this response is unknown. It is also unclear whether this regimen can establish immune memory to enable an anamnestic response upon re-exposure to antigen. METHODS: This paper describes an open-label, phase 2 trial, conducted in Kenya and Uganda, of Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination in HIV+ participants who had previously received the Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo primary regimen. HIV+ adults with well-controlled infection and on highly active antiretroviral therapy were enrolled, vaccinated with booster, and followed for 28 days. The primary objectives were to assess Ad26.ZEBOV booster safety and antibody responses against the Ebola virus glycoprotein using the Filovirus Animal Non-Clinical Group ELISA. RESULTS: The Ad26.ZEBOV booster was well-tolerated in HIV+ adults with mostly mild to moderate symptoms. No major safety concerns or serious adverse events were reported. Four and a half years after the primary regimen, 24/26 (92 %) participants were still classified as responders, with a pre-booster antibody geometric mean concentration (GMC) of 726 ELISA units (EU)/mL (95 %CI 447-1179). Seven days after the booster, the GMC increased 54-fold to 38,965 EU/mL (95 %CI 23532-64522). Twenty-one days after the booster, the GMC increased 176-fold to 127,959 EU/mL (95 %CI 93872-174422). The responder rate at both post-booster time points was 100 %. CONCLUSIONS: The Ad26.ZEBOV booster is safe and highly immunogenic in HIV+ adults with well-controlled infection. The Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo regimen can generate long-term immune memory persisting for at least 4·5 years, resulting in a robust anamnestic response. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR202102747294430). CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT05064956).

COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptability Among Healthcare Facility Workers in Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda: A Multi-Centre Cross-Sectional Survey.

Objectives: This cross-sectional survey explored COVID-19 vaccine acceptability among public healthcare facility workers in Kambia (Sierra Leone), Goma (Democratic Republic of Congo) and Masaka (Uganda). Methods: Questionnaire-based interviews conducted between April-October 2021 explored participants' knowledge and perceptions of, and attitudes towards, the COVID-19 pandemic and COVID-19 vaccines, as well as COVID-19 vaccine acceptability (defined as uptake of ≥1 dose or intent to get vaccinated). Results: Whilst most (n = 444; 81.8%) of the 543 participants had one or more concerns about COVID-19 vaccines, 487 (89.7%) nonetheless perceived that they were important for pandemic control. Most participants from Kambia or Masaka either were vaccinated (n = 137/355; 38.6%) or intended to get vaccinated (n = 211/355; 59.4%) against COVID-19. In Goma, all 188 participants were unvaccinated; only 81 (43.1%) participants intended to get vaccinated, and this was associated with positive perceptions about COVID-19 vaccines. In Goma, the most common reasons for not wanting a COVID-19 vaccine were concerns that the vaccines were new (n = 75/107; 70.1%) and fear of side effects (n = 74/107; 69.2%). Conclusion: Reported COVID-19 vaccine acceptability was high among healthcare facility workers in Kambia and Masaka. The lower vaccine acceptability in Goma may highlight the importance of social mobilisation and accurate, accessible information that addresses specific concerns.

Early Experiences in the Integration of Non-communicable Diseases into Emergency Primary Health Care, Beni Region, Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Background: Health services in humanitarian crises increasingly integrate the management of non-communicable diseases into primary care. As there is little description of such programs, this case study aims to describe the initial implementation of non-communicable disease management within emergency primary care in the conflict-affected Beni Region of Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Objectives: We implemented and evaluated a primary care approach to hypertension and diabetes management to assess the feasibility of patient monitoring, early clinical and programmatic outcomes, and costs, after seven months of care. Methods: We designed clinical and programmatic modules for diabetes and hypertension management for clinical officers and the use of patient cards and community health workers to improve adherence. We used cohort analysis (April to October 2018), time-trend analysis, semi-structured interviews, and costing to evaluate the program. Findings: Increases in consultations for hypertension (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 13.5, 95% CI 5.8-31.5, p < 0.00) and diabetes (IRR 3.6, 95% CI 1-12.9, p < 0.05) were demonstrated up to the onset of violence and an Ebola epidemic in August 2018. Of 833 patients, 67% were women of median age 56. Nearly all were hypertensives (88.7%) and newly diagnosed (95.9%). Treatment adherence, defined as attending ≥2 visits in the seven month period, was demonstrated by 45.4% of hypertension patients. Community health workers had contact with 3.2-3.8 patients per month. Respondents stated that diabetes care remained fragmented with insulin and laboratory testing located outside of primary care. Program and management costs were 115 USD per person per treatment course. Conclusions: In an active conflict setting, we demonstrated that non-communicable disease care can be well-organized through clinical training and cohort analysis, and adherence can be addressed using patient-held cards and monitoring by community health workers. Nearly all diagnoses were new, emphasizing the need to establish self-management. Insecurity reduced access for patients but care continued for a subset of patients during the Ebola epidemic.