Safety and immunogenicity of the two-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen in infants: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled trial in Guinea and Sierra Leone.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the safety and immunogenicity of the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola virus (EBOV) vaccine regimen in infants aged 4-11 months in Guinea and Sierra Leone. METHODS: In this phase 2, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled trial, we randomly assigned healthy infants (1:1 in a sentinel cohort, 5:2 for the remaining infants via an interactive web response system) to receive Ad26.ZEBOV followed by MVA-BN-Filo (Ebola vaccine group) or two doses of meningococcal quadrivalent conjugate vaccine (control group) administered 56 days apart. Infants were recruited at two sites in west Africa: Conakry, Guinea, and Kambia, Sierra Leone. All infants received the meningococcal vaccine 8 months after being randomly assigned. The primary objective was safety. The secondary objective was immunogenicity, measured as EBOV glycoprotein-binding antibody concentration 21 days post-dose 2, using the Filovirus Animal Non-Clinical Group ELISA. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03929757) and the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR201905827924069). FINDINGS: From Aug 20 to Nov 29, 2019, 142 infants were screened and 108 were randomly assigned (Ebola vaccine n=75; control n=33). The most common solicited local adverse event was injection-site pain (Ebola vaccine 15 [20%] of 75; control four [12%] of 33). The most common solicited systemic adverse events with the Ebola vaccine were irritability (26 [35%] of 75), decreased appetite (18 [24%] of 75), pyrexia (16 [21%] of 75), and decreased activity (15 [20%] of 75). In the control group, ten (30%) of 33 had irritability, seven (21%) of 33 had decreased appetite, three (9%) of 33 had pyrexia, and five (15%) of 33 had decreased activity. The frequency of unsolicited adverse events was 83% (62 of 75 infants) in the Ebola vaccine group and 85% (28 of 33 infants) in the control group. No serious adverse events were vaccine-related. In the Ebola vaccine group, EBOV glycoprotein-binding antibody geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) at 21 days post-dose 2 were 27 700 ELISA units (EU)/mL (95% CI 20 477-37 470) in infants aged 4-8 months and 20 481 EU/mL (15 325-27 372) in infants aged 9-11 months. The responder rate was 100% (74 of 74 responded). In the control group, GMCs for both age groups were less than the lower limit of quantification and the responder rate was 3% (one of 33 responded). INTERPRETATION: Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo was well tolerated and induced strong humoral responses in infants younger than 1 year. There were no safety concerns related to vaccination. FUNDING: Janssen Vaccines & Prevention and Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Immune response of a two-dose heterologous Ebola vaccine regimen: summary of three African clinical trials using a single validated Filovirus Animal Nonclinical Group enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in a single accredited laboratory.

BACKGROUND: This analysis evaluated the immune response to the two-dose, heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo Ebola virus vaccine regimen, administered 56-days apart, from multiple African sites based on results from one analytic laboratory. METHODS: Immunogenicity across three trials (EBL2002, EBL2004/PREVAC, EBL3001) conducted in East and West Africa is summarised. Vaccine-induced Ebola glycoprotein-binding antibody concentrations were analysed by Q2 Solutions laboratory at baseline, 21 days (EBL2002 and EBL3001) or 28 days (EBL2004) post-dose 2 (regimen completion), and 12 months post-dose 1 using the validated Filovirus Animal Nonclinical Group Ebola glycoprotein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Responders were defined as those with a >2.5-fold increase from baseline or the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) if 

Randomized Trial of Vaccines for Zaire Ebola Virus Disease.

