Global Review of the Age Distribution of Rotavirus Disease in Children Aged <5 Years Before the Introduction of Rotavirus Vaccination.

We sought datasets with granular age distributions of rotavirus-positive disease presentations among children <5 years of age, before the introduction of rotavirus vaccines. We identified 117 datasets and fit parametric age distributions to each country dataset and mortality stratum. We calculated the median age and the cumulative proportion of rotavirus gastroenteritis events expected to occur at ages between birth and 5.0 years. The median age of rotavirus-positive hospital admissions was 38 weeks (interquartile range [IQR], 25-58 weeks) in countries with very high child mortality and 65 weeks (IQR, 40-107 weeks) in countries with very low or low child mortality. In countries with very high child mortality, 69% of rotavirus-positive admissions in children <5 years of age were in the first year of life, with 3% by 10 weeks, 8% by 15 weeks, and 27% by 26 weeks. This information is critical for assessing the potential benefits of alternative rotavirus vaccination schedules in different countries and for monitoring program impact.

Efficacy and effectiveness of an rVSV-vectored vaccine in preventing Ebola virus disease: final results from the Guinea ring vaccination, open-label, cluster-randomised trial (Ebola Ça Suffit!).

BACKGROUND: rVSV-ZEBOV is a recombinant, replication competent vesicular stomatitis virus-based candidate vaccine expressing a surface glycoprotein of Zaire Ebolavirus. We tested the effect of rVSV-ZEBOV in preventing Ebola virus disease in contacts and contacts of contacts of recently confirmed cases in Guinea, west Africa. METHODS: We did an open-label, cluster-randomised ring vaccination trial (Ebola ça Suffit!) in the communities of Conakry and eight surrounding prefectures in the Basse-Guinée region of Guinea, and in Tomkolili and Bombali in Sierra Leone. We assessed the efficacy of a single intramuscular dose of rVSV-ZEBOV (2×107 plaque-forming units administered in the deltoid muscle) in the prevention of laboratory confirmed Ebola virus disease. After confirmation of a case of Ebola virus disease, we definitively enumerated on a list a ring (cluster) of all their contacts and contacts of contacts including named contacts and contacts of contacts who were absent at the time of the trial team visit. The list was archived, then we randomly assigned clusters (1:1) to either immediate vaccination or delayed vaccination (21 days later) of all eligible individuals (eg, those aged ≥18 years and not pregnant, breastfeeding, or severely ill). An independent statistician generated the assignment sequence using block randomisation with randomly varying blocks, stratified by location (urban vs rural) and size of rings (≤20 individuals vs >20 individuals). Ebola response teams and laboratory workers were unaware of assignments. After a recommendation by an independent data and safety monitoring board, randomisation was stopped and immediate vaccination was also offered to children aged 6-17 years and all identified rings. The prespecified primary outcome was a laboratory confirmed case of Ebola virus disease with onset 10 days or more from randomisation. The primary analysis compared the incidence of Ebola virus disease in eligible and vaccinated individuals assigned to immediate vaccination versus eligible contacts and contacts of contacts assigned to delayed vaccination. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, number PACTR201503001057193. FINDINGS: In the randomised part of the trial we identified 4539 contacts and contacts of contacts in 51 clusters randomly assigned to immediate vaccination (of whom 3232 were eligible, 2151 consented, and 2119 were immediately vaccinated) and 4557 contacts and contacts of contacts in 47 clusters randomly assigned to delayed vaccination (of whom 3096 were eligible, 2539 consented, and 2041 were vaccinated 21 days after randomisation). No cases of Ebola virus disease occurred 10 days or more after randomisation among randomly assigned contacts and contacts of contacts vaccinated in immediate clusters versus 16 cases (7 clusters affected) among all eligible individuals in delayed clusters. Vaccine efficacy was 100% (95% CI 68·9-100·0, p=0·0045), and the calculated intraclass correlation coefficient was 0·035. Additionally, we defined 19 non-randomised clusters in which we enumerated 2745 contacts and contacts of contacts, 2006 of whom were eligible and 1677 were immediately vaccinated, including 194 children. The evidence from all 117 clusters showed that no cases of Ebola virus disease occurred 10 days or more after randomisation among all immediately vaccinated contacts and contacts of contacts versus 23 cases (11 clusters affected) among all eligible contacts and contacts of contacts in delayed plus all eligible contacts and contacts of contacts never vaccinated in immediate clusters. The estimated vaccine efficacy here was 100% (95% CI 79·3-100·0, p=0·0033). 52% of contacts and contacts of contacts assigned to immediate vaccination and in non-randomised clusters received the vaccine immediately; vaccination protected both vaccinated and unvaccinated people in those clusters. 5837 individuals in total received the vaccine (5643 adults and 194 children), and all vaccinees were followed up for 84 days. 3149 (53·9%) of 5837 individuals reported at least one adverse event in the 14 days after vaccination; these were typically mild (87·5% of all 7211 adverse events). Headache (1832 [25·4%]), fatigue (1361 [18·9%]), and muscle pain (942 [13·1%]) were the most commonly reported adverse events in this period across all age groups. 80 serious adverse events were identified, of which two were judged to be related to vaccination (one febrile reaction and one anaphylaxis) and one possibly related (influenza-like illness); all three recovered without sequelae. INTERPRETATION: The results add weight to the interim assessment that rVSV-ZEBOV offers substantial protection against Ebola virus disease, with no cases among vaccinated individuals from day 10 after vaccination in both randomised and non-randomised clusters. FUNDING: WHO, UK Wellcome Trust, the UK Government through the Department of International Development, Médecins Sans Frontières, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (through the Research Council of Norway's GLOBVAC programme), and the Canadian Government (through the Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, International Development Research Centre and Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development).

