Comparing antigenaemia- and microfilaraemia as criteria for stopping decisions in lymphatic filariasis elimination programmes in Africa

BACKGROUND: Mass drug administration (MDA) is the main strategy towards lymphatic filariasis (LF) elimination. Progress is monitored by assessing microfilaraemia (Mf) or circulating filarial antigenaemia (CFA) prevalence, the latter being more practical for field surveys. The current criterion for stopping MDA requires \u3c2% CFA prevalence in 6- to 7-year olds, but this criterion is not evidence-based. We used mathematical modelling to investigate the validity of different thresholds regarding testing method and age group for African MDA programmes using ivermectin plus albendazole. METHODOLGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We verified that our model captures observed patterns in Mf and CFA prevalence during annual MDA, assuming that CFA tests are positive if at least one adult worm is present. We then assessed how well elimination can be predicted from CFA prevalence in 6-7-year-old children or from Mf or CFA prevalence in the 5+ or 15+ population, and determined safe (\u3e95% positive predictive value) thresholds for stopping MDA. The model captured trends in Mf and CFA prevalences reasonably well. Elimination cannot be predicted with sufficient certainty from CFA prevalence in 6-7-year olds. Resurgence may still occur if all children are antigen-negative, irrespective of the number tested. Mf-based criteria also show unfavourable results (PPV \u3c95% or unpractically low threshold). CFA prevalences in the 5+ or 15+ population are the best predictors, and post-MDA threshold values for stopping MDA can be as high as 10% for 15+. These thresholds are robust for various alternative assumptions regarding baseline endemicity, biological parameters and sampling strategies. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: For African areas with moderate to high pre-treatment Mf prevalence that have had 6 or more rounds of annual ivermectin/albendazole MDA with adequate coverage, we recommend to adopt a CFA threshold prevalence of 10% in adults (15+) for stopping MDA. This could be combined with Mf testing of CFA positives to ensure absence of a significant Mf reservoir for transmission

Evolution and Spread of Ebola Virus in Liberia, 2014–2015

The 2013–present Western African Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak is the largest ever recorded with >28,000 reported cases. Ebola virus (EBOV) genome sequencing has played an important role throughout this outbreak; however, relatively few sequences have been determined from patients in Liberia, the second worst-affected country. Here, we report 140 EBOV genome sequences from the second wave of the Liberian outbreak and analyze them in combination with 782 previously published sequences from throughout the Western African outbreak. While multiple early introductions of EBOV to Liberia are evident, the majority of Liberian EVD cases are consistent with a single introduction, followed by spread and diversification within the country. Movement of the virus within Liberia was widespread and reintroductions from Liberia served as an important source for the continuation of the already ongoing EVD outbreak in Guinea. Overall, little evidence was found for incremental adaptation of EBOV to the human host.Organismic and Evolutionary Biolog

Safety and immunogenicity of the two-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen in children in Sierra Leone: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial

