RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: In November 2015, a 15-year-old boy received a diagnosis of Ebola virus disease (EVD) at the John F. Kennedy Medical Center in Monrovia, Liberia. Two additional family members received a diagnosis of EVD. The protocol for a phase 2 placebo-controlled trial of 2 Ebola vaccines was amended and approved; in 4 days, a single-arm cluster vaccination trial using the Merck rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine was initiated. Here, we evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of the vaccine and discuss challenges for its implementation in a small Ebola outbreak. METHOD: We conducted a ring vaccination study among contacts and contacts of close contacts of EVD cases a in Monrovia. Participants were evaluated 1 and 6 months after vaccination. RESULTS: Among 650 close contacts and contacts of close contacts of EVD cases, 210 (32%) consented and were vaccinated with rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP. Of those vaccinated, 189 (90%) attended the month 1 follow-up visit; 166 (79%) attended the month 6 visit. No serious adverse events were reported. Among 88 participants without an elevated antibody level at baseline, 77.3% (95% confidence interval, 68.5-86.1) had an antibody response at 1 month. CONCLUSIONS: The Merck rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine appeared to be safe and immunogenic among the vaccinated individuals. However, fewer than one third of eligible individuals consented to vaccination. These data may help guide implementation decisions for of cluster vaccination programs in an Ebola cluster outbreak response situation.
Assuntos
Vacinas contra Ebola/administração & dosagem , Doença pelo Vírus Ebola/prevenção & controle , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Busca de Comunicante , Surtos de Doenças/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra Ebola/efeitos adversos , Vacinas contra Ebola/imunologia , Ebolavirus/imunologia , Feminino , Doença pelo Vírus Ebola/imunologia , Humanos , Libéria , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-IdadeRESUMO
The Ebola virus disease outbreak that began in Western Africa in December 2013 was unprecedented in both scope and spread, and the global response was slower and less coherent than was optimal given the scale and pace of the epidemic. Past experience with limited localized outbreaks, lack of licensed medical countermeasures, reluctance by first responders to direct scarce resources to clinical research, community resistance to outside interventions, and lack of local infrastructure were among the factors delaying clinical research during the outbreak. Despite these hurdles, the global health community succeeded in accelerating Ebola virus vaccine development, in a 5-month interval initiating phase I trials in humans in September 2014 and initiating phase II/III trails in February 2015. Each of the three Ebola virus disease-affected countries, Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia, conducted a phase II/III Ebola virus vaccine trial. Only one of these trials evaluating recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus expressing Ebola virus glycoprotein demonstrated vaccine efficacy using an innovative mobile ring vaccination trial design based on a ring vaccination strategy responsible for eradicating smallpox that reached areas of new outbreaks. Thoughtful and intensive community engagement in each country enabled the critical community partnership and acceptance of the phase II/III in each country. Due to the delayed clinical trial initiation, relative to the epidemiologic peak of the outbreak in the three countries, vaccine interventions may or may not have played a major role in bringing the epidemic under control. Having demonstrated that clinical trials can be performed during a large outbreak, the global research community can now build on the experience to implement trials more rapidly and efficiently in future outbreaks. Incorporating clinical research needs into planning for future health emergencies and understanding what kind of trial designs is needed for reliable results in an epidemic of limited duration should improve global response to future infectious disease outbreaks.
Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Vacinas contra Ebola/provisão & distribuição , Doença pelo Vírus Ebola/epidemiologia , Doença pelo Vírus Ebola/prevenção & controle , África Ocidental/epidemiologia , Surtos de Doenças , Doença pelo Vírus Ebola/transmissão , HumanosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: At the invitation of the Liberia Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (LMOHSW), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services joined the LMOHSW in establishing the Partnership for Research on Ebola Virus in Liberia (PREVAIL) to develop treatment and prevention strategies for Ebola virus disease (EVD). Social mobilization was a vital element of PREVAIL in a country with limited history of clinical research. OBJECTIVES: To innovate a social mobilization program for clinical trials during the Liberian EVD outbreak. METHODS: PREVAIL's social mobilization included 1) advocacy for support from leaders, 2) engagement with communities to build trust, and 3) collaboration with media for quality communications.Lessons Learned and Conclusions: Social mobilization can support clinical trials. Trusted leaders and peer to peer communication are essential for sharing reliable information and countering mistrust. Real time monitoring of media can inform timely, specific messaging. Expert evaluation resources are essential for evidence-based effectiveness assessments.
