Lower Limb Amputation at the 34 Military Hospital in Freetown, Sierra Leone: Causes and Indications.

The global prevalence of diabetes mellitus is increasing substantially. This overall increment leads to the growth in the number of individuals with diabetic complications including lower limb amputation. In low-income countries like Sierra Leone, lack of access to adequate health care, poverty and social stigma attached to “amputation” all prevent people from seeking early medical treatment for diabetic foot.The purpose of this study was to document the causes and indications of lower limb amputations and to make appropriate recommendations to the health sector of Sierra Leone.This retrospective study was conducted at 34 Military Hospital, one of the major referral hospitals in Freetown, between January 2011 and December 2014. A team of medical staff was trained to extract data. The operating theatre and ward case records were searched for information (age, gender, cause and indication for amputation) of all the patients who underwent amputation during this period. The findings were statistically documented in tables.Twenty-seven patients (24 males and 3 females) were involved in the study. The age distribution was 15-65 years (Mean 43). Majority (77.7%) of the patients presented with gangrenous and infected diabetic feet, 18.5 % was due to Road Traffic Accident and 3.8% due to complication of HIV infection. The commonest level was transtibial amputation 85% and 67% was right sided. Hospital stay was 20-50 days (average 35). There was no postoperative mortality.As most amputations were done for diabetic feet, there is need for diabetes sensitization and prevention campaigns for the general public and improvement of diabetic care for individual patients including proper glycemic control and risk factors prevention. Increased funding is required by the health sector of Sierra Leone to implement these measures. Prevention of road traffic accidents by training/educating the drivers should also be considered by Sierra Leone Road Transport Authority.

Experimental Treatment of Ebola Virus Disease with TKM-130803: A Single-Arm Phase 2 Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: TKM-130803, a small interfering RNA lipid nanoparticle product, has been developed for the treatment of Ebola virus disease (EVD), but its efficacy and safety in humans has not been evaluated. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this single-arm phase 2 trial, adults with laboratory-confirmed EVD received 0.3 mg/kg of TKM-130803 by intravenous infusion once daily for up to 7 d. On days when trial enrolment capacity was reached, patients were enrolled into a concurrent observational cohort. The primary outcome was survival to day 14 after admission, excluding patients who died within 48 h of admission. After 14 adults with EVD had received TKM-130803, the pre-specified futility boundary was reached, indicating a probability of survival to day 14 of ≤0.55, and enrolment was stopped. Pre-treatment geometric mean Ebola virus load in the 14 TKM-130803 recipients was 2.24 × 109 RNA copies/ml plasma (95% CI 7.52 × 108, 6.66 × 109). Two of the TKM-130803 recipients died within 48 h of admission and were therefore excluded from the primary outcome analysis. Of the remaining 12 TKM-130803 recipients, nine died and three survived. The probability that a TKM-130803 recipient who survived for 48 h will subsequently survive to day 14 was estimated to be 0.27 (95% CI 0.06, 0.58). TKM-130803 infusions were well tolerated, with 56 doses administered and only one possible infusion-related reaction observed. Three patients were enrolled in the observational cohort, of whom two died. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of TKM-130803 at a dose of 0.3 mg/kg/d by intravenous infusion to adult patients with severe EVD was not shown to improve survival when compared to historic controls. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Pan African Clinical Trials Registry PACTR201501000997429

New filovirus disease classification and nomenclature.

The recent large outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in Western Africa resulted in greatly increased accumulation of human genotypic, phenotypic and clinical data, and improved our understanding of the spectrum of clinical manifestations. As a result, the WHO disease classification of EVD underwent major revision

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

Safety and long-term immunogenicity of the two-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen in adults in Sierra Leone: a combined open-label, non-randomised stage 1, and a randomised, double-blind, controlled stage 2 trial