Background—Children account for a substantial proportion of cases and deaths from Ebola virus disease. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of a two-dose heterologous vaccine regimen, comprising the adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine encoding the Ebola virus glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and the modified vaccinia Ankara vectorbased vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from the Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and the nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus (MVA-BN-Filo), in a paediatric population in Sierra Leone. Methods—This randomised, double-blind, controlled trial was done at three clinics in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. Healthy children and adolescents aged 1–17 years were enrolled in three age cohorts (12–17 years, 4–11 years, and 1–3 years) and randomly assigned (3:1), via computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight), to receive an intramuscular injection of either Ad26.ZEBOV (5 × 1010 viral particles; first dose) followed by MVA-BN-Filo (1 × 108 infectious units; second dose) on day 57 (Ebola vaccine group), or a single dose of meningococcal quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W135, and Y) conjugate vaccine (MenACWY; first dose) followed by placebo (second dose) on day 57 (control group). Study team personnel (except for those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation), participants, and their parents or guardians were masked to study vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was safety, measured as the occurrence of solicited local and systemic adverse symptoms during 7 days after each vaccination, unsolicited systemic adverse events during 28 days after each vaccination, abnormal laboratory results during the study period, and serious adverse events or immediate reportable events throughout the study period. The secondary outcome was immunogenicity (humoral immune response), measured as the concentration of Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibodies at 21 days after the second dose. The primary outcome was assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose of study vaccine and had available reactogenicity data, and immunogenicity was assessed in all participants who had received both vaccinations within the protocol-defined time window, had at least one evaluable post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol deviations that could have influenced the immune response. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02509494. Findings—From April 4, 2017, to July 5, 2018, 576 eligible children or adolescents (192 in each of the three age cohorts) were enrolled and randomly assigned. The most common solicited local adverse event during the 7 days after the first and second dose was injection-site pain in all age groups, with frequencies ranging from 0% (none of 48) of children aged 1–3 years after placebo injection to 21% (30 of 144) of children aged 4–11 years after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination. The most frequently observed solicited systemic adverse event during the 7 days was headache in the 12–17 years and 4–11 years age cohorts after the first and second dose, and pyrexia in the 1–3 years age cohort after the first and second dose. The most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the first and second dose vaccinations was malaria in all age cohorts, irrespective of the vaccine types. Following vaccination with MenACWY, severe thrombocytopaenia was observed in one participant aged 3 years. No other clinically significant laboratory abnormalities were observed in other study participants, and no serious adverse events related to the Ebola vaccine regimen were reported. There were no treatment-related deaths. Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses at 21 days after the second dose of the Ebola virus vaccine regimen were observed in 131 (98%) of 134 children aged 12–17 years (9929 ELISA units [EU]/mL [95% CI 8172–12 064]), in 119 (99%) of 120 aged 4–11 years (10 212 EU/mL [8419–12 388]), and in 118 (98%) of 121 aged 1–3 years (22 568 EU/mL [18 426–27 642]). Interpretation—The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen was well tolerated with no safety concerns in children aged 1–17 years, and induced robust humoral immune responses, suggesting suitability of this regimen for Ebola virus disease prophylaxis in children

Virus genomes reveal factors that spread and sustained the Ebola epidemic.

The 2013-2016 West African epidemic caused by the Ebola virus was of unprecedented magnitude, duration and impact. Here we reconstruct the dispersal, proliferation and decline of Ebola virus throughout the region by analysing 1,610 Ebola virus genomes, which represent over 5% of the known cases. We test the association of geography, climate and demography with viral movement among administrative regions, inferring a classic 'gravity' model, with intense dispersal between larger and closer populations. Despite attenuation of international dispersal after border closures, cross-border transmission had already sown the seeds for an international epidemic, rendering these measures ineffective at curbing the epidemic. We address why the epidemic did not spread into neighbouring countries, showing that these countries were susceptible to substantial outbreaks but at lower risk of introductions. Finally, we reveal that this large epidemic was a heterogeneous and spatially dissociated collection of transmission clusters of varying size, duration and connectivity. These insights will help to inform interventions in future epidemics

The laboratory health system and its response to the Ebola virus disease outbreak in Liberia

The laboratory system in Liberia has generally been fragmented and uncoordinatedAccordingly, the country’s Ministry of Health established the National Reference Laboratoryto strengthen and sustain laboratory services. However, diagnostic testing services were oftenlimited to clinical tests performed in health facilities, with the functionality of the NationaReference Laboratory restricted to performing testing services for a limited number ofepidemic-prone diseases. The lack of testing capacity in-country for Lassa fever and otherhaemorrhagic fevers affected the response of the country’s health system during the onset ofthe Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak. Based on the experiences of the EVD outbreak, effortswere initiated to strengthen the laboratory system and infrastructure, enhance human resourcecapacity, and invest in diagnostic services and public health surveillance to inform admittancetreatment, and discharge decisions. In this article, we briefly describe the pre-EVD laboratorycapability in Liberia, and extensively explore the post-EVD strengthening initiatives to enhancecapacity, mobilise resources and coordinate disaster response with international partners torebuild the laboratory infrastructure in the country. Now that the EVD outbreak has endedadditional initiatives are needed to revise the laboratory strategic and operational plan forpost-EVD relevance, promote continual human resource capacity, institute accreditation andvalidation programmes, and coordinate the investment strategy to strengthen and sustain thepreparedness of the laboratory sector to mitigate future emerging and re-emerging infectiousdiseases

