Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
Lancet. 1 May 2023; Volume 401 (Issue 10390); 1751-1753.; DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01000-0
Darmstadt GL, Kirkwood B, Gupta S, WHO Strategic and Technical Advisory Group of Experts for Maternal, Newborn, Child, and Adolescent Health and Nutrition KMC Working Group, Petrucci R
Lancet. 1 May 2023; Volume 401 (Issue 10390); 1751-1753.; DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01000-0
Conference Material > Video
Petrucci R
MSF Paediatric Days 2022. 1 December 2022
English
Français
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
N Engl J Med. 7 January 2016; Volume 374 (Issue 1); 23-32.; DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1504605
Gignoux EM, Azman AS, de Smet M, Azuma P, Massaquoi M, et al.
N Engl J Med. 7 January 2016; Volume 374 (Issue 1); 23-32.; DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1504605
BACKGROUND
Malaria treatment is recommended for patients with suspected Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa, whether systematically or based on confirmed malaria diagnosis. At the Ebola treatment center in Foya, Lofa County, Liberia, the supply of artemether–lumefantrine, a first-line antimalarial combination drug, ran out for a 12-day period in August 2014. During this time, patients received the combination drug artesunate–amodiaquine; amodiaquine is a compound with anti–Ebola virus activity in vitro. No other obvious change in the care of patients occurred during this period.
METHODS
We fit unadjusted and adjusted regression models to standardized patient-level data to estimate the risk ratio for death among patients with confirmed EVD who were prescribed artesunate–amodiaquine (artesunate–amodiaquine group), as compared with those who were prescribed artemether–lumefantrine (artemether–lumefantrine group) and those who were not prescribed any antimalarial drug (no-antimalarial group).
RESULTS
Between June 5 and October 24, 2014, a total of 382 patients with confirmed EVD were admitted to the Ebola treatment center in Foya. At admission, 194 patients were prescribed artemether–lumefantrine and 71 were prescribed artesunate–amodiaquine. The characteristics of the patients in the artesunate–amodiaquine group were similar to those in the artemether–lumefantrine group and those in the no-antimalarial group. A total of 125 of the 194 patients in the artemether–lumefantrine group (64.4%) died, as compared with 36 of the 71 patients in the artesunate–amodiaquine group (50.7%). In adjusted analyses, the artesunate–amodiaquine group had a 31% lower risk of death than the artemether–lumefantrine group (risk ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.54 to 0.89), with a stronger effect observed among patients without malaria.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients who were prescribed artesunate–amodiaquine had a lower risk of death from EVD than did patients who were prescribed artemether–lumefantrine. However, our analyses cannot exclude the possibility that artemether–lumefantrine is associated with an increased risk of death or that the use of artesunate–amodiaquine was associated with unmeasured patient characteristics that directly altered the risk of death.
Malaria treatment is recommended for patients with suspected Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa, whether systematically or based on confirmed malaria diagnosis. At the Ebola treatment center in Foya, Lofa County, Liberia, the supply of artemether–lumefantrine, a first-line antimalarial combination drug, ran out for a 12-day period in August 2014. During this time, patients received the combination drug artesunate–amodiaquine; amodiaquine is a compound with anti–Ebola virus activity in vitro. No other obvious change in the care of patients occurred during this period.
METHODS
We fit unadjusted and adjusted regression models to standardized patient-level data to estimate the risk ratio for death among patients with confirmed EVD who were prescribed artesunate–amodiaquine (artesunate–amodiaquine group), as compared with those who were prescribed artemether–lumefantrine (artemether–lumefantrine group) and those who were not prescribed any antimalarial drug (no-antimalarial group).
