Preventive malaria treatment among school-aged children in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

The burden of malaria infection in sub-Saharan Africa among school-aged children aged 5-15 years is underappreciated and represents an important source of human-to-mosquito transmission of Plasmodium falciparum. Additional interventions are needed to control and eliminate malaria. We aimed to assess whether preventive treatment of malaria might be an effective means of reducing P falciparum infection and anaemia in school-aged children and lowering parasite transmission.

METHODS

In this systematic review and two meta-analyses, we searched the online databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Clinicaltrials.gov for intervention studies published between Jan 1, 1990, and Dec 14, 2018. We included randomised studies that assessed the effect of antimalarial treatment among asymptomatic school-aged children aged 5-15 years in sub-Saharan Africa on prevalence of P falciparum infection and anaemia, clinical malaria, and cognitive function. We first extracted data for a study-level meta-analysis, then contacted research groups to request data for an individual participant data meta-analysis. Outcomes of interest included prevalence of P falciparum infection detected by microscopy, anaemia (study defined values or haemoglobin less than age-adjusted and sex-adjusted values), clinical malaria (infection and symptoms on the basis of study-specific definitions) during follow-up, and code transmission test scores. We assessed effects by treatment type and duration of time protected, and explored effect modification by transmission setting. For study-level meta-analysis, we calculated risk ratios for binary outcomes and standardised mean differences for continuous outcomes and pooled outcomes using fixed-effect and random-effects models. We used a hierarchical generalised linear model for meta-analysis of individual participant data. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42016030197.

FINDINGS

Of 628 studies identified, 13 were eligible for the study-level meta-analysis (n=16 309). Researchers from 11 studies contributed data on at least one outcome (n=15 658) for an individual participant data meta-analysis. Interventions and study designs were highly heterogeneous; overall risk of bias was low. In the study-level meta-analysis, treatment was associated with reductions in P falciparum prevalence (risk ratio [RR] 0·27, 95% CI 0·17-0·44), anaemia (0·77, 0·65-0·91), and clinical malaria (0·40, 0·28-0·56); results for cognitive outcomes are not presented because data were only available for three trials. In our individual participant data meta-analysis, we found treatment significantly decreased P falciparum prevalence (adjusted RR [ARR] 0·46, 95% CI 0·40-0·53; p<0·0001; 15 648 individuals; 11 studies), anaemia (ARR 0·85, 0·77-0·92; p<0·0001; 15 026 individuals; 11 studies), and subsequent clinical malaria (ARR 0·50, 0·39-0·60; p<0·0001; 1815 individuals; four studies) across transmission settings. We detected a marginal effect on cognitive function in children older than 10 years (adjusted mean difference in standardised test scores 0·36, 0·01-0·71; p=0·044; 3962 individuals; five studies) although we found no significant effect when combined across all ages.

INTERPRETATION

Preventive treatment of malaria among school-aged children significantly decreases P falciparum prevalence, anaemia, and risk of subsequent clinical malaria across transmission settings. Policy makers and programme managers should consider preventive treatment of malaria to protect this age group and advance the goal of malaria elimination, while weighing these benefits against potential risks of chemoprevention.

FUNDING

US National Institutes of Health and Burroughs Wellcome Fund/ASTMH Fellowship.

Molecular identification of Plasmodium species in symptomatic children of Democratic Republic of Congo

Background

Worldwide, the highest malaria mortality is due to Plasmodium falciparum infection. However, other species of Plasmodium (Plasmodium vivax, Plasmodium ovale, Plasmodium malariae, and Plasmodium knowlesi) can also cause malaria. Therefore, accurate identification of malaria species is crucial for patient management and epidemiological surveillance. This study aimed to determine the different Plasmodium species causing malaria in children under 5 years old in two provinces (Kinshasa and North Kivu) of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

Methods

From October to December 2015, a health-facility based cross-sectional study was conducted in General Reference Hospitals in Kinshasa and North Kivu. Four hundred and seven blood samples were collected from febrile children aged ≤ 5 years. Nested polymerase chain reaction assays were performed for Plasmodium species identification.

