No abstract

Background Research is urgently needed to reduce the morbidity and mortality of Lassa fever (LF), including clinical trials to test new therapies and to verify the efficacy and safety of the only current treatment recommendation, ribavirin, which has a weak clinical evidence base. To help establish a basis for the development of an adaptable, standardised clinical trial methodology, we conducted a systematic review to identify the clinical characteristics and outcomes of LF and describe how LF has historically been defined and assessed in the scientific literature. Methodology Primary clinical studies and reports of patients with suspected and confirmed diagnosis of LF published in the peer-reviewed literature before 15 April 2021 were included. Publications were selected following a two-stage screening of abstracts, then full-texts, by two independent reviewers at each stage. Data were extracted, verified, and summarised using descriptive statistics. Results 147 publications were included, primarily case reports (36%), case series (28%), and cohort studies (20%); only 2 quasi-randomised studies (1%) were found. Data are mostly from Nigeria (52% of individuals, 41% of publications) and Sierra Leone (42% of individuals, 31% of publications). The results corroborate the World Health Organisation characterisation of LF presentation. However, a broader spectrum of presenting symptoms is evident, such as gastrointestinal illness and other nervous system and musculoskeletal disorders that are not commonly included as indicators of LF. The overall case fatality ratio was 30% in laboratory-confirmed cases (1896/6373 reported in 109 publications). Conclusion Systematic review is an important tool in the clinical characterisation of diseases with limited publications. The results herein provide a more complete understanding of the spectrum of disease which is relevant to clinical trial design. This review demonstrates the need for coordination across the LF research community to generate harmonised research methods that can contribute to building a strong evidence base for new treatments and foster confidence in their integration into clinical care.

Background The new European Medicines Agency (EMA) Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS), based on the Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR EU 536/2014), came into full effect on 31 January 2022 and was intended to provide an easier, more streamlined approach to the registration of clinical trials taking place in Europe. Using the experience gained on the new regulatory framework from three multi-national European clinical research studies of outbreak-prone infectious diseases, this article describes the advantages and shortcomings of the new clinical trial submission procedure. Methods We report the time to approval, size of the application dossier, and number of Requests for Information (RFIs) for each study. We also explore the experience of each study within the regulatory framework and its use of CTIS to document the real-world, practical consequences of the system on individual studies. The study assesses the experience of three multi-country studies conducted in Europe working within the EU and non-EU regulatory environments. Results While the time to regulatory and ethical approval has improved since the implementation of the new regulation, the timelines for approvals are still unacceptably slow, particularly for studies being conducted in the context of an evolving outbreak. Within the new regulatory approval procedure, there is evidence of conflicting application requirements, increased document burden, barriers to submitting important modifications, and debilitating technical hurdles. Conclusions CTIS promised to lower the regulatory administrative bar, but unfortunately this has not been achieved. There are challenges that need to be urgently confronted and addressed for international research collaborators to effectively manage health crises in the future. While the impact on multi-national outbreak research is clear, the limitations and delays imposed by the system, which raise challenging ethical questions about the regulation, are prejudicial to all clinical research, especially publicly funded academic studies. The objective of this work is to help improve pan-European clinical trials. Trial Registration This paper references experiences gained during management of three pan-European trials: EU-SolidAct’s Bari-SolidAct (CT No. 2022-500395-99-00) and AXL-SolidAct (CT No. 2022-500363-12-00), and MOSAIC (CT No. 2022-501132-42-00).

Background: There is currently no specific treatment recommended for monkeypox. This expanded access programme (EAP) aims to provide tecovirimat to patients with monkeypox and collect data on patient treatment, disease evolution and outcomes under a protocol to contribute to the evidence-base for the use of the drug for monkeypox. Methods: Patients with confirmed monkeypox received tecovirimat according to the recommended dosing. Data on clinical signs and symptoms were recorded daily during treatment and at follow-up visits. Blood or lesion samples were taken during treatment and at day 28 to assess viral presence of monkeypox by PCR. As tecovirimat is administered via an EAP, outcome measures were not predefined. Adverse events and clinical outcomes were monitored by evaluating the total number and location of lesions, temperature, degree of incapacity, presence of adverse events, patient survival, and viral presence throughout treatment and follow-up. Results: We report outcomes in 14 patients who were enrolled between December 2021 and February 2022. Muscle pain, headache, lymphadenopathy, lesions, fever, back pain, and upper respiratory symptoms were commonly reported at admission and during follow-up. The rate of appearance of active lesions gradually decreased throughout treatment, with the median time to no new lesions being 5 days following the start of treatment. No death attributable to monkeypox occurred in this cohort. Conclusions: Data collected through this EAP can help improve our knowledge about the use of tecovirimat for monkeypox. We have been able to document systematically the presentation and clinical and virological evolution of monkeypox under treatment.

Background Among the many collaterals of the COVID-19 pandemic is the disruption of health services and vital clinical research. COVID-19 has magnified the challenges faced in research and threatens to slow research for urgently needed therapeutics for Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) and diseases affecting the most vulnerable populations. Here we explore the impact of the pandemic on a clinical trial for plague therapeutics and strategies that have been considered to ensure research efforts continue. Methods To understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the trial accrual rate, we documented changes in patterns of all-cause consultations that took place before and during the pandemic at health centres in two districts of the Amoron’I Mania region of Madagascar where the trial is underway. We also considered trends in plague reporting and other external factors that may have contributed to slow recruitment. Results During the pandemic, we found a 27% decrease in consultations at the referral hospital, compared to an 11% increase at peripheral health centres, as well as an overall drop during the months of lockdown. We also found a nation-wide trend towards reduced number of reported plague cases. Discussion COVID-19 outbreaks are unlikely to dissipate in the near future. Declining NTD case numbers recorded during the pandemic period should not be viewed in isolation or taken as a marker of things to come. It is vitally important that researchers are prepared for a rebound in cases and, most importantly, that research continues to avoid NTDs becoming even more neglected.