BACKGROUND: Questions remain concerning the rapidity of immune responses and the durability and safety of vaccines used to prevent Zaire Ebola virus disease. METHODS: We conducted two randomized, placebo-controlled trials - one involving adults and one involving children - to evaluate the safety and immune responses of three vaccine regimens against Zaire Ebola virus disease: Ad26.ZEBOV followed by MVA-BN-Filo 56 days later (the Ad26-MVA group), rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP followed by placebo 56 days later (the rVSV group), and rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP followed by rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP 56 days later (the rVSV-booster group). The primary end point was antibody response at 12 months, defined as having both a 12-month antibody concentration of at least 200 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay units (EU) per milliliter and an increase from baseline in the antibody concentration by at least a factor of 4. RESULTS: A total of 1400 adults and 1401 children underwent randomization. Among both adults and children, the incidence of injection-site reactions and symptoms (e.g., feverishness and headache) was higher in the week after receipt of the primary and second or booster vaccinations than after receipt of placebo but not at later time points. These events were largely low-grade. At month 12, a total of 41% of adults (titer, 401 EU per milliliter) and 78% of children (titer, 828 EU per milliliter) had a response in the Ad26-MVA group; 76% (titer, 992 EU per milliliter) and 87% (titer, 1415 EU per milliliter), respectively, had a response in the rVSV group; 81% (titer, 1037 EU per milliliter) and 93% (titer, 1745 EU per milliliter), respectively, had a response in the rVSV-booster group; and 3% (titer, 93 EU per milliliter) and 4% (titer, 67 EU per milliliter), respectively, had a response in the placebo group (P<0.001 for all comparisons of vaccine with placebo). In both adults and children, antibody responses with vaccine differed from those with placebo beginning on day 14. CONCLUSIONS: No safety concerns were identified in this trial. With all three vaccine regimens, immune responses were seen from day 14 through month 12. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; PREVAC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02876328; EudraCT numbers, 2017-001798-18 and 2017-001798-18/3rd; and Pan African Clinical Trials Registry number, PACTR201712002760250.).

Health crisis: What opportunities for clinical drug research?

The COVID-19 pandemic led to the deployment of an unprecedented academic and industrial research effort, the sometimes redundant nature of which is regrettable, as is the lack of both national and international management. However, it must be noted that during this crisis, regulatory procedures were adapted and certain obstacles in the organisation of clinical research were partly removed to contribute to the deployment of trials as close as possible to patients and to facilitate monitoring and control procedures. The digitisation of certain processes and the decentralisation of certain activities were implemented under the cover of a mobilisation of the authorities and all institutional, academic and industrial players. While in the UK, the optimisation of resources through a single platform trial has made it possible to demonstrate or invalidate the efficacy of many treatments, in France the health crisis has highlighted the fragility of the organisation of clinical research, in particular a lack of coordination and funding, difficulties in implementing studies and a certain reluctance to share data. However, the crisis has also revealed the adaptability of the various stakeholders and has led to the improvement of several processes useful for the deployment of therapeutic innovation. Let us hope that the lessons learned during this crisis will allow for greater efficiency in the event of a new pandemic and, above all, that the progress made will continue to apply to all future clinical research activities.

Partnership for Research on Ebola VACcination (PREVAC): protocol of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial evaluating three vaccine strategies against Ebola in healthy volunteers in four West African countries.

INTRODUCTION: The Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in 2014-2016 in West Africa was the largest on record and provided an opportunity for large clinical trials and accelerated efforts to develop an effective and safe preventative vaccine. Multiple questions regarding the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of EVD vaccines remain unanswered. To address these gaps in the evidence base, the Partnership for Research on Ebola Vaccines (PREVAC) trial was designed. This paper describes the design, methods, and baseline results of the PREVAC trial and discusses challenges that led to different protocol amendments. METHODS: This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial of three vaccine strategies against the Ebola virus in healthy volunteers 1 year of age and above. The three vaccine strategies being studied are the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine, with and without a booster dose at 56 days, and the Ad26.ZEBOV,MVA-FN-Filo vaccine regimen with Ad26.ZEBOV given as the first dose and the MVA-FN-Filo vaccination given 56 days later. There have been 4 versions of the protocol with those enrolled in Version 4.0 comprising the primary analysis cohort. The primary endpoint is based on the antibody titer against the Ebola virus surface glycoprotein measured 12 months following the final injection. RESULTS: From April 2017 to December 2018, a total of 5002 volunteers were screened and 4789 enrolled. Participants were enrolled at 6 sites in four countries (Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Mali). Of the 4789 participants, 2560 (53%) were adults and 2229 (47%) were children. Those < 18 years of age included 549 (12%) aged 1 to 4 years, 750 (16%) 5 to 11 years, and 930 (19%) aged 12-17 years. At baseline, the median (25th, 75th percentile) antibody titer to Ebola virus glycoprotein for 1090 participants was 72 (50, 116) EU/mL. DISCUSSION: The PREVAC trial is evaluating-placebo-controlled-two promising Ebola candidate vaccines in advanced stages of development. The results will address unanswered questions related to short- and long-term safety and immunogenicity for three vaccine strategies in adults and children. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02876328 . Registered on 23 August 2016.

Human plague: An old scourge that needs new answers.