Results

Out of 407 children, 142 (34.9%) were infected with Plasmodium spp. and P. falciparum was the most prevalent species (99.2%). Among those infected children, 124 had a mono infection with P. falciparum and one with P. malariae. Mixed infections with P. falciparum/P. malariae and P. falciparum/P. vivax were observed in 6 (1.5%) and 8 (2.0%) children, respectively. The prevalence of infection was higher in females (64.8%) than in males (35.2%), p < 0.001. The age-specific distribution of infection showed that children of less than 2 years old were less infected (18.4%) compared to those aged above 2 years (81.6%), p < 0.001.

Conclusion

Although this study showed clearly that the most prevalent species identified was P. falciparum, the findings demonstrate the existence of non-falciparum malaria, especially P. malariae and P. vivax among children aged ≤ 5 years living both Kinshasa and North Kivu Provinces in DRC.

Single low-dose primaquine for blocking transmission of Plasmodium falciparum malaria - a proposed model-derived age-based regimen for sub-Saharan Africa

BACKGROUND

In 2012, the World Health Organization recommended blocking the transmission of Plasmodium falciparum with single low-dose primaquine (SLDPQ, target dose 0.25 mg base/kg body weight), without testing for glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (G6PDd), when treating patients with uncomplicated falciparum malaria. We sought to develop an age-based SLDPQ regimen that would be suitable for sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS

Using data on the anti-infectivity efficacy and tolerability of primaquine (PQ), the epidemiology of anaemia, and the risks of PQ-induced acute haemolytic anaemia (AHA) and clinically significant anaemia (CSA), we prospectively defined therapeutic-dose ranges of 0.15-0.4 mg PQ base/kg for children aged 1-5 years and 0.15-0.5 mg PQ base/kg for individuals aged ≥6 years (therapeutic indices 2.7 and 3.3, respectively). We chose 1.25 mg PQ base for infants aged 6-11 months because they have the highest rate of baseline anaemia and the highest risks of AHA and CSA. We modelled an anthropometric database of 661,979 African individuals aged ≥6 months (549,127 healthy individuals, 28,466 malaria patients and 84,386 individuals with other infections/illnesses) by the Box-Cox transformation power exponential and tested PQ doses of 1-15 mg base, selecting dosing groups based on calculated mg/kg PQ doses.

RESULTS

From the Box-Cox transformation power exponential model, five age categories were selected: (i) 6-11 months (n = 39,886, 6.03%), (ii) 1-5 years (n = 261,036, 45.46%), (iii) 6-9 years (n = 20,770, 3.14%), (iv) 10-14 years (n = 12,155, 1.84%) and (v) ≥15 years (n = 328,132, 49.57%) to receive 1.25, 2.5, 5, 7.5 and 15 mg PQ base for corresponding median (1st and 99th centiles) mg/kg PQ base of: (i) 0.16 (0.12-0.25), (ii) 0.21 (0.13-0.37), (iii) 0.25 (0.16-0.38), (iv) 0.26 (0.15-0.38) and (v) 0.27 (0.17-0.40). The proportions of individuals predicted to receive optimal therapeutic PQ doses were: 73.2 (29,180/39,886), 93.7 (244,537/261,036), 99.6 (20,690/20,770), 99.4 (12,086/12,155) and 99.8% (327,620/328,132), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We plan to test the safety of this age-based dosing regimen in a large randomised placebo-controlled trial (ISRCTN11594437) of uncomplicated falciparum malaria in G6PDd African children aged 0.5 - 11 years. If the regimen is safe and demonstrates adequate pharmacokinetics, it should be used to support malaria elimination.

