Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we discuss challenges associated with implementing a policy for Ancillary Care (AC) for related and unrelated (serious) adverse events during an Ebola vaccine trial conducted in a remote area of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Conducting clinical trials in resourceconstrained settings can raise context-related challenges that have implications for study participants' health and wellbeing. During the Ebola vaccine study, three participants were injured in road traffic accidents, but there were unexpected difficulties when trying to apply the AC policy. First, because of the nature of the adverse events, the insurer refused to cover the costs. Second, the AC policy did not address treatments by traditional medicine, even though traditional medicines are frequently used and highly trusted in the study community. This highlighted a contrast between the researchers' well-intentioned AC approach and the participants' legitimate preferences. The way in which researchers should address their responsibility to provide AC is not straightforward; it requires contextualization. Our experience highlights the importance of involving community representatives and the local ethics committee to ensure development of an AC policy that is culturally and ethically appropriate. Additionally, the insurance contract should clearly stipulate which adverse events are linked to the trial participation, and thus eligible for coverage, to avoid controversies when claims are made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]