Search

Objective: In November 2015, a 15-year-old boy received a diagnosis of Ebola virus disease (EVD) at the John F. Kennedy Medical Center in Monrovia, Liberia. Two additional family members received a diagnosis of EVD. The protocol for a phase 2 placebo-controlled trial of 2 Ebola vaccines was amended and approved; in 4 days, a single-arm cluster vaccination trial using the Merck rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine was initiated. Here, we evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of the vaccine and discuss challenges for its implementation in a small Ebola outbreak., Method: We conducted a ring vaccination study among contacts and contacts of close contacts of EVD cases a in Monrovia. Participants were evaluated 1 and 6 months after vaccination., Results: Among 650 close contacts and contacts of close contacts of EVD cases, 210 (32%) consented and were vaccinated with rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP. Of those vaccinated, 189 (90%) attended the month 1 follow-up visit; 166 (79%) attended the month 6 visit. No serious adverse events were reported. Among 88 participants without an elevated antibody level at baseline, 77.3% (95% confidence interval, 68.5-86.1) had an antibody response at 1 month., Conclusions: The Merck rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine appeared to be safe and immunogenic among the vaccinated individuals. However, fewer than one third of eligible individuals consented to vaccination. These data may help guide implementation decisions for of cluster vaccination programs in an Ebola cluster outbreak response situation., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2018.)

West Africa experienced the first epidemic of Ebola virus infection, with by far the greatest number of cases in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. The unprecedented epidemic triggered an unparalleled response, including the deployment of multiple Ebola treatment units and mobile/field diagnostic laboratories. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention deployed a joint laboratory to Monrovia, Liberia, in August 2014 to support the newly founded Ebola treatment unit at the Eternal Love Winning Africa (ELWA) campus. The laboratory operated initially out of a tent structure but quickly moved into a fixed-wall building owing to severe weather conditions, the need for increased security, and the high sample volume. Until May 2015, when the laboratory closed, the site handled close to 6000 clinical specimens for Ebola virus diagnosis and supported the medical staff in case patient management. Laboratory operation and safety, as well as Ebola virus diagnostic assays, are described and discussed; in addition, lessons learned for future deployments are reviewed., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.)

The development of point-of-care clinical chemistry analyzers has enabled the implementation of these ancillary tests in field laboratories in resource-limited outbreak areas. The Eternal Love Winning Africa (ELWA) outbreak diagnostic laboratory, established in Monrovia, Liberia, to provide Ebola virus and Plasmodium spp. diagnostics during the Ebola epidemic, implemented clinical chemistry analyzers in December 2014. Clinical chemistry testing was performed for 68 patients in triage, including 12 patients infected with Ebola virus and 18 infected with Plasmodium spp. The main distinguishing feature in clinical chemistry of Ebola virus-infected patients was the elevation in alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, and γ-glutamyltransferase levels and the decrease in calcium. The implementation of clinical chemistry is probably most helpful when the medical supportive care implemented at the Ebola treatment unit allows for correction of biochemistry derangements and on-site clinical chemistry analyzers can be used to monitor electrolyte balance., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.)

Background: Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIs) are point-of-care diagnostic assays that are designed for single use outside a formal laboratory, with in-home pregnancy tests the best-known example of these tests. Although the LFI has some limitations over more-complex immunoassay procedures, such as reduced sensitivity and the potential for false-positive results when using complex sample matrices, the assay has the benefits of a rapid time to result and ease of use. These benefits make it an attractive option for obtaining rapid results in an austere environment. In an outbreak of any magnitude, a field-based rapid diagnostic assay would allow proper patient transport and for safe burials to be conducted without the delay caused by transport of samples between remote villages and testing facilities. Use of such point-of-care instruments in the ongoing Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in West Africa would have distinct advantages in control and prevention of local outbreaks, but proper understanding of the technology and interpretation of results are important., Methods: In this study, a LFI, originally developed by the Naval Medical Research Center for Ebola virus environmental testing, was evaluated for its ability to detect the virus in clinical samples in Liberia. Clinical blood and plasma samples and post mortem oral swabs submitted to the Liberian Institute for Biomedical Research, the National Public Health Reference Laboratory for EVD testing, were tested and compared to results of real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), using assays targeting Ebola virus glycoprotein and nucleoprotein., Results: The LFI findings correlated well with those of the real-time RT-PCR assays used as benchmarks., Conclusions: Rapid antigen-detection tests such as LFIs are attractive alternatives to traditional immunoassays but have reduced sensitivity and specificity, resulting in increases in false-positive and false-negative results. An understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of a particular assay lets the diagnostician choose the correct situation to use the correct assay and properly interpret the results., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.)