RESULTS
Between June 5 and October 24, 2014, a total of 382 patients with confirmed EVD were admitted to the Ebola treatment center in Foya. At admission, 194 patients were prescribed artemether–lumefantrine and 71 were prescribed artesunate–amodiaquine. The characteristics of the patients in the artesunate–amodiaquine group were similar to those in the artemether–lumefantrine group and those in the no-antimalarial group. A total of 125 of the 194 patients in the artemether–lumefantrine group (64.4%) died, as compared with 36 of the 71 patients in the artesunate–amodiaquine group (50.7%). In adjusted analyses, the artesunate–amodiaquine group had a 31% lower risk of death than the artemether–lumefantrine group (risk ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.54 to 0.89), with a stronger effect observed among patients without malaria.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients who were prescribed artesunate–amodiaquine had a lower risk of death from EVD than did patients who were prescribed artemether–lumefantrine. However, our analyses cannot exclude the possibility that artemether–lumefantrine is associated with an increased risk of death or that the use of artesunate–amodiaquine was associated with unmeasured patient characteristics that directly altered the risk of death.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
J Infect Dis. 3 April 2019; Volume 221 (Issue 5); 701-706.; DOI:10.1093/infdis/jiz107
Nsio JM, Kapteshi K, Makiala S, Raymond F, Tshapenda G, et al.
J Infect Dis. 3 April 2019; Volume 221 (Issue 5); 701-706.; DOI:10.1093/infdis/jiz107
BACKGROUND
In 2017, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) recorded its eighth Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak, approximately 3 years after the previous outbreak.
METHODS
Suspect cases of EVD were identified on the basis of clinical and epidemiological information. Reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) analysis or serological testing was used to confirm Ebola virus infection in suspected cases. The causative virus was later sequenced from a RT-PCR–positive individual and assessed using phylogenetic analysis.
RESULTS
Three probable and 5 laboratory-confirmed cases of EVD were recorded between 27 March and 1 July 2017 in the DRC. Fifty percent of cases died from the infection. EVD cases were detected in 4 separate areas, resulting in > 270 contacts monitored. The complete genome of the causative agent, a variant from the Zaireebolavirus species, denoted Ebola virus Muyembe, was obtained using next-generation sequencing. This variant is genetically closest, with 98.73% homology, to the Ebola virus Mayinga variant isolated from the first DRC outbreaks in 1976–1977.
CONCLUSION
A single spillover event into the human population is responsible for this DRC outbreak. Human-to-human transmission resulted in limited dissemination of the causative agent, a novel Ebola virus variant closely related to the initial Mayinga variant isolated in 1976–1977 in the DRC.
In 2017, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) recorded its eighth Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak, approximately 3 years after the previous outbreak.
METHODS
Suspect cases of EVD were identified on the basis of clinical and epidemiological information. Reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) analysis or serological testing was used to confirm Ebola virus infection in suspected cases. The causative virus was later sequenced from a RT-PCR–positive individual and assessed using phylogenetic analysis.
RESULTS
Three probable and 5 laboratory-confirmed cases of EVD were recorded between 27 March and 1 July 2017 in the DRC. Fifty percent of cases died from the infection. EVD cases were detected in 4 separate areas, resulting in > 270 contacts monitored. The complete genome of the causative agent, a variant from the Zaireebolavirus species, denoted Ebola virus Muyembe, was obtained using next-generation sequencing. This variant is genetically closest, with 98.73% homology, to the Ebola virus Mayinga variant isolated from the first DRC outbreaks in 1976–1977.
CONCLUSION
A single spillover event into the human population is responsible for this DRC outbreak. Human-to-human transmission resulted in limited dissemination of the causative agent, a novel Ebola virus variant closely related to the initial Mayinga variant isolated in 1976–1977 in the DRC.
Journal Article > ReviewFull Text
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 27 September 2021; Volume 5 (Issue 1); e001156.; DOI:10.1136/bmjpo-2021-001156
Janet S, Russell N, Morton N, Martinez D, Tamannai M, et al.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 27 September 2021; Volume 5 (Issue 1); e001156.; DOI:10.1136/bmjpo-2021-001156
Around the world, one in four children live in a country affected by conflict, political insecurity and disaster. Healthcare in humanitarian and fragile settings is challenging and complex to provide, particularly for children. Furthermore, there is a distinct lack of medical literature from humanitarian settings to guide best practice in such specific and resource-limited contexts. In light of these challenges, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), an international medical humanitarian organisation, created the MSF Paediatric Days with the aim of uniting field staff, policymakers and academia to exchange ideas, align efforts, inspire and share frontline research and experiences to advance humanitarian paediatric and neonatal care. This 2-day event takes place regularly since 2016. The fourth edition of the MSF Paediatric Days in April 2021 covered five main topics: essential newborn care, community-based models of care, paediatric tuberculosis, antimicrobial resistance in neonatal and paediatric care and the collateral damage of COVID-19 on child health. In addition, eight virtual stands from internal MSF initiatives and external MSF collaborating partners were available, and 49 poster communications and five inspiring short talks referred to as 'PAEDTalks' were presented. In conclusion, the MSF Paediatric Days serves as a unique forum to advance knowledge on humanitarian paediatrics and creates opportunities for individual and collective learning, as well as networking spaces for interaction and exchange of ideas.
