Research, especially clinical trials, during outbreaks often poses enormous challenges, and up until very recent times was often considered almost impossible. However, for diseases such as Ebola virus disease, which are seen almost exclusively in outbreak form, outbreaks are the only opportunity to perform studies and accrue knowledge. Here, we discuss our experiences and lessons learned implementing a clinical study of an Ebola virus vaccine during an outbreak of that disease in 2018–20 in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. Keys to success is these settings include forging partnerships with diverse and complementary experience and skills, working out clear roles and responsibilities, communicating and engaging with the community as an essential partner, and maintaining flexibility to adapt to unexpected events. Progress in these complex settings requires both quick action to implement studies as soon as possible, coupled with patience, realizing that results often come with a sequential long-term approach across outbreaks as opportunities arise. Despite the many challenges, where the political will is there and the right team assembled, significant progress can be made, contributing both to control of the present outbreak and prevention or enhanced control of the next one.
In early 2020, Niger’s Ministry of Health (MoH) launched a system for collecting and investigating Covid-19 alerts. This system was paper based and used unstructured data sharing via text messages, hence did not allow for rapid and exhaustive data collection or effective investigation of alerts. Consequently, MSF teams were unable to accurately assess Covid-19 epidemiology in Niger, affecting decision-making about what support to offer and where. Covid-19 patients were not being diagnosed until in the late stages of disease, or would never be diagnosed at all. Hence, MSF teams feared care would not be effective. Epicentre and the MSF Foundation collaborated with Medic, a not-for-profit organisation designing open- source digital tools for healthcare, to develop an electronic tool to improve receipt and investigation of Covid-19 alerts in Niger. We aimed to collect structured data, to increase the number of alerts investigated, and to improve the timeliness and completeness of investigations. This would facilitate earlier diagnosis of symptomatic disease, earlier orientation of patients towards care, and improve accurate and timely epidemiological reporting.
METHODS
The digital platform, Alerte Covid-19, replaced the existing paper-based system. Patients and health workers across Niger were instructed to phone a national MoH hotline to report suspected cases. Each alert was registered on the digital platform; this then guides users to determine if investigation is necessary, and allocates alerts to a regional alert centre. Investigation teams follow up alerts via patient testing, direct patients towards relevant care, and report Covid-19 test results and the outcome of positive cases in the digital platform. The platform links to dashboards to provide an overview of alerts and outcomes at regional and national levels.
ETHICS
This description/evaluation of an innovation project did not involve human participants or their data; the MSF Ethics Framework for Innovation was used to help identify and mitigate potential harms.
RESULTS
The hotline service handles up to 6,000 calls per day, 5% of which are Covid-19 related and most require investigation. From May 2020 to November 2021, 11,295 Covid19-related alerts were received, of which 10,100 were investigated and 9,386 tested. Timeliness was improved from several days to a few hours and data was more structured and complete.
CONCLUSION
Implementation of Alerte Covid-19 is ongoing. Success of the project to date has triggered further work to develop a digital platform to improve the processing of alerts for other epidemic-prone diseases in Niger. It is hoped this will enable earlier and more effective epidemic responses by MoH and MSF teams. The use of such digital tools is feasible, low-cost, and can impact on epidemic surveillance in low-income settings.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None declared.
Although ring vaccination may help to control the transmission of EVD, it seems far from the ideal strategy, as indicated by the fact that the outbreak in Eastern DRC continued for nearly two years despite vaccination starting quickly after the declaration of the epidemic. There are both logistical and social challenges to effective real-life implementation of the ring strategy.
Testing new strategies of vaccination will be necessary to better protect at-risk populations and to better prevent and control outbreaks. This should include the routine vaccination outside epidemic periods of all healthcare, frontline workers and other high-risk population groups in areas that have recurrent epidemics or endemic EVD. During outbreaks, targeted geographic or population-based reactive vaccination campaigns are likely to be more successful than the current ring strategy. We should also return to the initial hypothesis that a range of vaccines with different specificities is probably necessary. Today there are two different vaccines against EVD with different profiles.
KEY MESSAGE: This presentation provides an overview of current Ebola vaccination strategies, their challenges and the way forward.
This abstract is not to be quoted for publication.
Ebola virus disease (EVD) continues to be a significant public health problem in sub-Saharan Africa, especially in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Large-scale vaccination during outbreaks may reduce virus transmission. We established a large population-based clinical trial of a heterologous, two-dose prophylactic vaccine during an outbreak in eastern DRC to determine vaccine effectiveness.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS
This open-label, non-randomised, population-based trial enrolled eligible adults and children aged 1 year and above. Participants were offered the two-dose candidate EVD vaccine regimen VAC52150 (Ad26.ZEBOV, Modified Vaccinia Ankara (MVA)-BN-Filo), with the doses being given 56 days apart. After vaccination, serious adverse events (SAEs) were passively recorded until 1 month post dose 2. 1000 safety subset participants were telephoned at 1 month post dose 2 to collect SAEs. 500 pregnancy subset participants were contacted to collect SAEs at D7 and D21 post dose 1 and at D7, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months post dose 2, unless delivery was before these time points. The first 100 infants born to these women were given a clinical examination 3 months post delivery. Due to COVID-19 and temporary suspension of dose 2 vaccinations, at least 50 paediatric and 50 adult participants were enrolled into an immunogenicity subset to examine immune responses following a delayed second dose. Samples collected predose 2 and at 21 days post dose 2 will be tested using the Ebola viruses glycoprotein Filovirus Animal Non-Clinical Group ELISA. For qualitative research, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions were being conducted with participants or parents/care providers of paediatric participants.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION
Approved by Comité National d'Ethique et de la Santé du Ministère de la santé de RDC, Comité d'Ethique de l'Ecole de Santé Publique de l'Université de Kinshasa, the LSHTM Ethics Committee and the MSF Ethics Review Board. Findings will be presented to stakeholders and conferences. Study data will be made available for open access.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
NCT04152486.