Open-label, randomised, clinical trial to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of a prophylactic vaccination of healthcare providers by administration of a heterologous vaccine regimen against Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: the study protocol

INTRODUCTION

This article describes the protocol of an Ebola vaccine clinical trial which investigates the safety and immunogenicity of a two-dose prophylactic Ebola vaccine regimen comprised of two Ebola vaccines (Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo) administered 56 days apart, followed by a booster vaccination with Ad26.ZEBOV offered at either 1 year or 2 years (randomisation 1:1) after the first dose. This clinical trial is part of the EBOVAC3 project (an Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking), and is the first to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of two different booster vaccination arms in a large cohort of adults.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is an open-label, monocentric, phase 2, randomised vaccine trial. A total of 700 healthcare providers and frontliners are planned to be recruited from the Tshuapa province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The primary and secondary objectives of the study assess the immunogenicity of the first (Ad26.ZEBOV), second (MVA-BN-Filo) and booster (Ad26.ZEBOV) dose. Immunogenicity is assessed through the evaluation of EBOV glycoprotein binding antibody responses after vaccination. Safety is assessed through the collection of serious adverse events from the first dose until 6 months post booster vaccination and the collection of solicited and unsolicited adverse events for 1 week after the booster dose.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol was approved by the National Ethics Committee of the Ministry of Health of the DRC (n°121/CNES/BN/PMMF/2019). The clinical trial was registered on 4 December 2019 on ClinicalTrials.gov. Trial activities are planned to finish in October 2022. All participants are required to provide written informed consent and no study-related procedures will be performed until consent is obtained. The results of the trial will be added on ClinicalTrials.gov, published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04186000; Pre-results.

Intermittent preventive treatment: efficacy and safety of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine plus piperaquine regimens in schoolchildren of the Democratic Republic of Congo: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

In malaria endemic areas, schoolchildren usually have asymptomatic malaria infections and consequently remain untreated. Therefore, intermittent preventive treatment with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine in schoolchildren would be a plausible strategy in malaria stable transmission areas to prevent anaemia and malnutrition. However, in contrast to infancy and pregnancy, antimalaria intermittent preventive treatment in children has been barely investigated. As the implementation of intermittent preventive treatment may be challenged by sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance, sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine combined with piperaquine may be a better alternative than sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine monotherapy. A clinical trial is being conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of intermittent preventive treatments versus controls in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRCongo) schoolchildren and their impact on sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance.

Methods/Design

A phase IIIb, randomised, controlled trial will enroll asymptomatic schoolchildren. For interventions, sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine is compared to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine plus piperaquine and to a control group. The two treatments are given four-monthly from baseline for a year as a single dose for sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and two doses at 24-hour intervals for piperaquine. All participants receive praziquantel and albendazole as mass-treatment for helminthiasis at enrolment. The primary endpoint is haemoglobin concentration change at 12 months follow-up. Secondary endpoints are malaria parasite load and malaria prevalence, at baseline and at month 12. Malaria and helminthiasis incidence will be monitored throughout the study. Statistical analysis will use multilevel modelling due to repeated measurements and clustering effect of participants.

Discussion

The very few studies on intermittent preventive treatment in schoolchildren in malaria stable transmission areas have contradictory results. This randomised controlled trial is unique in comparing efficacy and safety of a prophylactic combination therapy to monotherapy or a control group after 12 months follow-up. Resistance markers for sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (including break through parasitaemias) will also be recorded. Its uniqueness lies also in the fact that we use piperaquine, a long acting antimalarial, in combination with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine. Artemisinin derivatives have been excluded as it is part of the treatment policies in virtually all malaria endemic countries. Our findings may, therefore, contribute to the public health of youngsters who fail to thrive and grow due to multiple morbidities.

