Hide metadata

dc.date.accessioned2017-05-24T13:02:11Z
dc.date.available2017-05-24T13:02:11Z
dc.date.created2017-03-02T08:57:24Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citationHenao-Restrepo, Ana Maria Camacho, Anton Longini, Ira M Watle, Sara Sofie Viksmoen Norheim, Gunnstein Røttingen, John-Arne . Efficacy and effectiveness of an rVSV-vectored vaccine in preventing Ebola virus disease: final results from the Guinea ring vaccination, open-label, cluster-randomised trial (Ebola Ca Suffit!). The Lancet. 2016, 389, 505-518
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10852/55495
dc.description.abstractBackground rVSV-ZEBOV is a recombinant, replication competent vesicular stomatitis virus-based candidate vaccine expressing a surface glycoprotein of Zaire Ebolavirus. We tested the effect of rVSV-ZEBOV in preventing Ebola virus disease in contacts and contacts of contacts of recently confirmed cases in Guinea, west Africa. Findings In the randomised part of the trial we identified 4539 contacts and contacts of contacts in 51 clusters randomly assigned to immediate vaccination (of whom 3232 were eligible, 2151 consented, and 2119 were immediately vaccinated) and 4557 contacts and contacts of contacts in 47 clusters randomly assigned to delayed vaccination (of whom 3096 were eligible, 2539 consented, and 2041 were vaccinated 21 days after randomisation). No cases of Ebola virus disease occurred 10 days or more after randomisation among randomly assigned contacts and contacts of contacts vaccinated in immediate clusters versus 16 cases (7 clusters affected) among all eligible individuals in delayed clusters. Vaccine efficacy was 100% (95% CI 68·9–100·0, p=0·0045), and the calculated intraclass correlation coefficient was 0·035. Additionally, we defined 19 non-randomised clusters in which we enumerated 2745 contacts and contacts of contacts, 2006 of whom were eligible and 1677 were immediately vaccinated, including 194 children. The evidence from all 117 clusters showed that no cases of Ebola virus disease occurred 10 days or more after randomisation among all immediately vaccinated contacts and contacts of contacts versus 23 cases (11 clusters affected) among all eligible contacts and contacts of contacts in delayed plus all eligible contacts and contacts of contacts never vaccinated in immediate clusters. The estimated vaccine efficacy here was 100% (95% CI 79·3–100·0, p=0·0033). 52% of contacts and contacts of contacts assigned to immediate vaccination and in non-randomised clusters received the vaccine immediately; vaccination protected both vaccinated and unvaccinated people in those clusters. 5837 individuals in total received the vaccine (5643 adults and 194 children), and all vaccinees were followed up for 84 days. 3149 (53·9%) of 5837 individuals reported at least one adverse event in the 14 days after vaccination; these were typically mild (87·5% of all 7211 adverse events). Headache (1832 [25·4%]), fatigue (1361 [18·9%]), and muscle pain (942 [13·1%]) were the most commonly reported adverse events in this period across all age groups. 80 serious adverse events were identified, of which two were judged to be related to vaccination (one febrile reaction and one anaphylaxis) and one possibly related (influenza-like illness); all three recovered without sequelae.en_US
dc.languageEN
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.titleEfficacy and effectiveness of an rVSV-vectored vaccine in preventing Ebola virus disease: final results from the Guinea ring vaccination, open-label, cluster-randomised trial (Ebola Ca Suffit!)en_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.creator.authorHenao-Restrepo, Ana Maria
dc.creator.authorCamacho, Anton
dc.creator.authorLongini, Ira M
dc.creator.authorWatle, Sara Sofie Viksmoen
dc.creator.authorNorheim, Gunnstein
dc.creator.authorRøttingen, John-Arne
cristin.unitcode185,52,0,0
cristin.unitnameInstitutt for helse og samfunn
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode2A
dc.identifier.cristin1455195
dc.identifier.bibliographiccitationinfo:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.jtitle=The Lancet&rft.volume=389&rft.spage=505&rft.date=2016
dc.identifier.jtitleThe Lancet
dc.identifier.volume389
dc.identifier.startpage505
dc.identifier.endpage518
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32621-6
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:no-58285
dc.type.documentTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.type.peerreviewedPeer reviewed
dc.source.issn0140-6736
dc.identifier.fulltextFulltext https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/55495/4/1-s2.0-S0140673616326216-main.pdf
dc.type.versionPublishedVersion


Files in this item

Appears in the following Collection

Hide metadata

Attribution 4.0 International
This item's license is: Attribution 4.0 International