Efficacy and effectiveness of an rVSV-vectored vaccine expressing Ebola surface glycoprotein: interim results from the Guinea ring vaccination cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: A recombinant, replication-competent vesicular stomatitis virus-based vaccine expressing a surface glycoprotein of Zaire Ebolavirus (rVSV-ZEBOV) is a promising Ebola vaccine candidate. We report the results of an interim analysis of a trial of rVSV-ZEBOV in Guinea, west Africa. METHODS: For this open-label, cluster-randomised ring vaccination trial, suspected cases of Ebola virus disease in Basse-Guinée (Guinea, west Africa) were independently ascertained by Ebola response teams as part of a national surveillance system. After laboratory confirmation of a new case, clusters of all contacts and contacts of contacts were defined and randomly allocated 1:1 to immediate vaccination or delayed (21 days later) vaccination with rVSV-ZEBOV (one dose of 2 × 10(7) plaque-forming units, administered intramuscularly in the deltoid muscle). Adults (age ≥18 years) who were not pregnant or breastfeeding were eligible for vaccination. Block randomisation was used, with randomly varying blocks, stratified by location (urban vs rural) and size of rings (≤20 vs >20 individuals). The study is open label and masking of participants and field teams to the time of vaccination is not possible, but Ebola response teams and laboratory workers were unaware of allocation to immediate or delayed vaccination. Taking into account the incubation period of the virus of about 10 days, the prespecified primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed Ebola virus disease with onset of symptoms at least 10 days after randomisation. The primary analysis was per protocol and compared the incidence of Ebola virus disease in eligible and vaccinated individuals in immediate vaccination clusters with the incidence in eligible individuals in delayed vaccination clusters. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, number PACTR201503001057193. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2015, and July 20, 2015, 90 clusters, with a total population of 7651 people were included in the planned interim analysis. 48 of these clusters (4123 people) were randomly assigned to immediate vaccination with rVSV-ZEBOV, and 42 clusters (3528 people) were randomly assigned to delayed vaccination with rVSV-ZEBOV. In the immediate vaccination group, there were no cases of Ebola virus disease with symptom onset at least 10 days after randomisation, whereas in the delayed vaccination group there were 16 cases of Ebola virus disease from seven clusters, showing a vaccine efficacy of 100% (95% CI 74·7-100·0; p=0·0036). No new cases of Ebola virus disease were diagnosed in vaccinees from the immediate or delayed groups from 6 days post-vaccination. At the cluster level, with the inclusion of all eligible adults, vaccine effectiveness was 75·1% (95% CI -7·1 to 94·2; p=0·1791), and 76·3% (95% CI -15·5 to 95·1; p=0·3351) with the inclusion of everyone (eligible or not eligible for vaccination). 43 serious adverse events were reported; one serious adverse event was judged to be causally related to vaccination (a febrile episode in a vaccinated participant, which resolved without sequelae). Assessment of serious adverse events is ongoing. INTERPRETATION: The results of this interim analysis indicate that rVSV-ZEBOV might be highly efficacious and safe in preventing Ebola virus disease, and is most likely effective at the population level when delivered during an Ebola virus disease outbreak via a ring vaccination strategy. FUNDING: WHO, with support from the Wellcome Trust (UK); Médecins Sans Frontières; the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs through the Research Council of Norway; and the Canadian Government through the Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, International Development Research Centre, and Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

Design of vaccine efficacy trials during public health emergencies.

