Ebola: Working Toward Treatments and Vaccines.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sykes C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4517535 | biostudies-other | 2015 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Ebola: Working Toward Treatments and Vaccines.
Sykes Claire C Reisman Miriam M
P & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management 20150801 8
After killing more than 11,000 people in West Africa, the largest known outbreak of the deadly Ebola virus has largely subsided-but development of effective antiviral countermeasures remains a concern. Several experimental products show promise. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The 2014-16 Ebola outbreak in West Africa has by far been the largest and most devastating Ebola outbreak so far. At the start of the epidemic only 2 Ebola DNA vaccine candidates had been tested in clinical trials and the correlate of protection in humans was unknown. International stakeholders coordinated by the World Health Organization agreed to fast-track the development of 2 Ebola vaccine candidates, based on adenovirus and vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) vectors. Phase I and II clinical trials were initiated in the autumn of 2014 and found both vaccines to be acceptable for proceeding to phase III trials. Despite the epidemic waning in the spring of 2015, by July 2015 preliminary results from a phase III trial in Guinea proved the Ebola VSV vaccine to be effective.
| S-EPMC5084983 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10883519 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the search for treatments for the Ebola Virus, multiple screens of FDA drugs have led to the identification of several with promising in vitro activity. These compounds were not originally developed as antivirals and some have been further tested in mouse in vivo models. We put forward the opinion that some of these drugs could be evaluated further and move into the clinic as they are already FDA approved and in many cases readily available. This may be important if there is a further outbreak in future and no other therapeutic is available.
| S-EPMC4358410 | biostudies-literature
Project description:For individuals who are immunocompromised, the opportunistic fungal pathogen Pneumocystis jirovecii is capable of causing life-threatening pneumonia as the causative agent of Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP). PCP remains an acquired immunodeficiency disease (AIDS)-defining illness in the era of antiretroviral therapy. In addition, a rise in non-human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated PCP has been observed due to increased usage of immunosuppressive and immunomodulating therapies. With the persistence of HIV-related PCP cases and associated morbidity and mortality, as well as difficult to diagnose non-HIV-related PCP cases, an improvement over current treatment and prevention standards is warranted. Current therapeutic strategies have primarily focused on the administration of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, which is effective at disease prevention. However, current treatments are inadequate for treatment of PCP and prevention of PCP-related death, as evidenced by consistently high mortality rates for those hospitalized with PCP. There are no vaccines in clinical trials for the prevention of PCP, and significant obstacles exist that have slowed development, including host range specificity, and the inability to culture Pneumocystis spp. in vitro. In this review, we overview the immune response to Pneumocystis spp., and discuss current progress on novel vaccines and therapies currently in the preclinical and clinical pipeline.
| S-EPMC7921922 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ebola virus disease (EVD) has become a great threat to humans across the world in recent years. The 2014 Ebola epidemic in West Africa caused numerous deaths and attracted worldwide attentions. Since no specific drugs and treatments against EVD was available, vaccination was considered as the most promising and effective method of controlling this epidemic. So far, 7 vaccine candidates had been developed and evaluated through clinical trials. Among them, the recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus-based vaccine (rVSV-EBOV) is the most promising candidate, which demonstrated a significant protection against EVD in phase III clinical trial. However, several concerns were still associated with the Ebola vaccine candidates, including the safety profile in some particular populations, the immunization schedule for emergency vaccination, and the persistence of the protection. We retrospectively reviewed the current development of Ebola vaccines and discussed issues and challenges remaining to be investigated in the future.
| S-EPMC5287303 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In 2013 there were an estimated 584,000 deaths and 198 million clinical illnesses due to malaria, the majority in sub-Saharan Africa. Vaccines would be the ideal addition to the existing armamentarium of anti-malaria tools. However, malaria is caused by parasites, and parasites are much more complex in terms of their biology than the viruses and bacteria for which we have vaccines, passing through multiple stages of development in the human host, each stage expressing hundreds of unique antigens. This complexity makes it more difficult to develop a vaccine for parasites than for viruses and bacteria, since an immune response targeting one stage may not offer protection against a later stage, because different antigens are the targets of protective immunity at different stages. Furthermore, depending on the life cycle stage and whether the parasite is extra- or intra-cellular, antibody and/or cellular immune responses provide protection. It is thus not surprising that there is no vaccine on the market for prevention of malaria, or any human parasitic infection. In fact, no vaccine for any disease with this breadth of targets and immune responses exists. In this limited review, we focus on four approaches to malaria vaccines, (1) a recombinant protein with adjuvant vaccine aimed at Plasmodium falciparum (Pf) pre-erythrocytic stages of the parasite cycle (RTS,S/AS01), (2) whole sporozoite vaccines aimed at Pf pre-erythrocytic stages (PfSPZ Vaccine and PfSPZ-CVac), (3) prime boost vaccines that include recombinant DNA, viruses and bacteria, and protein with adjuvant aimed primarily at Pf pre-erythrocytic, but also asexual erythrocytic stages, and (4) recombinant protein with adjuvant vaccines aimed at Pf and Plasmodium vivax sexual erythrocytic and mosquito stages. We recognize that we are not covering all approaches to malaria vaccine development, or most of the critically important work on development of vaccines against P. vivax, the second most important cause of malaria. Progress during the last few years has been significant, and a first generation malaria candidate vaccine, RTS,S/AS01, is under review by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for its quality, safety and efficacy under article 58, which allows the EMA to give a scientific opinion about products intended exclusively for markets outside of the European Union. However, much work is in progress to optimize malaria vaccines in regard to magnitude and durability of protective efficacy and the financing and practicality of delivery. Thus, we are hopeful that anti-malaria vaccines will soon be important tools in the battle against malaria.