Yersinia pestis, the bacterial causative agent of plague, remains an important threat to human health. Plague is a rodent-borne disease that has historically shown an outstanding ability to colonize and persist across different species, habitats, and environments while provoking sporadic cases, outbreaks, and deadly global epidemics among humans. Between September and November 2017, an outbreak of urban pneumonic plague was declared in Madagascar, which refocused the attention of the scientific community on this ancient human scourge. Given recent trends and plague's resilience to control in the wild, its high fatality rate in humans without early treatment, and its capacity to disrupt social and healthcare systems, human plague should be considered as a neglected threat. A workshop was held in Paris in July 2018 to review current knowledge about plague and to identify the scientific research priorities to eradicate plague as a human threat. It was concluded that an urgent commitment is needed to develop and fund a strong research agenda aiming to fill the current knowledge gaps structured around 4 main axes: (i) an improved understanding of the ecological interactions among the reservoir, vector, pathogen, and environment; (ii) human and societal responses; (iii) improved diagnostic tools and case management; and (iv) vaccine development. These axes should be cross-cutting, translational, and focused on delivering context-specific strategies. Results of this research should feed a global control and prevention strategy within a "One Health" approach.

Preparedness and vulnerability of African countries against importations of COVID-19: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic has spread from China to 25 countries. Local cycles of transmission have already occurred in 12 countries after case importation. In Africa, Egypt has so far confirmed one case. The management and control of COVID-19 importations heavily rely on a country's health capacity. Here we evaluate the preparedness and vulnerability of African countries against their risk of importation of COVID-19. METHODS: We used data on the volume of air travel departing from airports in the infected provinces in China and directed to Africa to estimate the risk of importation per country. We determined the country's capacity to detect and respond to cases with two indicators: preparedness, using the WHO International Health Regulations Monitoring and Evaluation Framework; and vulnerability, using the Infectious Disease Vulnerability Index. Countries were clustered according to the Chinese regions contributing most to their risk. FINDINGS: Countries with the highest importation risk (ie, Egypt, Algeria, and South Africa) have moderate to high capacity to respond to outbreaks. Countries at moderate risk (ie, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Sudan, Angola, Tanzania, Ghana, and Kenya) have variable capacity and high vulnerability. We identified three clusters of countries that share the same exposure to the risk originating from the provinces of Guangdong, Fujian, and the city of Beijing, respectively. INTERPRETATION: Many countries in Africa are stepping up their preparedness to detect and cope with COVID-19 importations. Resources, intensified surveillance, and capacity building should be urgently prioritised in countries with moderate risk that might be ill-prepared to detect imported cases and to limit onward transmission. FUNDING: EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020, Agence Nationale de la Recherche.

Enrolling study personnel in Ebola vaccine trials: from guidelines to practice in a non-epidemic context.

BACKGROUND: Enrolling participants in clinical trials can be challenging, especially with respect to prophylactic vaccine trials. The vaccination of study personnel in Ebola vaccine trials during the 2014-2016 epidemic played a crucial role in inspiring trust and facilitating volunteer enrollment. We evaluated the ethical and methodological considerations as they applied to an ongoing phase 2 randomized prophylactic Ebola vaccine trial that enrolled healthy volunteers in Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Mali in a non-epidemic context. METHODS: On the assumption that the personnel on site involved in executing the protocol, as well as community mobilizers (not involved in the on-site procedures), might also volunteer to enter the trial, we considered both ethical and methodological considerations to set clear rules that can be shared a priori with these persons. We reviewed the scientific and gray literature to identify relevant references and then conducted an analysis of the ethical and methodological considerations. RESULTS: There are currently no regulations preventing a clinical investigator or site staff from participating in a trial. However, the enrollment of personnel raises the risk of undue influence and challenges the basic ethical principle of voluntary participation. The confidentiality of personal medical information, such as HIV test results, may also be difficult to ensure among personnel. There is a risk of disruption of trial operations due to the potential absence of the personnel for their commitment as trial participants, and there is also a potential for introducing differential behavior of on-site staff as they obtain access to accumulating information during the trial (e.g., the incidence of adverse events). Blinding could be jeopardized, given knowledge of product-specific adverse event profiles and the proximity to unblinded site staff. These aspects were considered more relevant for on-site staff than for community mobilizers, who have limited contact with site staff. CONCLUSION: In a non-epidemic context, ethical and methodological considerations limit the collective benefit of enrolling site staff in a vaccine trial. These considerations do not apply to community mobilizers, whose potential enrollment should be considered as long as they meet the inclusion criteria and they are not exposed to any form of coercion.

