Explore the vast range of titles available.

This final report updates preliminary data on an attenuated, replication-competent, recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus–based vaccine candidate designed to prevent Ebola virus disease. The results supported the safety and immunogenicity of up to two doses of the vaccine. The worst Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in recorded history has resulted in more than 28,000 cases and 11,000 reported deaths. 1 Although the primary strategy to stop the transmission of Ebola remains the identification and isolation of contacts and the use of appropriate personal protective equipment, the development of a safe and efficacious vaccine would provide an important public health tool. Numerous Ebola virus vaccine candidates are in preclinical development, and some have proceeded to human trials. 2 – 5 An Ebola virus vaccine candidate based on an attenuated, replication-competent, recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (rVSV) has shown promise in preclinical studies. The . . .

The 2014 outbreak of Ebola virus caused more than 10,000 human deaths. Current knowledge of suitable drugs, clinical diagnostic biomarkers and molecular mechanisms of Ebola virus infection is either absent or insufficient. By screening stem-loop structures from the viral genomes of four virulence species, we identified a novel, putative viral microRNA precursor that is specifically expressed by the Ebola virus. The sequence of the microRNA precursor was further confirmed by mining the existing RNA-Seq database. Two putative mature microRNAs were predicted and subsequently validated in human cell lines. Combined with this prediction of the microRNA target, we identified importin- alpha 5, which is a key regulator of interferon signaling following Ebola virus infection, as one putative target. We speculate that this microRNA could facilitate the evasion of the host immune system by the virus. Moreover, this microRNA might be a potential clinical therapeutic target or a diagnostic biomarker for Ebola virus.

Ebola virus causes a devastating clinical illness that is associated with high mortality. In this trial conducted primarily in West Africa during an outbreak, ZMapp (a cocktail of three monoclonal antibodies against Ebola) showed some clinical activity. The 2014–2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa was unprecedented in sheer scope, duration, and number of human casualties. 1 , 2 The outbreak resulted in more than 28,000 suspected or confirmed cases of Ebola virus disease (EVD) and more than 11,000 deaths. 3 Fragile health care infrastructures that were often already severely compromised by past years of civil strife played a substantial role in the propagation of the outbreak. Although the final postmortem analysis of the global response has yet to be written, there can be little doubt that the lack of therapeutic agents and vaccines with proven efficacy against EVD further contributed . . .

In 2018, a clinical trial of four investigational therapies for Ebola virus disease (EVD), known as the PALM trial, was conducted in the Democratic Republic of Congo. All patients received either the antiviral remdesivir (RDV) or a monoclonal antibody product: ZMapp, mAb114 (Ebanga), or REGN-EB3 (Inmazeb). The study concluded that both mAb114 and REGN-EB3 were superior to ZMapp and RDV in reducing mortality from EVD. However, the data suggested that some patients in the RDV and ZMapp groups might have been sicker at the time of treatment initiation. Here, we assessed the efficacy of each of these therapies in a uniformly lethal rhesus monkey model of EVD when treatment was initiated 5 days after Ebola exposure. Treatment with RDV, mAb114, REGN-EB3, and ZMapp each resulted in similar survival (approximately 40%). Survival was associated with circulating viral load at treatment initiation. A trend of more escape mutants in the GP1 and GP2 domains was observed for the mAb114 group. Our data show similar suboptimal efficacy of individual therapeutics in the uniformly lethal NHP model of EVD, supporting further clinical investigation of therapeutic combinations to maximize the overall therapeutic effect and improve patient outcomes, particularly for the treatment of advanced stage EVD. Prasad et al. assess four therapeutics in preventing lethal disease in an established nonhuman primate model of Ebola virus infection. They find that each therapy results in ~ 40% survival, suggesting the use of alternative strategies, such as combining therapeutics to combat Ebola.

In this set of four phase 1 studies, a recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (rVSV)–based Ebola vaccine induced Ebola virus–specific immune responses and was associated with side effects that included fever and transient arthritis, rash, and VSV viremia. In August 2014, after the outbreak of Ebola virus disease was declared a public health emergency of international concern by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Canadian government donated 800 vials of the replication-competent recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (rVSV)–vectored Zaire ebolavirus (rVSV-ZEBOV) candidate vaccine to the WHO. The VSV Ebola Consortium (VEBCON) was created under the auspices of the WHO to initiate phase 1 studies to facilitate rapid progression to phase 2 and 3 trials in affected countries. 1 Live replicating viral vaccines elicit humoral and cellular immune responses against viral pathogens. 2 , 3 A single injection of 10 million plaque-forming units . . .