Trial registration

NCT01722539; PACTR201211000449323

Algorithm for the support of non-related (serious) adverse events in an Ebola vaccine trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Implementing an Ebola vaccine trial in a remote area in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and being confronted with a dysfunctional health care system and acute unmet health needs of participants, ethical considerations were made regarding the ancillary care obligations of the sponsor and researchers. Spurred by the occurrence of non-related (serious) adverse events (NR-SAEs), the Universities of Antwerp and Kinshasa jointly developed an algorithm, accompanied by an algorithm policy. The algorithm consists of a set of consecutive questions with binary response options, leading to structured, non-arbitrary and consistent support and management for each NR-SAE. It is the result of dialogue and collaboration between the sponsor (University of Antwerp) and the principal investigator (University of Kinshasa), consultation of literature, and input of research ethics and social sciences experts. The characteristics of the project and its budgetary framework were taken into account, as well as the local socioeconomic and healthcare situation. The algorithm and related policy have been approved by the relevant ethics committee (EC), so field implementation will begin when the study activities resume in November 2021. Lessons learnt will be shared with the relevant stakeholders within and outside DRC.

If NR-SAEs are not covered by a functioning social welfare system, sponsors and researchers should develop a feasible, standardised and transparent approach to the provision of ancillary care. National legislation and contextualised requirements are therefore needed, particularly in low/middle-income countries, to guide researchers and sponsors in this process. Protocols, particularly of clinical trials conducted in areas with ‘access to care’ constraints, should include adequate ancillary care arrangements. Furthermore, it is essential that local ECs systematically require ancillary care provisions to enhance the well-being and protection of the rights of research participants. This project was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

Use of Iris Scanning for Biometric Recognition of Healthy Adults Participating in an Ebola Vaccine Trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Mixed Methods Study

Background

A partnership between the University of Antwerp and the University of Kinshasa implemented the EBOVAC3 clinical trial with an Ebola vaccine regimen administered to health care provider participants in Tshuapa Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo. This randomized controlled trial was part of an Ebola outbreak preparedness initiative financed through Innovative Medicines Initiative-European Union. The EBOVAC3 clinical trial used iris scan technology to identify all health care provider participants enrolled in the vaccine trial, to ensure that the right participant received the right vaccine at the right visit.

Objective

We aimed to assess the acceptability, accuracy, and feasibility of iris scan technology as an identification method within a population of health care provider participants in a vaccine trial in a remote setting.

Methods

We used a mixed methods study. The acceptability was assessed prior to the trial through 12 focus group discussions (FGDs) and was assessed at enrollment. Feasibility and accuracy research was conducted using a longitudinal trial study design, where iris scanning was compared with the unique study ID card to identify health care provider participants at enrollment and at their follow-up visits.

Results

During the FGDs, health care provider participants were mainly concerned about the iris scan technology causing physical problems to their eyes or exposing them to spiritual problems through sorcery. However, 99% (85/86; 95% CI 97.1-100.0) of health care provider participants in the FGDs agreed to be identified by the iris scan. Also, at enrollment, 99.0% (692/699; 95% CI 98.2-99.7) of health care provider participants accepted to be identified by iris scan. Iris scan technology correctly identified 93.1% (636/683; 95% CI 91.2-95.0) of the participants returning for scheduled follow-up visits. The iris scanning operation lasted 2 minutes or less for 96.0% (656/683; 95% CI 94.6-97.5), and 1 attempt was enough to identify the majority of study participants (475/683, 69.5%; 95% CI 66.1-73.0).

Conclusions

Iris scans are highly acceptable as an identification tool in a clinical trial for health care provider participants in a remote setting. Its operationalization during the trial demonstrated a high level of accuracy that can reliably identify individuals. Iris scanning is found to be feasible in clinical trials but requires a trained operator to reduce the duration and the number of attempts to identify a participant.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04186000; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04186000

Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo Ebola virus disease vaccine regimen plus Ad26.ZEBOV booster at 1 year versus 2 years in health-care and front-line workers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: secondary and exploratory outcomes of an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Health-care providers and front-line workers are at risk of contracting Ebola virus disease during an Ebola virus outbreak and consequently of becoming drivers of the disease. We aimed to assess the long-term immunogenicity of the Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen and the safety of and immune memory response to an Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination at 1 year or 2 years after the first dose in this at-risk population.

