Explore the vast range of titles available.

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 . . .

rVSV-ZEBOV is a recombinant, replication competent vesicular stomatitis virus-based candidate vaccine expressing a surface glycoprotein of Zaire Ebolavirus. We tested the effect of rVSV-ZEBOV in preventing Ebola virus disease in contacts and contacts of contacts of recently confirmed cases in Guinea, west Africa. We did an open-label, cluster-randomised ring vaccination trial (Ebola ça Suffit!) in the communities of Conakry and eight surrounding prefectures in the Basse-Guinée region of Guinea, and in Tomkolili and Bombali in Sierra Leone. We assessed the efficacy of a single intramuscular dose of rVSV-ZEBOV (2×107 plaque-forming units administered in the deltoid muscle) in the prevention of laboratory confirmed Ebola virus disease. After confirmation of a case of Ebola virus disease, we definitively enumerated on a list a ring (cluster) of all their contacts and contacts of contacts including named contacts and contacts of contacts who were absent at the time of the trial team visit. The list was archived, then we randomly assigned clusters (1:1) to either immediate vaccination or delayed vaccination (21 days later) of all eligible individuals (eg, those aged ≥18 years and not pregnant, breastfeeding, or severely ill). An independent statistician generated the assignment sequence using block randomisation with randomly varying blocks, stratified by location (urban vs rural) and size of rings (≤20 individuals vs >20 individuals). Ebola response teams and laboratory workers were unaware of assignments. After a recommendation by an independent data and safety monitoring board, randomisation was stopped and immediate vaccination was also offered to children aged 6–17 years and all identified rings. The prespecified primary outcome was a laboratory confirmed case of Ebola virus disease with onset 10 days or more from randomisation. The primary analysis compared the incidence of Ebola virus disease in eligible and vaccinated individuals assigned to immediate vaccination versus eligible contacts and contacts of contacts assigned to delayed vaccination. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, number PACTR201503001057193. In the randomised part of the trial we identified 4539 contacts and contacts of contacts in 51 clusters randomly assigned to immediate vaccination (of whom 3232 were eligible, 2151 consented, and 2119 were immediately vaccinated) and 4557 contacts and contacts of contacts in 47 clusters randomly assigned to delayed vaccination (of whom 3096 were eligible, 2539 consented, and 2041 were vaccinated 21 days after randomisation). No cases of Ebola virus disease occurred 10 days or more after randomisation among randomly assigned contacts and contacts of contacts vaccinated in immediate clusters versus 16 cases (7 clusters affected) among all eligible individuals in delayed clusters. Vaccine efficacy was 100% (95% CI 68·9–100·0, p=0·0045), and the calculated intraclass correlation coefficient was 0·035. Additionally, we defined 19 non-randomised clusters in which we enumerated 2745 contacts and contacts of contacts, 2006 of whom were eligible and 1677 were immediately vaccinated, including 194 children. The evidence from all 117 clusters showed that no cases of Ebola virus disease occurred 10 days or more after randomisation among all immediately vaccinated contacts and contacts of contacts versus 23 cases (11 clusters affected) among all eligible contacts and contacts of contacts in delayed plus all eligible contacts and contacts of contacts never vaccinated in immediate clusters. The estimated vaccine efficacy here was 100% (95% CI 79·3–100·0, p=0·0033). 52% of contacts and contacts of contacts assigned to immediate vaccination and in non-randomised clusters received the vaccine immediately; vaccination protected both vaccinated and unvaccinated people in those clusters. 5837 individuals in total received the vaccine (5643 adults and 194 children), and all vaccinees were followed up for 84 days. 3149 (53·9%) of 5837 individuals reported at least one adverse event in the 14 days after vaccination; these were typically mild (87·5% of all 7211 adverse events). Headache (1832 [25·4%]), fatigue (1361 [18·9%]), and muscle pain (942 [13·1%]) were the most commonly reported adverse events in this period across all age groups. 80 serious adverse events were identified, of which two were judged to be related to vaccination (one febrile reaction and one anaphylaxis) and one possibly related (influenza-like illness); all three recovered without sequelae. The results add weight to the interim assessment that rVSV-ZEBOV offers substantial protection against Ebola virus disease, with no cases among vaccinated individuals from day 10 after vaccination in both randomised and non-randomised clusters. WHO, UK Wellcome Trust, the UK Government through the Department of International Development, Médecins Sans Frontières, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (through the Research Council of Norway's GLOBVAC programme), and the Canadian Government (through the Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, International Development Research Centre and Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development).