In March 2014, an outbreak of Ebola virus disease associated with a high fatality rate was identified in Guinea, with evidence of ongoing person-to-person transmission. In this update to the preliminary report, the virus is found to be a new strain related to Zaire ebolavirus . Outbreaks caused by viruses of the genera ebolavirus and marburgvirus represent a major public health issue in sub-Saharan Africa. Ebola virus disease is associated with a case fatality rate of 30 to 90%, depending on the virus species. Specific conditions in hospitals and communities in Africa facilitate the spread of the disease from human to human. Three ebolavirus species have caused large outbreaks in sub-Saharan Africa: EBOV, Sudan ebolavirus, and the recently described Bundibugyo ebolavirus . 1 , 2 Epidemics have occurred in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Gabon, Republic of Congo, and Uganda. Reston ebolavirus circulates in the Philippines. It . . .

A nanopore DNA sequencer is used for real-time genomic surveillance of the Ebola virus epidemic in the field in Guinea; the authors demonstrate that it is possible to pack a genomic surveillance laboratory in a suitcase and transport it to the field for on-site virus sequencing, generating results within 24 hours of sample collection. Ebola virus genomics surveillance This paper reports the use of nanopore DNA sequencers (known as MinIONs) for real-time genomic surveillance of the Ebola virus epidemic, in the field in Guinea. The authors demonstrate that it is possible to pack a genomic surveillance laboratory in a suitcase and transport it to the field for on-site virus sequencing, generating results within 24 hours of sample collection. The Ebola virus disease epidemic in West Africa is the largest on record, responsible for over 28,599 cases and more than 11,299 deaths 1 . Genome sequencing in viral outbreaks is desirable to characterize the infectious agent and determine its evolutionary rate. Genome sequencing also allows the identification of signatures of host adaptation, identification and monitoring of diagnostic targets, and characterization of responses to vaccines and treatments. The Ebola virus (EBOV) genome substitution rate in the Makona strain has been estimated at between 0.87 × 10 −3 and 1.42 × 10 −3 mutations per site per year. This is equivalent to 16–27 mutations in each genome, meaning that sequences diverge rapidly enough to identify distinct sub-lineages during a prolonged epidemic 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 . Genome sequencing provides a high-resolution view of pathogen evolution and is increasingly sought after for outbreak surveillance. Sequence data may be used to guide control measures, but only if the results are generated quickly enough to inform interventions 8 . Genomic surveillance during the epidemic has been sporadic owing to a lack of local sequencing capacity coupled with practical difficulties transporting samples to remote sequencing facilities 9 . To address this problem, here we devise a genomic surveillance system that utilizes a novel nanopore DNA sequencing instrument. In April 2015 this system was transported in standard airline luggage to Guinea and used for real-time genomic surveillance of the ongoing epidemic. We present sequence data and analysis of 142 EBOV samples collected during the period March to October 2015. We were able to generate results less than 24 h after receiving an Ebola-positive sample, with the sequencing process taking as little as 15–60 min. We show that real-time genomic surveillance is possible in resource-limited settings and can be established rapidly to monitor outbreaks.