Public health emergencies, such as an Ebola disease outbreak, provide a complex and challenging environment for the evaluation of candidate vaccines. Here, we outline the need for flexible and responsive vaccine trial designs to be used in public health emergencies, and we summarize recommendations for their use in this setting.

Ring vaccination with rVSV-ZEBOV under expanded access in response to an outbreak of Ebola virus disease in Guinea, 2016: an operational and vaccine safety report.

BACKGROUND: In March, 2016, a flare-up of Ebola virus disease was reported in Guinea, and in response ring vaccination with the unlicensed rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine was introduced under expanded access, the first time that an Ebola vaccine has been used in an outbreak setting outside a clinical trial. Here we describe the safety of rVSV-ZEBOV candidate vaccine and operational feasibility of ring vaccination as a reactive strategy in a resource-limited rural setting. METHODS: Approval for expanded access and compassionate use was rapidly sought and obtained from relevant authorities. Vaccination teams and frozen vaccine were flown to the outbreak settings. Rings of contacts and contacts of contacts were defined and eligible individuals, who had given informed consent, were vaccinated and followed up for 21 days under good clinical practice conditions. FINDINGS: Between March 17 and April 21, 2016, 1510 individuals were vaccinated in four rings in Guinea, including 303 individuals aged between 6 years and 17 years and 307 front-line workers. It took 10 days to vaccinate the first participant following the confirmation of the first case of Ebola virus disease. No secondary cases of Ebola virus disease occurred among the vaccinees. Adverse events following vaccination were reported in 47 (17%) 6-17 year olds (all mild) and 412 (36%) adults (individuals older than 18 years; 98% were mild). Children reported fewer arthralgia events than adults (one [<1%] of 303 children vs 81 [7%] of 1207 adults). No severe vaccine-related adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: The results show that a ring vaccination strategy can be rapidly and safely implemented at scale in response to Ebola virus disease outbreaks in rural settings. FUNDING: WHO, Gavi, and the World Food Programme.

Psicopatología diferencial entre las psicosis epilépticas lúcidas y psicosis similares con alteraciones electroencefalográficas y sin epilepsia / Psychopathological differences between clear consciousness epileptic psychosis and similar psychosis with electroencephalographic changes and without epilepsy

Se estudiaron dos grupos de psicosis que tenían en común las siguientes características: instalación paulatina de un cuadro psicótico con productividad alucinatoria y delirante, que cursa con lucidez de conciencia la mayor parte de la evolución, que excede el mes de duración y que presenta alteraciones electroencefalográficas compatibles con el diagnóstico de epilepsia según los criterios de Wolff. Para ambos grupos se descartó el diagnóstico de esquizofrenia, psicosis maníaco-depresiva, psicosis reactiva y psicosis exógena. En ambos casos los delirios se presentan desdoblados en polaridades que dividen la manifestación psicótica en extremos desde los cuales el paciente configura sus vivencias y comportamientos. El primer grupo tenía antecedentes de crisis epilépticas, eran pues pacientes epilépticos con una psicosis lúcida esquizomorfa. El segundo grupo carecía de antecedentes de epilepsia clínica. Se comprobó que en ambos grupos al comienzo del episodio psicótico se presentaba insomnio pertinaz y se pesquisaron factores desencadenantes de tipo psicógeno. En ambos grupos se observaron diferencias tanto semiológicas como en la significación que los pacientes otorgaron al episodio, una vez que éste desapareció. El segundo grupo, junto con presentar estas diferencias con el primero, guarda semejanzas semiológicas estrechas con éste (psicosis epilépticas lúcidas), siendo ambos grupos diferenciales, a su vez de las psicosis atípicas descritas por Kleist, pues estas últimas se dan con compromisso de conciencia. Para el segundo grupo estudiado se propone la denominación provisoria de psicosis lúcidas de perfil epiléptico