To address the unmet medical need for an effective prophylactic vaccine against Ebola virus we assessed the safety and immunogenicity of three different two-dose heterologous vaccination regimens with a replication-deficient adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine (Ad26.ZEBOV), expressing Zaire Ebola virus glycoprotein, and a non-replicating, recombinant, modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) vector-based vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from Zaire Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus. This randomised, observer-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial was done at seven hospitals in France and two research centres in the UK. Healthy adults (aged 18–65 years) with no history of Ebola vaccination were enrolled into four cohorts. Participants in cohorts I–III were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using computer-generated randomisation codes into three parallel groups (randomisation for cohorts II and III was stratified by country and age), in which participants were to receive an intramuscular injection of Ad26.ZEBOV on day 1, followed by intramuscular injection of MVA-BN-Filo at either 28 days (28-day interval group), 56 days (56-day interval group), or 84 days (84-day interval group) after the first vaccine. Within these three groups, participants in cohort II (14:1) and cohort III (10:3) were further randomly assigned to receive either Ad26.ZEBOV or placebo on day 1, followed by either MVA-BN-Filo or placebo on days 28, 56, or 84. Participants in cohort IV were randomly assigned (5:1) to receive one dose of either Ad26.ZEBOV or placebo on day 1 for vector shedding assessments. For cohorts II and III, study site personnel, sponsor personnel, and participants were masked to vaccine allocation until all participants in these cohorts had completed the post-MVA-BN-Filo vaccination visit at 6 months or had discontinued the trial, whereas cohort I was open-label. For cohort IV, study site personnel and participants were masked to vaccine allocation until all participants in this cohort had completed the post-vaccination visit at 28 days or had discontinued the trial. The primary outcome, analysed in all participants who had received at least one dose of vaccine or placebo (full analysis set), was the safety and tolerability of the three vaccination regimens, as assessed by participant-reported solicited local and systemic adverse events within 7 days of receiving both vaccines, unsolicited adverse events within 42 days of receiving the MVA-BN-Filo vaccine, and serious adverse events over 365 days of follow-up. The secondary outcome was humoral immunogenicity, as measured by the concentration of Ebola virus glycoprotein-binding antibodies at 21 days after receiving the MVA-BN-Filo vaccine. The secondary outcome was assessed in the per-protocol analysis set. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02416453, and EudraCT, 2015-000596-27. Between June 23, 2015, and April 27, 2016, 423 participants were enrolled: 408 in cohorts I–III were randomly assigned to the 28-day interval group (123 to receive Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo, and 13 to receive placebo), the 56-day interval group (124 to receive Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo, and 13 to receive placebo), and the 84-day interval group (117 to receive Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo, and 18 to receive placebo), and 15 participants in cohort IV were assigned to receive Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo (n=13) or to receive placebo (n=2). 421 (99·5%) participants received at least one dose of vaccine or placebo. The trial was temporarily suspended after two serious neurological adverse events were reported, one of which was considered as possibly related to vaccination, and per-protocol vaccination was disrupted for some participants. Vaccinations were generally well tolerated. Mild or moderate local adverse events (mostly pain) were reported after 206 (62%) of 332 Ad26.ZEBOV vaccinations, 136 (58%) of 236 MVA-BN-Filo vaccinations, and 11 (15%) of 72 placebo injections. Systemic adverse events were reported after 255 (77%) Ad26.ZEBOV vaccinations, 116 (49%) MVA-BN-Filo vaccinations, and 33 (46%) placebo injections, and included mostly mild or moderate fatigue, headache, or myalgia. Unsolicited adverse events occurred after 115 (35%) of 332 Ad26.ZEBOV vaccinations, 81 (34%) of 236 MVA-BN-Filo vaccinations, and 24 (33%) of 72 placebo injections. At 21 days after receiving the MVA-BN-Filo vaccine, geometric mean concentrations of Ebola virus glycoprotein-binding antibodies were 4627 ELISA units (EU)/mL (95% CI 3649–5867) in the 28-day interval group, 10 131 EU/mL (8554–11 999) in the 56-day interval group, and 11 312 mL (9072–14106) in the 84-day interval group, with antibody concentrations persisting at 1149–1205 EU/mL up to day 365. The two-dose heterologous regimen with Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo was safe, well tolerated, and immunogenic, with humoral and cellular immune responses persisting for 1 year after vaccination. Taken together, these data support the intended prophylactic indication for the vaccine regimen. Innovative Medicines Initiative and Janssen Vaccines & Prevention BV. For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Ebola remains a global threat. In a randomized, controlled trial to assess the safety and immunogenicity of two vaccines against Ebola virus disease in Liberia, no safety signals were found. The vaccines elicited immune responses lasting at least 1 year.