METHODS

This open-label, single-centre, randomised, phase 2 trial was conducted at one study site within a hospital in Boende, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Adult health-care providers and front-line workers, excluding those with a known history of Ebola virus disease, were vaccinated with a two-dose heterologous regimen administered at a 56-day interval via a 0·5 mL intramuscular injection in the deltoid muscle, comprising Ad26.ZEBOV as the first dose and MVA-BN-Filo as the second dose. After the initial vaccination on day 1, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via randomisation envelopes, opened in a sequential order, to receive an Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination at 1 year (group 1) or 2 years (group 2) after the first dose. We present the secondary and exploratory objectives of the trial-results of the primary objective have been published elsewhere. We measured immunogenicity at six timepoints per group as geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific IgG binding antibodies, using the Filovirus Animal Non-Clinical Group ELISA. We assessed serious adverse events occurring up to 6 months after the last dose and local and systemic solicited and unsolicited adverse events reported for 7 days after the booster vaccination. Antibody responses were analysed per protocol, serious adverse events per full analysis set (FAS), and adverse events for all boosted FAS participants. This trial is registered as completed on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04186000).

FINDINGS

Between Dec 18, 2019, and Feb 8, 2020, 699 health-care providers and front-line workers were enrolled and 698 were randomly assigned (350 to group 1 and 348 to group 2 [FAS]); 534 (77%) participants were male and 164 (23%) were female. 319 in group 1 and 317 in group 2 received the booster. 29 (8%) in group 1 and 26 (7%) in group 2 did not complete the study, mostly due to loss to follow-up or moving out of the study area. In both groups, injection-site pain or tenderness (87 [27%] of 319 group 1 participants vs 90 [28%] of 317 group 2 participants) and headache (91 [29%] vs 93 [29%]) were the most common solicited adverse events related to the investigational product. One participant (in group 2) had a related serious adverse event after booster vaccination (fever of ≥40·0°C). Before booster vaccination, Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific IgG binding antibody GMCs were 279·9 ELISA units (EU) per mL (95% CI 250·6-312·7) in 314 group 1 participants (1 year after first dose) and 274·6 EU/mL (242·1-311·5) in 310 group 2 participants (2 years after first dose). These values were 5·2 times higher in group 1 and 4·9 times higher in group 2 than before vaccination on day 1. 7 days after booster vaccination, these values increased to 10 781·6 EU/mL (9354·4-12 426·4) for group 1 and 10 746·9 EU/mL (9208·7-12 542·0) for group 2, which were approximately 39 times higher than before booster vaccination in both groups. 1 year after booster vaccination in 299 group 1 participants, a GMC that was 7·6-times higher than before booster vaccination was still observed (2133·1 EU/mL [1827·7-2489·7]).

INTERPRETATION

Overall, the vaccine regimen and booster dose were well tolerated. A similar and robust humoral immune response was observed for participants boosted 1 year and 2 years after the first dose, supporting the use of the regimen and flexibility of booster dose administration for prophylactic vaccination in at-risk populations.

FUNDING

Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking and Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

Long-Term Experiences of Health Care Providers Using Iris Scanning as an Identification Tool in a Vaccine Trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Iris scanning has increasingly been used for biometric identification over the past decade, with continuous advancements and expanding applications. To better understand the acceptability of this technology, we report the long-term experiences of health care providers and frontline worker participants with iris scanning as an identification tool in the EBL2007 Ebola vaccine trial conducted in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to document the long-term experiences of using iris scanning for identity verification throughout the vaccine trial.

METHODS

Two years after the start of the EBL2007 vaccine trial (February to March 2022), 69 trial participants-including nurses, first aid workers, midwives, and community health workers-were interviewed through focus group discussions. Additionally, 13 in-depth individual interviews were conducted with physicians involved in the trial, iris scan operators, trial staff physicians, and trial participants who declined iris scanning. Qualitative content analysis was used to identify key themes.