Pre-Ebola virus disease laboratory system and related challenges in Liberia

Prior to the Ebola virus disease outbreak in Liberia, the laboratory system was duplicativefragmented and minimally coordinated. The National Reference Laboratory was conceptualisedto address the existing challenges by promoting the implementation of effective and sustainablelaboratory services in Liberia. However, in a resource-limited environment such as Liberiaprogress regarding the rebuilding of the health system can be relatively slow, while efforts tosustain the transient gains remain a key challenge for the Ministry of Health. In this paper, wedescribe the pre-Ebola virus disease laboratory system in Liberia and its prevailing efforts toaddress future emerging infectious diseases, as well as current Infectious diseases, all of whichare exacerbated by poverty. We conclude that laboratory and diagnostic services in Liberiahave encountered numerous challenges regarding its efforts to strengthen the healthcaredelivery system. These challenges include limited trained human resource capacity, inadequateinfrastructure, and a lack of coordination. As with most countries in sub-Saharan Africa, whencomparing urban and rural settings, diagnostic and clinical services are generally skewedtoward urban health facilities and private, faith-based health facilities. We recommend thatstructured policy be directed at these challenges for national institutions to develop guidelinesto improve, strengthen and sustain diagnostic and curative laboratory services to effectivelyaddress current infectious diseases and prepare for future emerging and re-emerging infectiousdiseases

Comparing antigenaemia- and microfilaraemia as criteria for stopping decisions in lymphatic filariasis elimination programmes in Africa

BACKGROUND: Mass drug administration (MDA) is the main strategy towards lymphatic filariasis (LF) elimination. Progress is monitored by assessing microfilaraemia (Mf) or circulating filarial antigenaemia (CFA) prevalence, the latter being more practical for field surveys. The current criterion for stopping MDA requires 95% positive predictive value) thresholds for stopping MDA. The model captured trends in Mf and CFA prevalences reasonably well. Elimination cannot be predicted with sufficient certainty from CFA prevalence in 6-7-year olds. Resurgence may still occur if all children are antigen-negative, irrespective of the number tested. Mf-based criteria also show unfavourable results (PPV <95% or unpractically low threshold). CFA prevalences in the 5+ or 15+ population are the best predictors, and post-MDA threshold values for stopping MDA can be as high as 10% for 15+. These thresholds are robust for various alternative assumptions regarding baseline endemicity, biological parameters and sampling strategies. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: For African areas with moderate to high pre-treatment Mf prevalence that have had 6 or more rounds of annual ivermectin/albendazole MDA with adequate coverage, we recommend to adopt a CFA threshold prevalence of 10% in adults (15+) for stopping MDA. This could be combined with Mf testing of CFA positives to ensure absence of a significant Mf reservoir for transmission

Comparing antigenaemia - and microfilaraemia as criteria for stopping decisions in lymphatic filariasis elimination programmes in Africa

Data collected from participants at four separate timepoints in Cote d\u27Ivoire and Liberia identified by a unique participant ID. There are four timepoints collected from each country: Baseline, Follow-up Year 1, Follow-Up Year 2, and Follow-up Year 3. Each dataset includes the participant ID, gender, age, the microfilarae (MF) count collected through blood smear, and circulating filarial antigen (CFA) result from a strip test