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.

Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo Ebola virus disease vaccine regimen plus Ad26.ZEBOV booster at 1 year versus 2 years in health-care and front-line workers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: secondary and exploratory outcomes of an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Health-care providers and front-line workers are at risk of contracting Ebola virus disease during an Ebola virus outbreak and consequently of becoming drivers of the disease. We aimed to assess the long-term immunogenicity of the Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen and the safety of and immune memory response to an Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination at 1 year or 2 years after the first dose in this at-risk population. METHODS: This open-label, single-centre, randomised, phase 2 trial was conducted at one study site within a hospital in Boende, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Adult health-care providers and front-line workers, excluding those with a known history of Ebola virus disease, were vaccinated with a two-dose heterologous regimen administered at a 56-day interval via a 0·5 mL intramuscular injection in the deltoid muscle, comprising Ad26.ZEBOV as the first dose and MVA-BN-Filo as the second dose. After the initial vaccination on day 1, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via randomisation envelopes, opened in a sequential order, to receive an Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination at 1 year (group 1) or 2 years (group 2) after the first dose. We present the secondary and exploratory objectives of the trial-results of the primary objective have been published elsewhere. We measured immunogenicity at six timepoints per group as geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific IgG binding antibodies, using the Filovirus Animal Non-Clinical Group ELISA. We assessed serious adverse events occurring up to 6 months after the last dose and local and systemic solicited and unsolicited adverse events reported for 7 days after the booster vaccination. Antibody responses were analysed per protocol, serious adverse events per full analysis set (FAS), and adverse events for all boosted FAS participants. This trial is registered as completed on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04186000). FINDINGS: Between Dec 18, 2019, and Feb 8, 2020, 699 health-care providers and front-line workers were enrolled and 698 were randomly assigned (350 to group 1 and 348 to group 2 [FAS]); 534 (77%) participants were male and 164 (23%) were female. 319 in group 1 and 317 in group 2 received the booster. 29 (8%) in group 1 and 26 (7%) in group 2 did not complete the study, mostly due to loss to follow-up or moving out of the study area. In both groups, injection-site pain or tenderness (87 [27%] of 319 group 1 participants vs 90 [28%] of 317 group 2 participants) and headache (91 [29%] vs 93 [29%]) were the most common solicited adverse events related to the investigational product. One participant (in group 2) had a related serious adverse event after booster vaccination (fever of ≥40·0°C). Before booster vaccination, Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific IgG binding antibody GMCs were 279·9 ELISA units (EU) per mL (95% CI 250·6-312·7) in 314 group 1 participants (1 year after first dose) and 274·6 EU/mL (242·1-311·5) in 310 group 2 participants (2 years after first dose). These values were 5·2 times higher in group 1 and 4·9 times higher in group 2 than before vaccination on day 1. 7 days after booster vaccination, these values increased to 10 781·6 EU/mL (9354·4-12 426·4) for group 1 and 10 746·9 EU/mL (9208·7-12 542·0) for group 2, which were approximately 39 times higher than before booster vaccination in both groups. 1 year after booster vaccination in 299 group 1 participants, a GMC that was 7·6-times higher than before booster vaccination was still observed (2133·1 EU/mL [1827·7-2489·7]). INTERPRETATION: Overall, the vaccine regimen and booster dose were well tolerated. A similar and robust humoral immune response was observed for participants boosted 1 year and 2 years after the first dose, supporting the use of the regimen and flexibility of booster dose administration for prophylactic vaccination in at-risk populations. FUNDING: Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking and Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

Safety and Immunogenicity of the Heterologous 2-Dose Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo Vaccine Regimen in Health Care Providers and Frontliners of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

BACKGROUND: In response to recent Ebola epidemics, vaccine development against the Zaire ebolavirus (EBOV) has been fast-tracked in the past decade. Health care providers and frontliners working in Ebola-endemic areas are at high risk of contracting and spreading the virus. METHODS: This study assessed the safety and immunogenicity of the 2-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen (administered at a 56-day interval) among 699 health care providers and frontliners taking part in a phase 2, monocentric, randomized vaccine trial in Boende, the Democratic Republic of Congo. The first participant was enrolled and vaccinated on 18 December 2019. Serious adverse events were collected up to 6 months after the last received dose. The EBOV glycoprotein FANG ELISA (Filovirus Animal Nonclinical Group enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) was used to measure the immunoglobulin G-binding antibody response to the EBOV glycoprotein. RESULTS: The vaccine regimen was well tolerated with no vaccine-related serious adverse events reported. Twenty-one days after the second dose, an EBOV glycoprotein-specific binding antibody response was observed in 95.2% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: The 2-dose vaccine regimen was well tolerated and led to a high antibody response among fully vaccinated health care providers and frontliners in Boende.

Conducting an Ebola vaccine trial in a remote area of the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Challenges, mitigations, and lessons learned.

Conducting a vaccine trial in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC) can present unique challenges and lessons learned. This Ebola vaccine trial, enrolling 699 healthcare providers and frontliners and jointly set up by the University of Antwerp (Sponsor) and the University of Kinshasa (Principal Investigator (PI)), was conducted in Boende, a remote city in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), between December 2019 and October 2022 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04186000). While being bound by strict ICH-GCP and international funder regulations, this trial, exemplary for being a public-private partnership, required collaboration between several international stakeholders (e.g., two universities, a pharmaceutical company, and a clinical research organization), local communities and government agencies. Here we address several logistical and administrative challenges, cultural differences, language barriers and regulatory, political, and ethical considerations over the trial's 2.5-year duration, while tailoring and adapting the study to the specific local context. Lessons learned include the importance of clear communication with participants in all phases of the study, but also within the study team and among different stakeholders. Challenges, mitigations, and lessons learned are presented in nine categories (e.g., safety management; trial documentation, tools, and materials; communication, staff training and community engagement/sensitization; financial and administrative hurdles; and more). Ultimately, to reach the successful end of the vaccine trial in this remote Ebola endemic area in the DRC, careful planning, collaboration, and great flexibility and adaptability was often required from all involved partners. Despite the encountered challenges, the vaccine trial discussed in this paper was able to obtain high participant retention rates (i.e., 92% of participants completed the study). We hope that other international teams aspiring to conduct similar trials in remote areas of LMICs can learn from the way our challenges were addressed, mitigations developed, and lessons were learned.