The index case of the Ebola virus disease epidemic in West Africa is believed to have originated in Guinea. By June 2014, Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone were in the midst of a full-blown and complex global health emergency. The devastating effects of this Ebola epidemic in West Africa put the global health response in acute focus for urgent international interventions. Accordingly, in October 2014, a World Health Organization high-level meeting endorsed the concept of a phase 2/3 clinical trial in Liberia to study Ebola vaccines. As a follow-up to the global response, in November 2014, the Government of Liberia and the US Government signed an agreement to form a research partnership to investigate Ebola and to assess intervention strategies for treating, controlling, and preventing the disease in Liberia. This agreement led to the establishment of the Joint Liberia-US Partnership for Research on Ebola Virus in Liberia as the beginning of a long-term collaborative partnership in clinical research between the two countries. In this article, we discuss the methodology and related challenges associated with the implementation of the Ebola vaccines clinical trial, based on a doubleblinded randomized controlled trial, in Liberia.

Background A number of reports have highlighted problems of conducting publicly funded trials in Europe as a consequence of the European Union (EU) Clinical Trials Directive. The impact of the EU Directive on multi-national trials, which include sites in Europe that are funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) have not been described. Methods Four problems in the conduct of two international HIV treatment trials funded by NIH in the EU are described: (1) conflicting regulations on the continuing review of protocols by Institutional Review Boards/Research Ethics Committees; (2) US regulations requiring Federalwide Assurances for sites which are only partially funded by NIH; (3) EU guidance on the designation of studies as a trial of an investigational medicinal product; and (4) EU guidance on trial sponsorship and the requirements for insurance and indemnification. Following the description of the problems, recommendations for improving global collaborations are made to the US Office of Human Research Protections, to NIH, and to the EU and its Member States. Results A lack of harmonization of regulations at multiple levels caused enrollment in one study to be interrupted for several months and delayed for one year the initiation of another study aimed at obtaining definitive evidence to guide the timing of the initiation of antiretroviral therapy for individuals infected with HIV. The delays and the purchase of insurance resulted in substantial increases in trial costs and caused substantial disruption at clinical sites among staff and study participants. Limitations The problems cited and recommendations made pertain to trials funded by NIH and conducted by sites in the EU. There are many other challenges in the conduct of international research, public and private, that global harmonization would alleviate. Conclusions Disharmony, at multiple levels, in international regulations and guidelines is stifling publicly funded global research. International scientific organizations and government groups should make the documentation and solution of these problems a priority.

Abstract.Clinical trials are challenging endeavors. Planning and implementing an investigational vaccine trial in Liberia, in the midst of an Ebola virus disease (EVD) epidemic that World Health Organization classified a public health emergency of international concern, presented extraordinary challenges. Normally, years of preparation and a litany of tasks lay the groundwork for a successful, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial focused on safety and efficacy. Difficult research settings, unpredictable events, and other unique circumstances can add complexity. The setting in Liberia was especially problematic due to an infrastructure still badly damaged following a lengthy civil war and a very fragile health-care system that was further devastated by the EVD outbreak. The Partnership for Research on Vaccines in Liberia I EVD vaccine trial was planned and implemented in less than 3 months by a Liberian and U.S. research partnership, and its Phase II substudy was fully enrolled 3 months later. Contrasting conventional wisdom with trial outcomes offers an opportunity to compare early assumptions, barriers encountered, and adaptive strategies used, with end results. Understanding what was learned can inform future trial responses when disease outbreaks, especially in resource-poor locations with minimal infrastructure, pose a significant threat to public health.

IntroductionThe use of anti-retroviral therapy (ART) has dramatically reduced HIV-1 associated morbidity and mortality. However, HIV-1 infected individuals have increased rates of morbidity and mortality compared to the non-HIV-1 infected population and this appears to be related to end-organ diseases collectively referred to as Serious Non-AIDS Events (SNAEs). Circulating miRNAs are reported as promising biomarkers for a number of human disease conditions including those that constitute SNAEs. Our study sought to investigate the potential of selected miRNAs in predicting mortality in HIV-1 infected ART treated individuals.Materials and MethodsA set of miRNAs was chosen based on published associations with human disease conditions that constitute SNAEs. This case: control study compared 126 cases (individuals who died whilst on therapy), and 247 matched controls (individuals who remained alive). Cases and controls were ART treated participants of two pivotal HIV-1 trials. The relative abundance of each miRNA in serum was measured, by RTqPCR. Associations with mortality (all-cause, cardiovascular and malignancy) were assessed by logistic regression analysis. Correlations between miRNAs and CD4+ T cell count, hs-CRP, IL-6 and D-dimer were also assessed.ResultsNone of the selected miRNAs was associated with all-cause, cardiovascular or malignancy mortality. The levels of three miRNAs (miRs -21, -122 and -200a) correlated with IL-6 while miR-21 also correlated with D-dimer. Additionally, the abundance of miRs -31, -150 and -223, correlated with baseline CD4+ T cell count while the same three miRNAs plus miR-145 correlated with nadir CD4+ T cell count.DiscussionNo associations with mortality were found with any circulating miRNA studied. These results cast doubt onto the effectiveness of circulating miRNA as early predictors of mortality or the major underlying diseases that contribute to mortality in participants treated for HIV-1 infection.

Background/Aims Randomized clinical trials are widely recognized as essential to address world-wide clinical and public health research questions. However, for many conditions, their size and duration can overwhelm available public and private resources. To remain competitive in international research settings, advocates and practitioners of clinical trials must implement practices that reduce their cost. We identify approaches and practices for large, publicly-funded, international trials that reduce cost without compromising data integrity, and recommend an approach to cost reporting that permits comparison of clinical trials. Methods We describe the organizational and financial characteristics of INSIGHT, an infectious disease research network that conducts multiple, large, long-term, international trials, and examine challenges associated with simple and streamlined governance and an infrastructure and financial management model that is based on performance, transparency, and accountability. Results It is possible to reduce costs of participant follow-up and not compromise clinical trial quality or integrity. The INSIGHT network has successfully completed four large HIV trials using cost-efficient practices that have not adversely affected investigator enthusiasm, accrual rates, loss-to-follow-up, adherence to the protocol, and completion of data collection. This experience is relevant to the conduct of large, publically funded trials in other disease areas, particularly trials dependent on international collaborations. Conclusion New approaches, or creative adaption of traditional clinical trial infrastructure and financial management tools, can render large, international clinical trials more cost-efficient by emphasizing structural simplicity; minimal up-front costs; payments for performance; and uniform algorithms and fees-for-service, irrespective of location. However, challenges remain. They include institutional resistance to financial change, growing trial complexity, and the difficulty of sustaining network infrastructure absent stable research work. There is also a need for more central monitoring, improved and harmonized regulations, and a widely-applied metric for measuring and comparing cost efficiency in clinical trials. ClinicalTrials.gov is recommended as a location where standardized trial cost information could be made publicly accessible.