Journal Article > LetterFull Text
Nature. 2015 June 17; Volume 524 (Issue 7563); 97-101.; DOI:10.1038/nature14594
Carroll MW, Matthews DA, Hiscox JA, Elmore MJ, Pollakis G, et al.
Nature. 2015 June 17; Volume 524 (Issue 7563); 97-101.; DOI:10.1038/nature14594
West Africa is currently witnessing the most extensive Ebola virus (EBOV) outbreak so far recorded. Until now, there have been 27,013 reported cases and 11,134 deaths. The origin of the virus is thought to have been a zoonotic transmission from a bat to a twoyear-old boy in December 2013 (ref. 2). From this index case the virus was spread by human-to-human contact throughout Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. However, the origin of the particular virus in each country and time of transmission is not known and currently relies on epidemiological analysis, which may be unreliable owing to the difficulties of obtaining patient information. Here we trace the genetic evolution of EBOV in the current outbreak that has resulted in multiple lineages. Deep sequencing of 179 patient samples processed by the European Mobile Laboratory, the first diagnostics unit to be deployed to the epicentre of the outbreak in Guinea, reveals an epidemiological and evolutionary history of the epidemic from March 2014 to January 2015. Analysis of EBOV genome evolution has also benefited from a similar sequencing effort of patient samples from Sierra Leone. Our results confirm that the EBOV from Guinea moved into Sierra Leone, most likely in April or early May. The viruses of the Guinea/Sierra Leone lineage mixed around June/July 2014. Viral sequences covering August, September and October 2014 indicate that this lineage evolved independently within Guinea. These data can be used in conjunction with epidemiological information to test retrospectively the effectiveness of control measures, and provides an unprecedented window into the evolution of an ongoing viral haemorrhagic fever outbreak.
Journal Article > ProtocolFull Text
PLOS One. 2023 March 30; Volume 18 (Issue 3); e0283643.; DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0283643
Penfold S, Adegnika AA, Asogun D, Ayodeji O, Azuogu BN, et al.
PLOS One. 2023 March 30; Volume 18 (Issue 3); e0283643.; DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0283643
BACKGROUND
Lassa fever (LF), a haemorrhagic illness caused by the Lassa fever virus (LASV), is endemic in West Africa and causes 5000 fatalities every year. The true prevalence and incidence rates of LF are unknown as infections are often asymptomatic, clinical presentations are varied, and surveillance systems are not robust. The aim of the Enable Lassa research programme is to estimate the incidences of LASV infection and LF disease in five West African countries. The core protocol described here harmonises key study components, such as eligibility criteria, case definitions, outcome measures, and laboratory tests, which will maximise the comparability of data for between-country analyses.
METHOD
We are conducting a prospective cohort study in Benin, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria (three sites), and Sierra Leone from 2020 to 2023, with 24 months of follow-up. Each site will assess the incidence of LASV infection, LF disease, or both. When both incidences are assessed the LASV cohort (n min = 1000 per site) will be drawn from the LF cohort (n min = 5000 per site). During recruitment participants will complete questionnaires on household composition, socioeconomic status, demographic characteristics, and LF history, and blood samples will be collected to determine IgG LASV serostatus. LF disease cohort participants will be contacted biweekly to identify acute febrile cases, from whom blood samples will be drawn to test for active LASV infection using RT-PCR. Symptom and treatment data will be abstracted from medical records of LF cases. LF survivors will be followed up after four months to assess sequelae, specifically sensorineural hearing loss. LASV infection cohort participants will be asked for a blood sample every six months to assess LASV serostatus (IgG and IgM).
DISCUSSION
Data on LASV infection and LF disease incidence in West Africa from this research programme will determine the feasibility of future Phase IIb or III clinical trials for LF vaccine candidates.