RESULTS

Initially, interviewees widely accepted the iris scan and viewed it as a distinctive tool for identifying participants in the EBL2007 vaccine trial. However, over time, perceptions became less favorable. Some participants expressed concerns that their vision had diminished shortly after using the tool and continued to decline until the end of the study. Others reported experiencing perceived vision loss long after the trial had concluded. However, no vision impairment was reported as an adverse event or assessed in the trial as being linked to the iris scan, which uses a previously certified safe infrared light for scanning.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight the sustained acceptability and perceived high accuracy of the iris scan tool for uniquely identifying adult participants in a vaccine trial over time. Continued efforts to systematically disseminate and reinforce information about the function and safety of this technology are essential. Clearly presenting iris scanning as a safe procedure could help dispel misconceptions, concerns, and perceived risks among potential users in vaccine trials.

Safety and Immunogenicity of the Heterologous 2-Dose Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo Vaccine Regimen in Health Care Providers and Frontliners of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

BACKGROUND

In response to recent Ebola epidemics, vaccine development against the Zaire ebolavirus (EBOV) has been fast-tracked in the past decade. Health care providers and frontliners working in Ebola-endemic areas are at high risk of contracting and spreading the virus.

METHODS

This study assessed the safety and immunogenicity of the 2-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen (administered at a 56-day interval) among 699 health care providers and frontliners taking part in a phase 2, monocentric, randomized vaccine trial in Boende, the Democratic Republic of Congo. The first participant was enrolled and vaccinated on 18 December 2019. Serious adverse events were collected up to 6 months after the last received dose. The EBOV glycoprotein FANG ELISA (Filovirus Animal Nonclinical Group enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) was used to measure the immunoglobulin G-binding antibody response to the EBOV glycoprotein.

RESULTS

The vaccine regimen was well tolerated with no vaccine-related serious adverse events reported. Twenty-one days after the second dose, an EBOV glycoprotein-specific binding antibody response was observed in 95.2% of participants.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2-dose vaccine regimen was well tolerated and led to a high antibody response among fully vaccinated health care providers and frontliners in Boende.

Healthcare Providers' and Frontline Workers' Experiences of an Ebola Vaccine Trial in the Boende Health District of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

This study explored the experiences of healthcare providers (HCPs) and frontline workers who were involved in an Ebola vaccine trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The researchers interviewed a total of 99 participants (HCPs and frontline workers) living and working in the Boende health district during the period of the study, from February to March 2022. These individuals included a mix of trial participants and non-trial participants (staff of the trial, local health authorities, and head nurses of health centers). In-depth individual interviews, as well as focus group discussions (FGDs), were used to understand interviewees' experiences and perceptions. The data were analyzed to identify the main themes. The findings unveiled a multitude of positive experiences among interviewees/FGD participants. The commitment of the trial investigators to improve the study site and to equip the volunteers with necessary skills and knowledge greatly contributed to a positive trial experience. However, some interviewees felt that the reimbursement for time and travel expenses during their trial visits was insufficient in comparison with their expectations. Additionally, there were expressions of worry about the frequency of blood draws during scheduled trial visits. Our findings emphasize the critical importance of addressing and continuously considering the perspectives and concerns of trial participants before designing and implementing vaccine trials. By actively incorporating their inputs, researchers can mitigate concerns and tailor communication strategies, potentially enhancing the overall success and impact of the vaccine trial.

Low seroprevalence of Ebola virus in health care providers in an endemic region (Tshuapa province) of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

INTRODUCTION

A serosurvey among health care providers (HCPs) and frontliners of an area previously affected by Ebola virus disease (EVD) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) was conducted to assess the seroreactivity to Ebola virus antigens.

METHODS

Serum samples were collected in a cohort of HCPs and frontliners (n = 698) participants in the EBL2007 vaccine trial (December 2019 to October 2022). Specimens seroreactive for EBOV were confirmed using either the Filovirus Animal Nonclinical Group (FANG) ELISA or a Luminex multiplex assay.