| S-EPMC5634526 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In 2013 there were an estimated 584,000 deaths and 198 million clinical illnesses due to malaria, the majority in sub-Saharan Africa. Vaccines would be the ideal addition to the existing armamentarium of anti-malaria tools. However, malaria is caused by parasites, and parasites are much more complex in terms of their biology than the viruses and bacteria for which we have vaccines, passing through multiple stages of development in the human host, each stage expressing hundreds of unique antigens. This complexity makes it more difficult to develop a vaccine for parasites than for viruses and bacteria, since an immune response targeting one stage may not offer protection against a later stage, because different antigens are the targets of protective immunity at different stages. Furthermore, depending on the life cycle stage and whether the parasite is extra- or intra-cellular, antibody and/or cellular immune responses provide protection. It is thus not surprising that there is no vaccine on the market for prevention of malaria, or any human parasitic infection. In fact, no vaccine for any disease with this breadth of targets and immune responses exists. In this limited review, we focus on four approaches to malaria vaccines, (1) a recombinant protein with adjuvant vaccine aimed at Plasmodium falciparum (Pf) pre-erythrocytic stages of the parasite cycle (RTS,S/AS01), (2) whole sporozoite vaccines aimed at Pf pre-erythrocytic stages (PfSPZ Vaccine and PfSPZ-CVac), (3) prime boost vaccines that include recombinant DNA, viruses and bacteria, and protein with adjuvant aimed primarily at Pf pre-erythrocytic, but also asexual erythrocytic stages, and (4) recombinant protein with adjuvant vaccines aimed at Pf and Plasmodium vivax sexual erythrocytic and mosquito stages. We recognize that we are not covering all approaches to malaria vaccine development, or most of the critically important work on development of vaccines against P. vivax, the second most important cause of malaria. Progress during the last few years has been significant, and a first generation malaria candidate vaccine, RTS,S/AS01, is under review by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for its quality, safety and efficacy under article 58, which allows the EMA to give a scientific opinion about products intended exclusively for markets outside of the European Union. However, much work is in progress to optimize malaria vaccines in regard to magnitude and durability of protective efficacy and the financing and practicality of delivery. Thus, we are hopeful that anti-malaria vaccines will soon be important tools in the battle against malaria.
| S-EPMC5077160 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The 2013 Ebola virus outbreak in West Africa, as of writing, is declining in reported human cases and mortalities. The resulting devastation caused highlights how health systems, in particular in West Africa, and in terms of global pandemic planning, are ill prepared to react to zoonotic pathogens. In this paper we propose One Health as a strategy to prevent zoonotic outbreaks as a shared goal: that human and Great Ape vaccine trials could benefit both species. Only recently have two phase 2/3 Ebola human vaccine trials been started in West Africa. This paper argues for a conceptual change in pandemic preparedness. We first discuss the ethics of One Health. Next, we focus on the current Ebola outbreak and defines its victims. Third, we present the notion of a 'shared benefit' approach, grounded in One Health, and argue for the vaccination of wild apes in order to protect both apes and humans. We believe that a creation of such inter-species immunity is an exemplar of One Health, and that it is worth pursuing as a coextensive public health approach.
| S-EPMC7088325 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Filoviruses are the etiological agents of two human illnesses: Ebola virus disease and Marburg virus disease. Until 2013, medical countermeasure development against these afflictions was limited to only a few research institutes worldwide as both infections were considered exotic due to very low case numbers. Together with the high case-fatality rate of both diseases, evaluation of any candidate countermeasure in properly controlled clinical trials seemed impossible. However, in 2013, Ebola virus was identified as the etiological agent of a large disease outbreak in Western Africa including almost 30,000 infections and more than 11,000 deaths, including case exportations to Europe and North America. These large case numbers resulted in medical countermeasure development against Ebola virus disease becoming a global public-health priority. This review summarizes the status quo of candidate vaccines against Ebola virus disease, with a focus on those that are currently under evaluation in clinical trials.
| S-EPMC5026048 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundExperimental treatments for Ebola virus disease (EVD) might reduce EVD mortality. There is uncertainty about the ability of different clinical trial designs to identify effective treatments, and about the feasibility of implementing individually randomised controlled trials during an Ebola epidemic.Methods and findingsA treatment evaluation programme for use in EVD was devised using a multi-stage approach (MSA) with two or three stages, including both non-randomised and randomised elements. The probabilities of rightly or wrongly recommending the experimental treatment, the required sample size, and the consequences for epidemic outcomes over 100 d under two epidemic scenarios were compared for the MSA, a sequential randomised controlled trial (SRCT) with up to 20 interim analyses, and, as a reference case, a conventional randomised controlled trial (RCT) without interim analyses. Assuming 50% 14-d survival in the population treated with the current standard of supportive care, all designs had similar probabilities of identifying effective treatments correctly, while the MSA was less likely to recommend treatments that were ineffective. The MSA led to a smaller number of cases receiving ineffective treatments and faster roll-out of highly effective treatments. For less effective treatments, the MSA had a high probability of including an RCT component, leading to a somewhat longer time to roll-out or rejection. Assuming 100 new EVD cases per day, the MSA led to between 6% and 15% greater reductions in epidemic mortality over the first 100 d for highly effective treatments compared to the SRCT. Both the MSA and SRCT led to substantially fewer deaths than a conventional RCT if the tested interventions were either highly effective or harmful. In the proposed MSA, the major threat to the validity of the results of the non-randomised components is that referral patterns, standard of care, or the virus itself may change during the study period in ways that affect mortality. Adverse events are also harder to quantify without a concurrent control group.ConclusionsThe MSA discards ineffective treatments quickly, while reliably providing evidence concerning effective treatments. The MSA is appropriate for the clinical evaluation of EVD treatments.
| S-EPMC4397078 | biostudies-literature