Lassa fever (LF), a haemorrhagic illness caused by the Lassa fever virus (LASV), is endemic in West Africa and causes 5000 fatalities every year. The true prevalence and incidence rates of LF are unknown as infections are often asymptomatic, clinical presentations are varied, and surveillance systems are not robust. The aim of the Enable Lassa research programme is to estimate the incidences of LASV infection and LF disease in five West African countries. The core protocol described here harmonises key study components, such as eligibility criteria, case definitions, outcome measures, and laboratory tests, which will maximise the comparability of data for between-country analyses.
METHOD
We are conducting a prospective cohort study in Benin, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria (three sites), and Sierra Leone from 2020 to 2023, with 24 months of follow-up. Each site will assess the incidence of LASV infection, LF disease, or both. When both incidences are assessed the LASV cohort (n min = 1000 per site) will be drawn from the LF cohort (n min = 5000 per site). During recruitment participants will complete questionnaires on household composition, socioeconomic status, demographic characteristics, and LF history, and blood samples will be collected to determine IgG LASV serostatus. LF disease cohort participants will be contacted biweekly to identify acute febrile cases, from whom blood samples will be drawn to test for active LASV infection using RT-PCR. Symptom and treatment data will be abstracted from medical records of LF cases. LF survivors will be followed up after four months to assess sequelae, specifically sensorineural hearing loss. LASV infection cohort participants will be asked for a blood sample every six months to assess LASV serostatus (IgG and IgM).
DISCUSSION
Data on LASV infection and LF disease incidence in West Africa from this research programme will determine the feasibility of future Phase IIb or III clinical trials for LF vaccine candidates.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
PLOS Med. 2016 March 1; Volume 13 (Issue 3); DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001967
Sissoko D, Laouenan C, Folkesson E, M’Lebing A, Beavogui A, et al.
PLOS Med. 2016 March 1; Volume 13 (Issue 3); DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001967
Ebola virus disease (EVD) is a highly lethal condition for which no specific treatment has proven efficacy. In September 2014, while the Ebola outbreak was at its peak, the World Health Organization released a short list of drugs suitable for EVD research. Favipiravir, an antiviral developed for the treatment of severe influenza, was one of these. In late 2014, the conditions for starting a randomized Ebola trial were not fulfilled for two reasons. One was the perception that, given the high number of patients presenting simultaneously and the very high mortality rate of the disease, it was ethically unacceptable to allocate patients from within the same family or village to receive or not receive an experimental drug, using a randomization process impossible to understand by very sick patients. The other was that, in the context of rumors and distrust of Ebola treatment centers, using a randomized design at the outset might lead even more patients to refuse to seek care. Therefore, we chose to conduct a multicenter non-randomized trial, in which all patients would receive favipiravir along with standardized care. The objectives of the trial were to test the feasibility and acceptability of an emergency trial in the context of a large Ebola outbreak, and to collect data on the safety and effectiveness of favipiravir in reducing mortality and viral load in patients with EVD. The trial was not aimed at directly informing future guidelines on Ebola treatment but at quickly gathering standardized preliminary data to optimize the design of future studies.
Journal Article > LetterFull Text
N Engl J Med. 2022 June 30; Volume 386 (Issue 26); 2528-2530.; DOI:10.1056/NEJMc2120183
Koundouno FR, Kafetzopoulou LE, Faye M, Renevey A, Soropogui B, et al.
N Engl J Med. 2022 June 30; Volume 386 (Issue 26); 2528-2530.; DOI:10.1056/NEJMc2120183
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Nature. 2016 May 4; Volume 533 (Issue 7601); 100-104.; DOI:10.1038/nature17949
Ruibal P, Oestereich L, Ludtke A, Becker-Ziaja B, Wozniak DM, et al.