RESUMO
Visible signs of disease can evoke stigma while stigma contributes to depression and mental illness, sometimes manifesting as somatic symptoms. We assessed these hypotheses among Ebola virus disease (EVD) survivors, some of whom experienced clinical sequelae. Ebola virus disease survivors in Liberia were enrolled in an observational cohort study starting in June 2015 with visits every 6 months. At baseline and 18 months later, a seven-item index of EVD-related stigma was administered. Clinical findings (self-reported symptoms and abnormal findings) were obtained at each visit. We applied the generalized estimating equation method to assess the bidirectional concurrent and lagged associations between clinical findings and stigma, adjusting for age, gender, educational level, referral to medical care, and HIV serostatus as confounders. When assessing the contribution of stigma to later clinical findings, we restricted clinical findings to five that were also considered somatic symptoms. Data were obtained from 859 EVD survivors. In concurrent longitudinal analyses, each additional clinical finding increased the adjusted odds of stigma by 18% (95% CI: 1.11, 1.25), particularly palpitations, muscle pain, joint pain, urinary frequency, and memory loss. In lagged associations, memory loss (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 4.6; 95% CI: 1.73, 12.36) and anorexia (AOR: 4.17; 95% CI: 1.82, 9.53) were associated with later stigma, but stigma was not significantly associated with later clinical findings. Stigma was associated with select symptoms, not abnormal objective findings. Lagged associations between symptoms and later stigma substantiate the possibility of a pathway related to visible symptoms identified by community members and leading to fear of contagion.
Assuntos
Doença pelo Vírus Ebola/psicologia , Estigma Social , Adolescente , Adulto , Estudos de Coortes , Escolaridade , Feminino , Infecções por HIV/complicações , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Uveíte/psicologia , Adulto JovemRESUMO
BACKGROUND: While qualitative assessments of Ebola virus disease (EVD)-related stigma have been undertaken among survivors and the general public, quantitative tools and assessment targeting survivors have been lacking. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Beginning in June 2015, EVD survivors from seven Liberian counties, where most of the country's EVD cases occurred, were eligible to enroll in a longitudinal cohort. Seven stigma questions were adapted from the People Living with HIV Stigma Index and asked to EVD survivors over the age of 12 at initial visit (median 358 days post-EVD) and 18 months later. Primary outcome was a 7-item EVD-related stigma index. Explanatory variables included age, gender, educational level, pregnancy status, post-EVD hospitalization, referred to medical care and EVD source. Proportional odds logistic regression models and generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to assess stigma at initial visit and over time. The stigma questions were administered to 859 EVD survivors at initial visit and 741 (86%) survivors at follow-up. While 63% of survivors reported any stigma at initial visit, only 5% reported any stigma at follow-up. Over the 18-month period, there was a significant decrease in stigma among EVD survivors (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR], 0.02; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.01-0.04). At initial visit, having primary, junior high or vocational education, and being referred to medical care was associated with higher odds of stigma (educational level: AOR, 1.82; 95%CI, 1.27-2.62; referred: AOR, 1.50; 95%CI, 1.16-1.94). Compared to ages of 20-29, those who had ages of 12-19 or 50+ experienced lower odds of stigma (12-19: AOR, 0.32; 95%CI, 0.21-0.48; 50+: AOR, 0.58 95%CI, 0.37-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that EVD-related stigma was much lower more than a year after active Ebola transmission ended in Liberia. Among survivors who screened negative for stigma, additional probing may be considered based on age, education, and referral to care.