The Ebola epidemics in west Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo highlight an urgent need for safe and effective vaccines to prevent Ebola virus disease. We aimed to assess the safety and long-term immunogenicity of a two-dose heterologous vaccine regimen, comprising the adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine encoding the Ebola virus glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and the modified vaccinia Ankara vector-based vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and the nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus (MVA-BN-Filo), in Sierra Leone, a country previously affected by Ebola. The trial comprised two stages: an open-label, non-randomised stage 1, and a randomised, double-blind, controlled stage 2. The study was done at three clinics in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. In stage 1, healthy adults (aged ≥18 years) residing in or near Kambia district, received an intramuscular injection of Ad26.ZEBOV (5 × 1010 viral particles) on day 1 (first dose) followed by an intramuscular injection of MVA-BN-Filo (1 × 108 infectious units) on day 57 (second dose). An Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination was offered at 2 years after the first dose to stage 1 participants. The eligibility criteria for adult participants in stage 2 were consistent with stage 1 eligibility criteria. Stage 2 participants were randomly assigned (3:1), by computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive web-response system, to receive either the Ebola vaccine regimen (Ad26.ZEBOV followed by MVA-BN-Filo) or an intramuscular injection of a single dose of meningococcal quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W135, and Y) conjugate vaccine (MenACWY; first dose) followed by placebo on day 57 (second dose; control group). Study team personnel, except those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation, and participants were masked to study vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was the safety of the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen, which was assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose of study vaccine. Safety was assessed as solicited local and systemic adverse events occurring in the first 7 days after each vaccination, unsolicited adverse events occurring in the first 28 days after each vaccination, and serious adverse events or immediate reportable events occurring up to each participant's last study visit. Secondary outcomes were to assess Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses at 21 days after the second vaccine in a per-protocol set of participants (ie, those who had received both vaccinations within the protocol-defined time window, had at least one evaluable post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol deviations that could have influenced the immune response) and to assess the safety and tolerability of the Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination in stage 1 participants who had received the booster dose. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02509494. Between Sept 30, 2015, and Oct 19, 2016, 443 participants (43 in stage 1 and 400 in stage 2) were enrolled; 341 participants assigned to receive the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo regimen and 102 participants assigned to receive the MenACWY and placebo regimen received at least one dose of study vaccine. Both regimens were well tolerated with no safety concerns. In stage 1, solicited local adverse events (mostly mild or moderate injection-site pain) were reported in 12 (28%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in six (14%) participants after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited local adverse events were reported in 51 (17%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 58 (24%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 17 (17%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in eight (9%) of 86 after placebo injection. In stage 1, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 18 (42%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in 17 (40%) after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 161 (54%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 107 (43%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 51 (50%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in 39 (45%) of 86 after placebo injection. Solicited systemic adverse events in both stage 1 and 2 participants included mostly mild or moderate headache, myalgia, fatigue, and arthralgia. The most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the first dose was headache in stage 1 and malaria in stage 2. Malaria was the most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the second dose in both stage 1 and 2. No serious adverse event was considered related to the study vaccine, and no immediate reportable events were observed. In stage 1, the safety profile after the booster vaccination was not notably different to that observed after the first dose. Vaccine-induced humoral immune responses were observed in 41 (98%) of 42 stage 1 participants (geometric mean binding antibody concentration 4784 ELISA units [EU]/mL [95% CI 3736–6125]) and in 176 (98%) of 179 stage 2 participants (3810 EU/mL [3312–4383]) at 21 days after the second vaccination. The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen was well tolerated and immunogenic, with persistent humoral immune responses. These data support the use of this vaccine regimen for Ebola virus disease prophylaxis in adults. Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking and Janssen Vaccines & Prevention BV.

The Ebola virus (EBOV) envelope glycoprotein (GP) is a membrane fusion machine required for virus entry into cells. Following endocytosis of EBOV, the GP1 domain is cleaved by cellular cathepsins in acidic endosomes, removing the glycan cap and exposing a binding site for the Niemann-Pick C1 (NPC1) receptor. NPC1 binding to cleaved GP1 is required for entry. How this interaction translates to GP2 domain-mediated fusion of viral and endosomal membranes is not known. Here, using a bulk fluorescence dequenching assay and single-molecule Förster resonance energy transfer (smFRET)-imaging, we found that acidic pH, Ca2+, and NPC1 binding synergistically induce conformational changes in GP2 and permit virus-liposome lipid mixing. Acidic pH and Ca2+ shifted the GP2 conformational equilibrium in favor of an intermediate state primed for NPC1 binding. Glycan cap cleavage on GP1 enabled GP2 to transition from a reversible intermediate to an irreversible conformation, suggestive of the postfusion 6-helix bundle; NPC1 binding further promoted transition to the irreversible conformation. Thus, the glycan cap of GP1 may allosterically protect against inactivation of EBOV by premature triggering of GP2.