Search

Abstract Introduction The Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in 2014–2016 in West Africa was the largest on record and provided an opportunity for large clinical trials and accelerated efforts to develop an effective and safe preventative vaccine. Multiple questions regarding the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of EVD vaccines remain unanswered. To address these gaps in the evidence base, the Partnership for Research on Ebola Vaccines (PREVAC) trial was designed. This paper describes the design, methods, and baseline results of the PREVAC trial and discusses challenges that led to different protocol amendments. Methods This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial of three vaccine strategies against the Ebola virus in healthy volunteers 1 year of age and above. The three vaccine strategies being studied are the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine, with and without a booster dose at 56 days, and the Ad26.ZEBOV,MVA-FN-Filo vaccine regimen with Ad26.ZEBOV given as the first dose and the MVA-FN-Filo vaccination given 56 days later. There have been 4 versions of the protocol with those enrolled in Version 4.0 comprising the primary analysis cohort. The primary endpoint is based on the antibody titer against the Ebola virus surface glycoprotein measured 12 months following the final injection. Results From April 2017 to December 2018, a total of 5002 volunteers were screened and 4789 enrolled. Participants were enrolled at 6 sites in four countries (Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Mali). Of the 4789 participants, 2560 (53%) were adults and 2229 (47%) were children. Those

Abstract Objectives To assess the efficacy of several repurposed drugs to prevent hospitalisation or death in patients aged 65 or more with recent symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) and no criteria for hospitalisation. Trial design Phase III, multi-arm (5) and multi-stage (MAMS), randomized, open-label controlled superiority trial. Participants will be randomly allocated 1:1:1:1:1 to the following strategies: Arm 1: Control arm Arms 2 to 5: Experimental treatment arms Planned interim analyses will be conducted at regular intervals. Their results will be reviewed by an Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board. Experimental arms may be terminated for futility, efficacy or toxicity before the end of the trial. New experimental arms may be added if new evidence suggests that other treatments should be tested. A feasibility and acceptability substudy as well as an immunological substudy will be conducted alongside the trial. Participants Inclusion criteria are: 65-year-old or more; Positive test for SARS-CoV-2 on a nasopharyngeal swab; Symptoms onset within 3 days before diagnosis; No hospitalisation criteria; Signed informed consent; Health insurance. Exclusion criteria are: Inability to make an informed decision to participate (e.g.: dementia, guardianship); Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale ≥7; Long QT syndrome; QTc interval > 500 ms; Heart rate 5.5 mmol/L or

Abstract Background Enrolling participants in clinical trials can be challenging, especially with respect to prophylactic vaccine trials. The vaccination of study personnel in Ebola vaccine trials during the 2014–2016 epidemic played a crucial role in inspiring trust and facilitating volunteer enrollment. We evaluated the ethical and methodological considerations as they applied to an ongoing phase 2 randomized prophylactic Ebola vaccine trial that enrolled healthy volunteers in Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Mali in a non-epidemic context. Methods On the assumption that the personnel on site involved in executing the protocol, as well as community mobilizers (not involved in the on-site procedures), might also volunteer to enter the trial, we considered both ethical and methodological considerations to set clear rules that can be shared a priori with these persons. We reviewed the scientific and gray literature to identify relevant references and then conducted an analysis of the ethical and methodological considerations. Results There are currently no regulations preventing a clinical investigator or site staff from participating in a trial. However, the enrollment of personnel raises the risk of undue influence and challenges the basic ethical principle of voluntary participation. The confidentiality of personal medical information, such as HIV test results, may also be difficult to ensure among personnel. There is a risk of disruption of trial operations due to the potential absence of the personnel for their commitment as trial participants, and there is also a potential for introducing differential behavior of on-site staff as they obtain access to accumulating information during the trial (e.g., the incidence of adverse events). Blinding could be jeopardized, given knowledge of product-specific adverse event profiles and the proximity to unblinded site staff. These aspects were considered more relevant for on-site staff than for community mobilizers, who have limited contact with site staff. Conclusion In a non-epidemic context, ethical and methodological considerations limit the collective benefit of enrolling site staff in a vaccine trial. These considerations do not apply to community mobilizers, whose potential enrollment should be considered as long as they meet the inclusion criteria and they are not exposed to any form of coercion.