Nature. 2016 May 4; Volume 533 (Issue 7601); 100-104.; DOI:10.1038/nature17949
Despite the magnitude of the Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in West Africa, there is still a fundamental lack of knowledge about the pathophysiology of EVD. In particular, very little is known about human immune responses to Ebola virus. Here we evaluate the physiology of the human T cell immune response in EVD patients at the time of admission to the Ebola Treatment Center in Guinea, and longitudinally until discharge or death. Through the use of multiparametric flow cytometry established by the European Mobile Laboratory in the field, we identify an immune signature that is unique in EVD fatalities. Fatal EVD was characterized by a high percentage of CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells expressing the inhibitory molecules CTLA-4 and PD-1, which correlated with elevated inflammatory markers and high virus load. Conversely, surviving individuals showed significantly lower expression of CTLA-4 and PD-1 as well as lower inflammation, despite comparable overall T cell activation. Concomitant with virus clearance, survivors mounted a robust Ebola-virus-specific T cell response. Our findings suggest that dysregulation of the T cell response is a key component of EVD pathophysiology.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Genome Biol. 2017 January 19; Volume 18 (Issue 1); DOI:10.1186/s13059-016-1137-3
Liu X, Speranza E, Munoz-Fontela C, Haldenby S, Rickett NY, et al.
Genome Biol. 2017 January 19; Volume 18 (Issue 1); DOI:10.1186/s13059-016-1137-3
In 2014, Western Africa experienced an unanticipated explosion of Ebola virus infections. What distinguishes fatal from non-fatal outcomes remains largely unknown, yet is key to optimising personalised treatment strategies. We used transcriptome data for peripheral blood taken from infected and convalescent recovering patients to identify early stage host factors that are associated with acute illness and those that differentiate patient survival from fatality.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Lancet. 2017 February 1; Volume 389 (Issue 10068); 505-518.; DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32621-6
Henao-Restrepo AM, Camacho A, Longini I, Watson CH, Edmunds WJ, et al.
Lancet. 2017 February 1; Volume 389 (Issue 10068); 505-518.; DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32621-6
BACKGROUND
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.
METHODS
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.
FINDINGS
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.
INTERPRETATION
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.
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.
METHODS
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.
FINDINGS
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.
INTERPRETATION
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.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
BMC Med. 2024 November 7; Volume 22 (Issue 1); 523.; DOI:10.1186/s12916-024-03726-z
Watson CH, Gsell PS, Hall Y, Camacho A, Riveros X, et al.
BMC Med. 2024 November 7; Volume 22 (Issue 1); 523.; DOI:10.1186/s12916-024-03726-z
BACKGROUND
Zaire Ebolavirus disease (EVD) outbreaks can be controlled using rVSV-ZEBOV vaccination and other public health measures. People in high-risk areas may have pre-existing antibodies from asymptomatic Ebolavirus exposure that might affect response to rVSV-ZEBOV. Therefore, we assessed the impact pre-existing immunity had on post-vaccination IgG titre, virus neutralisation, and reactogenicity following vaccination.
METHODS
In this prospective cohort study, 2115 consenting close contacts (“proches”) of EVD survivors were recruited. Proches were vaccinated with rVSV-ZEBOV and followed up for 28 days for safety and immunogenicity. Anti-GP IgG titre at baseline and day 28 was assessed by ELISA. Samples from a representative subset were evaluated using live virus neutralisation.
RESULTS
Ten percent were seropositive at baseline. At day 28, IgG in baseline seronegative (GMT 0.106 IU/ml, 95% CI: 0.100 to 0.113) and seropositive (GMT 0.237 IU/ml, 0.210 to 0.267) participants significantly increased from baseline (both p < 0.0001). There was strong correlation between antibody titres and virus neutralisation in day 28 samples (Spearman’s rho 0.75). Vaccinees with baseline IgG antibodies against Zaire Ebolavirus had similar safety profiles to those without detectable antibodies (63.6% vs 66.1% adults experienced any adverse event; 49.1% vs 60.9% in children), with almost all adverse events graded as mild. No serious adverse events were attributed to vaccination. No EVD survivors tested positive for Ebolavirus by RT-PCR.
CONCLUSIONS
These data add further evidence of rVSV-ZEBOV safety and immunogenicity, including in people with pre-existing antibodies from suspected natural ZEBOV infection whose state does not blunt rVSV-ZEBOV immune response. Pre-vaccination serological screening is not required.