Vaccination and blood sampling acceptability during Ramadan fasting month: A cross-sectional study in Conakry, Guinea.

INTRODUCTION: There are few data on the acceptability of vaccination or blood sampling during Ramadan fasting month in Muslim countries. This could impact vaccination campaigns, clinical trials or healthcare during Ramadan. METHODS: Using a semi-structured questionnaire, we conducted a cross-sectional study on 201 practising Muslims and 10 religious leaders in Conakry, Guinea in the wake of the recent epidemic Ebola epidemic. Acceptability of vaccination and blood sampling during Ramadan were investigated as well as reasons for refusal. RESULTS: Vaccination was judged acceptable during Ramadan by 46% (93/201, 95% CI 0.40-0.53) of practising Muslims versus 80% (8/10, 95% CI 0.49-0.94) of religious leaders (p=0.11). Blood sampling was judged acceptable during Ramadan by 54% (108/201, 95% CI 0.47-0.60) of practising Muslims versus 80% (8/10, 95% CI 0.49-0.94) of religious leaders (p=0.19). The percentage of participants that judged both blood sampling and vaccination acceptable during Ramadan was 40% (81/201, 95% CI 0.34-0.47) for practising Muslims versus 80% (8/10, 95% CI 0.49-0.94) for religious leaders (p=0.048). The most common reasons for refusal of vaccination or blood sampling were that nothing should enter or leave the body during Ramadan (43%), that adverse events could lead to breaking the fast (32%), that blood should not be seen during Ramadan (9%) and that the Quran explicitly forbids it (9%). DISCUSSION: Although most Muslims leaders and scientists consider that injections including immunization and blood sampling should be authorized during Ramadan, many Muslims in our study judged vaccination or blood sampling unacceptable when fasting. Widely available recommendations on healthcare during Ramadan would be useful to inform Muslims.

Jarisch-Herxheimer Reaction Among Patients with Leptospirosis: Incidence and Risk Factors.

AbstractA Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction (JHR) may be precipitated after initiation of chemotherapy in spirochetal diseases, including leptospirosis. However, a clear idea of the importance of JHR in this disease is lacking. The incidence of and risk factors for JHR were investigated retrospectively among 262 patients with confirmed leptospirosis who received amoxicillin treatment in New Caledonia and Futuna. The overall rate of JHR was 21% (12% in New Caledonia and 44% in Futuna). Two risk factors were independently associated with JHR occurrence: Leptospira interrogans serogroup Australis as the infecting strain (odds ratio [OR] = 2.60, confidence interval [CI] = 1.40-5.62) and delays < 3 days between the onset of symptoms and the initiation of antibiotherapy (OR = 2.14, CI = 1.11-4.38). Clinicians should be aware of JHR as a potential complication of leptospirosis. Strain-related factors associated with JHR occurrence and its impact on outcome remains to be explored.

Human IgG Antibody Response to Aedes Nterm-34kDa Salivary Peptide, an Epidemiological Tool to Assess Vector Control in Chikungunya and Dengue Transmission Area.

BACKGROUND: Arboviral diseases are an important public health concerns. Vector control remains the sole strategy to fight against these diseases. Because of the important limits of methods currently used to assess human exposure to Aedes mosquito bites, much effort is being devoted to develop new indicators. Recent studies have reported that human antibody (Ab) responses to Aedes aegypti Nterm-34kDa salivary peptide represent a promising biomarker tool to evaluate the human-Aedes contact. The present study aims investigate whether such biomarker could be used for assessing the efficacy of vector control against Aedes. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Specific human IgG response to the Nterm-34kDa peptide was assessed from 102 individuals living in urban area of Saint-Denis at La Reunion Island, Indian Ocean, before and after the implementation of vector control against Aedes mosquitoes. IgG response decreased after 2 weeks (P < 0.0001), and remained low for 4 weeks post-intervention (P = 0.0002). The specific IgG decrease was associated with the decline of Aedes mosquito density, as estimated by entomological parameters and closely correlated to vector control implementation and was not associated with the use of individual protection, daily commuting outside of the house, sex and age. Our findings indicate a probable short-term decrease of human exposure to Aedes bites just after vector control implementation. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Results provided in the present study indicate that IgG Ab response to Aedes aegypti Nterm-34kDa salivary peptide could be a relevant short-time indicator for evaluating the efficacy of vector control interventions against Aedes species.