Addresses the challenge of enabling the development of viable, resilient, and fiscally sustainable health system in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. Initiated while Ebola was still raging in all of the three most-affected countries in West Africa, the study identifies the requirements for strengthening the health systems in these countries to go beyond just getting the number of Ebola cases to zero. The overall goal of this study is thus twofold: To assess the capacity of the health systems of the three most-affected countries in terms of their ability to deliver quality health services to their populations, perform core public health functions on a routine basis, and to respond to public health emergencies; and To identify the highest impact strategies to help these countries to strengthen their health systems to be more effective and resilient, drilling down into three key aspects of the health system-- that is, fiscal space for universal health coverage (UHC), development and deployment of an effective health workforce, and continuous disease surveillance.-- Source other than the Library of Congress.

The 2014 west African Zaire Ebola virus epidemic prompted worldwide partners to accelerate clinical development of replication-defective chimpanzee adenovirus 3 vector vaccine expressing Zaire Ebola virus glycoprotein (ChAd3-EBO-Z). We aimed to investigate the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of ChAd3-EBO-Z in Malian and US adults, and assess the effect of boosting of Malians with modified vaccinia Ankara expressing Zaire Ebola virus glycoprotein and other filovirus antigens (MVA-BN-Filo). In the phase 1, single-blind, randomised trial of ChAd3-EBO-Z in the USA, we recruited adults aged 18–65 years from the University of Maryland medical community and the Baltimore community. In the phase 1b, open-label and double-blind, dose-escalation trial of ChAd3-EBO-Z in Mali, we recruited adults 18–50 years of age from six hospitals and health centres in Bamako (Mali), some of whom were also eligible for a nested, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of MVA-BN-Filo. For randomised segments of the Malian trial and for the US trial, we randomly allocated participants (1:1; block size of six [Malian] or four [US]; ARB produced computer-generated randomisation lists; clinical staff did randomisation) to different single doses of intramuscular immunisation with ChAd3-EBO-Z: Malians received 1 × 1010 viral particle units (pu), 2·5 × 1010 pu, 5 × 1010 pu, or 1 × 1011 pu; US participants received 1 × 1010 pu or 1 × 1011 pu. We randomly allocated Malians in the nested trial (1:1) to receive a single dose of 2 × 108 plaque-forming units of MVA-BN-Filo or saline placebo. In the double-blind segments of the Malian trial, investigators, clinical staff, participants, and immunology laboratory staff were masked, but the study pharmacist (MK), vaccine administrator, and study statistician (ARB) were unmasked. In the US trial, investigators were not masked, but participants were. Analyses were per protocol. The primary outcome was safety, measured with occurrence of adverse events for 7 days after vaccination. Both trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT02231866 (US) and NCT02267109 (Malian). Between Oct 8, 2014, and Feb 16, 2015, we randomly allocated 91 participants in Mali (ten [11%] to 1 × 1010 pu, 35 [38%] to 2·5 × 1010 pu, 35 [38%] to 5 × 1010 pu, and 11 [12%] to 1 × 1011 pu) and 20 in the USA (ten [50%] to 1 × 1010 pu and ten [50%] to 1 × 1011 pu), and boosted 52 Malians with MVA-BN-Filo (27 [52%]) or saline (25 [48%]). We identified no safety concerns with either vaccine: seven (8%) of 91 participants in Mali (five [5%] received 5 × 1010 and two [2%] received 1 × 1011 pu) and four (20%) of 20 in the USA (all received 1 × 1011 pu) given ChAd3-EBO-Z had fever lasting for less than 24 h, and 15 (56%) of 27 Malians boosted with MVA-BN-Filo had injection-site pain or tenderness. 1 × 1011 pu single-dose ChAd3-EBO-Z could suffice for phase 3 efficacy trials of ring-vaccination containment needing short-term, high-level protection to interrupt transmission. MVA-BN-Filo boosting, although a complex regimen, could confer long-lived protection if needed (eg, for health-care workers). Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council UK, Department for International Development UK, National Cancer Institute, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Federal Funds from National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.