RESULTS

The seroreactivity to at least two EBOV-Mayinga (m) antigens was found in 10 (1.4%: 95% CI, 0.7-2.6) samples for GP-EBOV-m + VP40-EBOV-m, and 2 (0.3%: 95% CI, 0.0-1.0) samples for VP40-EBOV-m + NP-EBOV-m using the Luminex assay. Seroreactivity to GP-EBOV-Kikwit (k) was observed in 59 (8.5%: 95%CI, 6.5-10.9) samples using FANG ELISA.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to previous serosurveys, a low seroprevalence was found in the HCP and frontline population participating in the EBL2007 Ebola vaccine trial in Boende, DRC. This underscores the high need for standardized antibody assays and cutoffs in EBOV serosurveys to avoid the broad range of reported EBOV seroprevalence rates in EBOV endemic areas.

Longitudinal assessment of an Ebola vaccine trial understanding among healthcare providers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

BACKGROUND

The long-term retention of information disclosed during the informed consent in clinical trials lasting over a year cannot be guaranteed for all volunteers. This study aimed to assess the level of participants' retention and understanding of the trial information after two years of participation in a vaccine trial.

METHODS

In total, 699 health care providers (HCPs) and frontline workers were enrolled in the EBL2007 vaccine trial conducted between February 2019 and September 2022 in the Health District of Boende, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Individual scores obtained from a questionnaire (test of understanding, TOU), specifically designed to assess the understanding of the consent at baseline, were collected before the clinical trial started and at one-year and two-year intervals.

RESULTS

TOU scores were high in the beginning of the trial (median TOU = 10/10), but significantly decreased in both the first and second years following (median TOU = 8/10 in year 1 and median TOU = 9/10 in year 2, p-value < 0.0001). The decrease in scores was significantly higher among individuals with occupations requiring shorter education such as midwives (median TOU = 7/10 in year 1 and 8/10 in year 2, pvalue = 0.025). Furthermore, older participants exhibited poorer retention of information compared to younger individuals (median TOU = 8/10 vs 9/10, p-value = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

We observed a significant decline in the informational knowledge of informed consent, specifically in terms of basic knowledge on the study vaccine and trial procedures. As participant safety and understanding is a paramount ethical concern for researchers, it is crucial for participants to fully comprehend the study's objectives and potential risks. Therefore, our findings suggest the need for clinical researchers to re-explain participants to optimize the protection of their rights and wellbeing during the research.

Conducting an Ebola vaccine trial in a remote area of the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Challenges, mitigations, and lessons learned

Conducting a vaccine trial in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC) can present unique challenges and lessons learned. This Ebola vaccine trial, enrolling 699 healthcare providers and frontliners and jointly set up by the University of Antwerp (Sponsor) and the University of Kinshasa (Principal Investigator (PI)), was conducted in Boende, a remote city in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), between December 2019 and October 2022 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04186000). While being bound by strict ICH-GCP and international funder regulations, this trial, exemplary for being a public-private partnership, required collaboration between several international stakeholders (e.g., two universities, a pharmaceutical company, and a clinical research organization), local communities and government agencies. Here we address several logistical and administrative challenges, cultural differences, language barriers and regulatory, political, and ethical considerations over the trial's 2.5-year duration, while tailoring and adapting the study to the specific local context. Lessons learned include the importance of clear communication with participants in all phases of the study, but also within the study team and among different stakeholders. Challenges, mitigations, and lessons learned are presented in nine categories (e.g., safety management; trial documentation, tools, and materials; communication, staff training and community engagement/sensitization; financial and administrative hurdles; and more). Ultimately, to reach the successful end of the vaccine trial in this remote Ebola endemic area in the DRC, careful planning, collaboration, and great flexibility and adaptability was often required from all involved partners. Despite the encountered challenges, the vaccine trial discussed in this paper was able to obtain high participant retention rates (i.e., 92% of participants completed the study). We hope that other international teams aspiring to conduct similar trials in remote areas of LMICs can learn from the way our challenges were addressed, mitigations developed, and lessons were learned.