Background The Ebola epidemics in west Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo highlight an urgent need for safe and effective vaccines to prevent Ebola virus disease. We aimed to assess the safety and long-term 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 vector-based vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and the nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus (MVA-BN-Filo), in Sierra Leone, a country previously affected by Ebola. Methods The trial comprised two stages: an open-label, non-randomised stage 1, and a randomised, double-blind, controlled stage 2. The study was done at three clinics in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. In stage 1, healthy adults (aged ≥18 years) residing in or near Kambia district, received an intramuscular injection of Ad26.ZEBOV (5×1010 viral particles) on day 1 (first dose) followed by an intramuscular injection of MVA-BN-Filo (1×108 infectious units) on day 57 (second dose). An Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination was offered at 2 years after the first dose to stage 1 participants. The eligibility criteria for adult participants in stage 2 were consistent with stage 1 eligibility criteria. Stage 2 participants were randomly assigned (3:1), by computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive web-response system, to receive either the Ebola vaccine regimen (Ad26.ZEBOV followed by MVA-BN-Filo) or an intramuscular injection of a single dose of meningococcal quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W135, and Y) conjugate vaccine (MenACWY; first dose) followed by placebo on day 57 (second dose; control group). Study team personnel, except those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation, and participants were masked to study vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was the safety of the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen, which was assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose of study vaccine. Safety was assessed as solicited local and systemic adverse events occurring in the first 7 days after each vaccination, unsolicited adverse events occurring in the first 28 days after each vaccination, and serious adverse events or immediate reportable events occurring up to each participant’s last study visit. Secondary outcomes were to assess Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses at 21 days after the second vaccine in a per-protocol set of participants (ie, those 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) and to assess the safety and tolerability of the Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination in stage 1 participants who had received the booster dose. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02509494. Findings Between Sept 30, 2015, and Oct 19, 2016, 443 participants (43 in stage 1 and 400 in stage 2) were enrolled; 341 participants assigned to receive the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo regimen and 102 participants assigned to receive the MenACWY and placebo regimen received at least one dose of study vaccine. Both regimens were well tolerated with no safety concerns. In stage 1, solicited local adverse events (mostly mild or moderate injection-site pain) were reported in 12 (28%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in six (14%) participants after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited local adverse events were reported in 51 (17%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 58 (24%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 17 (17%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in eight (9%) of 86 after placebo injection. In stage 1, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 18 (42%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in 17 (40%) after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 161 (54%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 107 (43%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 51 (50%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in 39 (45%) of 86 after placebo injection. Solicited systemic adverse events in both stage 1 and 2 participants included mostly mild or moderate headache, myalgia, fatigue, and arthralgia. The most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the first dose was headache in stage 1 and malaria in stage 2. Malaria was the most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the second dose in both stage 1 and 2. No serious adverse event was considered related to the study vaccine, and no immediate reportable events were observed. In stage 1, the safety profile after the booster vaccination was not notably different to that observed after the first dose. Vaccine-induced humoral immune responses were observed in 41 (98%) of 42 stage 1 participants (geometric mean binding antibody concentration 4784 ELISA units [EU]/mL [95% CI 3736–6125]) and in 176 (98%) of 179 stage 2 participants (3810 EU/mL [3312–4383]) at 21 days after the second vaccination. Interpretation The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen was well tolerated and immunogenic, with persistent humoral immune responses. These data support the use of this vaccine regimen for Ebola virus disease prophylaxis in adults

Impact of interventions and the incidence of ebola virus disease in Liberia-implications for future epidemics

To better understand the impact of national and global efforts to contain the Ebola virus disease epidemic of 2014–15 in Liberia, we provide a detailed timeline of the major interventions and relate them to the epidemic curve.  In addition to personal experience in the response, we systematically reviewed situation reports from the Liberian government, UN, CDC, WHO, UNICEF, IFRC, USAID, and local and international news reports to create the timeline. We extracted data on the timing and nature of activities and compared them to the timeline of the epidemic curve using the reproduction number—the estimate of the average number of new cases caused by a single case.  Interventions were organized around five major strategies, with the majority of resources directed to the creation of treatment beds. We conclude that no single intervention stopped the epidemic; rather, the interventions likely had reinforcing effects, and some were less likely than others to have made a major impact. We find that the epidemic’s turning coincided with a reorganization of the response in August–September 2014, the emergence of community leadership in control efforts, and changing beliefs and practices in the population. Ebola Treatment Units were important for Ebola treatment, but the vast majority of these treatment centre beds became available after the epidemic curve began declining. Similarly, the United Nations Mission for Ebola Emergency Response was launched after the epidemic curve had already turned.  These findings have significant policy implications for future epidemics and suggest that much of the decline in the epidemic curve was driven by critical behaviour changes within local communities, rather than by international efforts that came after the epidemic had turned. Future global interventions in epidemic response should focus on building community capabilities, strengthening local ownership, and dramatically reducing delays in the response

Cross sectional study of chronic hepatitis B prevalence among healthcare workers in an urban setting, Sierra Leone.

INTRODUCTION:Hepatitis B is a serious public health problem across sub-Saharan Africa. Sierra Leone has no national hepatitis B strategy plan or high quality estimates of prevalence. Healthcare workers are perceived as an at-risk group for hepatitis B. We assessed the prevalence of hepatitis B among healthcare workers at two hospital sites in Freetown, Sierra Leone. METHODS:In October 2017, healthcare workers were offered voluntary testing for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs), hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc), hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) and hepatitis B e antibody (anti-HBe) using rapid lateral flow assay for all samples, followed by Enzyme Immunosorbent Assay to confirm positive results. Participants completed a questionnaire about knowledge, attitudes and practices concerning hepatitis B. HBsAg positive participants were invited to a clinic for further assessment. RESULTS:Overall, 447 participants were tested for hepatitis B. Most (90.6%, 405/447) participants were nurses, 72.3% (323/447) were female and 71.6% (320/447) were 30 years or older. The prevalence of chronic hepatitis B (HBsAg positivity) was 8.7% (39 / 447, 95% CI 6.3-11.7%). There was no significant difference in prevalence by sex, age group, site of work or type of job. None of the 66.7% (26 / 39) of participants with chronic hepatitis B who attended the clinic met the 2015 WHO criteria to start treatment for hepatitis B on the basis of cirrhosis. Most participants (96.9% 432 / 446) stated that they were worried about their risk of hepatitis B at work. CONCLUSIONS:Hepatitis B is highly prevalent among healthcare workers in Sierra Leone. It is unclear whether this reflects high community prevalence or is due to occupational risk. No participants with chronic hepatitis B needed to start treatment. In order to achieve the WHO target of elimination of viral hepatitis by 2030, introduction of birth dose vaccine for infants and catch-up vaccines for healthcare workers and healthcare students, together with a national hepatitis B screen and treat programme is advisable for Sierra Leone