Journal Article > Case Report/SeriesFull Text
Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 1 December 2020; Volume 4 (Issue 12); 884-888.; DOI:10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30278-9
Ottoni MP, Ricciardone JD, Nadimpalli A, Singh SN, Katsomya AM, et al.
Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 1 December 2020; Volume 4 (Issue 12); 884-888.; DOI:10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30278-9
Background
Few fetuses survive childbirth when the mother is positive for Ebola virus, with almost all being miscarried or stillborn, or dying shortly after birth. Before 2019, only two infants had been reported surviving past 28 days, of whom one tested positive for Ebola virus and subsequently received experimental therapies. Little is understood regarding the care of surviving neonates born to Ebola virus-positive mothers in the postnatal period and how novel anti-Ebola virus therapies might affect neonatal outcomes.
Methods
In this case series, we report on two neonates liveborn during the 2018–20 North Kivu Ebola epidemic in the Democratic Republic of the Congo who, along with their Ebola virus-positive mothers, received investigational monoclonal antibody treatment (mAB114 or REGN-EB3) as part of a randomised controlled trial (NCT03719586).
Findings
Both infants were born Ebola-negative and progressed well while in the Ebola Treatment Centre. Neither neonate developed evidence of Ebola virus disease during the course of the admission, and both were Ebola-negative at 21 days and remained healthy at discharge.
Interpretation
To our knowledge these neonates are the first documented as Ebola virus-negative at birth after being born to Ebola virus-positive mothers, and only the third and fourth neonates ever documented to have survived into infancy. Although no conclusions can be drawn from this small case series, and further research is required to investigate the neonatal effects of antibody therapies, these cases warrant review regarding whether post-delivery antibody therapy should be considered for all liveborn neonates of Ebola virus-positive mothers. In the context of a low resource setting, where survival of low-birthweight infants is poor, these cases also highlight the importance of adequate neonatal care.
Few fetuses survive childbirth when the mother is positive for Ebola virus, with almost all being miscarried or stillborn, or dying shortly after birth. Before 2019, only two infants had been reported surviving past 28 days, of whom one tested positive for Ebola virus and subsequently received experimental therapies. Little is understood regarding the care of surviving neonates born to Ebola virus-positive mothers in the postnatal period and how novel anti-Ebola virus therapies might affect neonatal outcomes.
Methods
In this case series, we report on two neonates liveborn during the 2018–20 North Kivu Ebola epidemic in the Democratic Republic of the Congo who, along with their Ebola virus-positive mothers, received investigational monoclonal antibody treatment (mAB114 or REGN-EB3) as part of a randomised controlled trial (NCT03719586).
Findings
Both infants were born Ebola-negative and progressed well while in the Ebola Treatment Centre. Neither neonate developed evidence of Ebola virus disease during the course of the admission, and both were Ebola-negative at 21 days and remained healthy at discharge.
Interpretation
To our knowledge these neonates are the first documented as Ebola virus-negative at birth after being born to Ebola virus-positive mothers, and only the third and fourth neonates ever documented to have survived into infancy. Although no conclusions can be drawn from this small case series, and further research is required to investigate the neonatal effects of antibody therapies, these cases warrant review regarding whether post-delivery antibody therapy should be considered for all liveborn neonates of Ebola virus-positive mothers. In the context of a low resource setting, where survival of low-birthweight infants is poor, these cases also highlight the importance of adequate neonatal care.