No abstract

No abstract

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.

No abstract

Introduction: The EBOVAC-Salone trial of a candidate Ebola two-dose vaccine regimen (Ad.ZEBOV/MVA-BN-Filo) was conducted in a research-naïve setting in rural northern Sierra Leone, where no local laboratory reference values (LRV) had been established. In the first stage (n = 43) of the trial, laboratory screening was based on internationally-derived protocol LRV (PLRV). For postrecruitment participant care, LRV derived from a West African population (WALRV) were used. We assessed what difference using WALRV rather than PLRV for screening might have made to the eligibility of volunteers. METHODS: We reviewed the laboratory screening results of study volunteers. Red blood cells (RBC), white blood cells (WBC), platelets (PTT), haemoglobin, haematocrit, creatinine, and alanine (ALT) and aspartate (AST) transaminases were measured. Overall and for each parameter, we compared the actually eligible proportion of volunteers using PLRV with the potentially eligible proportion using WALRV. Results: Of 102 (82 males, 20 females) volunteers, overall 55 (53.9% males) met PLRV eligibility criteria for inclusion, compared with 91 (89.2% males) who were within WALRV normal limits (p < 0.0001). Thus, 36 volunteers who failed laboratory screening using PLRV (76.6% of screening failures) might have been eligible if WALRV had been applied. Parameters with significant effect were haemoglobin (33 ineligible by PLRV, vs. 2 ineligible by WALRV; p < 0.0001); RBC (27 vs. 1; p < 0.0001); and PTT (18 vs. 6; p = 0.0093). Levels of creatinine and ALT did not present any differences. Discussion: Use of WALRV in eligibility assessment would potentially have led to considerable differences in the baseline laboratory characteristics of enrolled volunteers. Clinical trials are increasingly common and crucial in emerging infectious disease research. Our findings underscore the importance of locally-derived LRV in clinical trials in sub-Saharan Africa, to avoid excluding potentially eligible study volunteers, and to better support routine clinical care and safety assessments. Appropriately designed studies are needed in each region to establish local LRV.