BACKGROUND The safety and efficacy of vaccines to prevent Ebola virus disease (EVD) were unknown when the incidence of EVD was peaking in Liberia. METHODS We initiated a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of the chimpanzee adenovirus 3 vaccine (ChAd3-EBO-Z) and the recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus vaccine (rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP) in Liberia. A phase 2 subtrial was embedded to evaluate safety and immunogenicity. Because the incidence of EVD declined in Liberia, the phase 2 component was expanded and the phase 3 component was eliminated. RESULTS A total of 1500 adults underwent randomization and were followed for 12 months. The median age of the participants was 30 years; 36.6% of the participants were women. During the week after the administration of vaccine or placebo, adverse events occurred significantly more often with the active vaccines than with placebo; these events included injection-site reactions (in 28.5% of the patients in the ChAd3-EBO-Z group and 30.9% of those in the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP group, as compared with 6.8% of those in the placebo group), headache (in 25.1% and 31.9%, vs. 16.9%), muscle pain (in 22.3% and 26.9%, vs. 13.3%), feverishness (in 23.9% and 30.5%, vs. 9.0%), and fatigue (in 14.0% and 15.4%, vs. 8.8%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons); these differences were not seen at 1 month. Serious adverse events within 12 months after injection were seen in 40 participants (8.0%) in the ChAd3-EBO-Z group, in 47 (9.4%) in the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP group, and in 59 (11.8%) in the placebo group. By 1 month, an antibody response developed in 70.8% of the participants in the ChAd3-EBO-Z group and in 83.7% of those in the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP group, as compared with 2.8% of those in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons). At 12 months, antibody responses in participants in the ChAd3-EBO-Z group (63.5%) and in those in the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP group (79.5%) remained significantly greater than in those in the placebo group (6.8%, P<0.001 for both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS A randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial of two vaccines that was rapidly initiated and completed in Liberia showed the capability of conducting rigorous research during an outbreak. By 1 month after vaccination, the vaccines had elicited immune responses that were largely maintained through 12 months. (Funded by the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Liberian Ministry of Health; PREVAIL I ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02344407.)

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.

No abstract

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.

Prior to the Ebola virus disease outbreak in Liberia, the laboratory system was duplicative, fragmented and minimally coordinated. The National Reference Laboratory was conceptualised to address the existing challenges by promoting the implementation of effective and sustainable laboratory services in Liberia. However, in a resource-limited environment such as Liberia, progress regarding the rebuilding of the health system can be relatively slow, while efforts to sustain the transient gains remain a key challenge for the Ministry of Health. In this paper, we describe the pre-Ebola virus disease laboratory system in Liberia and its prevailing efforts to address future emerging infectious diseases, as well as current Infectious diseases, all of which are exacerbated by poverty. We conclude that laboratory and diagnostic services in Liberia have encountered numerous challenges regarding its efforts to strengthen the healthcare delivery system. These challenges include limited trained human resource capacity, inadequate infrastructure, and a lack of coordination. As with most countries in sub-Saharan Africa, when comparing urban and rural settings, diagnostic and clinical services are generally skewed toward urban health facilities and private, faith-based health facilities. We recommend that structured policy be directed at these challenges for national institutions to develop guidelines to improve, strengthen and sustain diagnostic and curative laboratory services to effectively address current infectious diseases and prepare for future emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases.