Ebola Vaccine Trial Research Articles

Healthcare Providers' and Frontline Workers' Experiences of an Ebola Vaccine Trial in the Boende Health District of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

This study explored the experiences of healthcare providers (HCPs) and frontline workers who were involved in an Ebola vaccine trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The researchers interviewed a total of 99 participants (HCPs and frontline workers) living and working in the Boende health district during the period of the study, from February to March 2022. These individuals included a mix of trial participants and non-trial participants (staff of the trial, local health authorities, and head nurses of health centers). In-depth individual interviews, as well as focus group discussions (FGDs), were used to understand interviewees' experiences and perceptions. The data were analyzed to identify the main themes. The findings unveiled a multitude of positive experiences among interviewees/FGD participants. The commitment of the trial investigators to improve the study site and to equip the volunteers with necessary skills and knowledge greatly contributed to a positive trial experience. However, some interviewees felt that the reimbursement for time and travel expenses during their trial visits was insufficient in comparison with their expectations. Additionally, there were expressions of worry about the frequency of blood draws during scheduled trial visits. Our findings emphasize the critical importance of addressing and continuously considering the perspectives and concerns of trial participants before designing and implementing vaccine trials. By actively incorporating their inputs, researchers can mitigate concerns and tailor communication strategies, potentially enhancing the overall success and impact of the vaccine trial.

An ancillary care policy in a vaccine trial conducted in a resource-constrained setting: evaluation and policy recommendations

IntroductionClear guidelines to implement ancillary care (AC) in clinical trials conducted in resource-constrained settings are lacking. Here, we evaluate an AC policy developed for a vaccine trial in the Democratic...

Is it fear or politics? A qualitative exploration of stakeholders’ views on the failed Ebola vaccine trial in Southern Ghana

Background: The negative meaning and rumours associated with the conduct of clinical trials regarding their experimental nature adversely affect trust and their conduct. A typical example of the challenges in conducting clinical trial studies was where Ghana was selected to conduct the ebola vaccine trials, which was not successful. This study explored the social and political perspectives on the unsuccessful implementation of the ebola vaccine trial in Ghana. Methods: This was a cross-sectional exploratory study using qualitative research approach where 31 in-depth individual interviews and Key informant interviews were conducted with participants. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded into themes using Nvivo 12 software to aid thematic content analysis. Results: The views expressed by participants suggested that lack of stakeholder engagement to create awareness on the Ebola vaccine trial led to doubts on the purpose for the trial. Also, media propaganda, negative influence and the perception that conducting the vaccine trial in Ghana could introduce the Ebola virus into the country created panic and fear, which affected public trust and support for the Ebola vaccine trial conduct in Ghana. Furthermore, political influence linked with site selection and timing for the study in particular, led to mistrust and the subsequent suspension of the trial in Ghana. Conclusions: Based on the interpretation of our data, we conclude that the indefinite suspension of the Ebola vaccine trial in Ghana could largely be attributed to both fear and political influence as well as misinformation resulting from media propaganda leading to mistrust.

Engaging the public in decisions about emergency vaccine deployment strategies: Lessons from scenario-based discussions in Sierra Leone

ABSTRACT The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified discussions on emergency vaccine deployment strategies, with current perspectives often neglecting extensive community involvement in ethical, logistical and political aspects. Existing social science literature predominantly delves into factors influencing trust, overlooking the untapped potential for community engagement. Our study examines community preparedness in Sierra Leone’s Kambia District, exploring diverse viewpoints on vaccine deployment strategies, emphasising Ebola and COVID-19 vaccinations. Utilising extensive ethnographic research from the Ebola vaccine trials (EBOVAC Salone) conducted in Kambia District from 2015 to 2021, including participant observation and tailored focus group discussions, we investigated various deployment scenarios with community leaders and citizens. Our findings underscore the multifaceted contributions of social science research with communities in shaping emergency vaccination strategies. These contributions span logistical insights, aligning campaigns with local livelihoods and social structures, and grounded ethical concerns assessing social justice outcomes across epidemic scenarios. This study emphasises the imperative of integrating discussions on vaccine confidence and deployment. It highlights communities’ proficiency in epidemiological reasoning and their ability to bring this in conversation with salient socio-cultural, economic and religious dimensions. We therefore promote the cultivation of public dialogue, collaborative creation of impactful vaccination initiatives alongside relevant communities in recognition of their invaluable perspectives .

Perceptions, attitudes, and willingness of healthcare and frontline workers to participate in an Ebola vaccine trial in Uganda

BackgroundUnderstanding the knowledge, perception and attitudes towards Ebola vaccines is an important factor in ensuring future use of these vaccines. A qualitative methods study embedded in an Ebola vaccine immunogenicity and safety trial (NCT04028349) was conducted to explore the knowledge and perceptions of healthcare (HCWs) and frontline workers (FLWs), about Ebola vaccines and their willingness to participate or recommend participation in Uganda. MethodWe carried out focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews before and after vaccination, with 70 HCWs and FLWs who consented to participate in the trial, and in the qualitative component, from August to September 2019. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis. ResultsRespondents showed good knowledge about Ebola and the vaccines in general, and had wide access to information through several channels, including the study team. On prevention, particular attention was given to effective communication within health facilities. Misconceptions were mainly around route of transmission, animal origin and types of vaccines. Previous fears were based on rumours circulating in the community, mainly about the presence of the virus in the vaccine, side effects and intention to harm (e.g. by “the whites”), ultimately insisting on transparency, trust and involvement of local leaders. Acceptability of participation was motivated by the need to protect self and others, and the willingness to advance research. Majority were willing to recommend participation to their community. ConclusionsOverall, information sharing leads to a better understanding and acceptance of vaccine trials and a positive vaccination experience can be a deciding factor in the acceptance of others. Particular attention should be paid to involving the community in addressing misconceptions and fears, while ensuring that participants have access to vaccination sites in terms of transport, and that they are properly accommodated at the study site including staying for a reasonable period of time.

Longitudinal assessment of an Ebola vaccine trial understanding among healthcare providers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

BackgroundThe long-term retention of information disclosed during the informed consent in clinical trials lasting over a year cannot be guaranteed for all volunteers. This study aimed to assess the level of participants’ retention and understanding of the trial information after two years of participation in a vaccine trial. MethodsIn total, 699 health care providers (HCPs) and frontline workers were enrolled in the EBL2007 vaccine trial conducted between February 2019 and September 2022 in the Health District of Boende, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Individual scores obtained from a questionnaire (test of understanding, TOU), specifically designed to assess the understanding of the consent at baseline, were collected before the clinical trial started and at one-year and two-year intervals. ResultsTOU scores were high in the beginning of the trial (median TOU = 10/10), but significantly decreased in both the first and second years following (median TOU = 8/10 in year 1 and median TOU = 9/10 in year 2, p-value < 0.0001). The decrease in scores was significantly higher among individuals with occupations requiring shorter education such as midwives (median TOU = 7/10 in year 1 and 8/10 in year 2, pvalue = 0.025). Furthermore, older participants exhibited poorer retention of information compared to younger individuals (median TOU = 8/10 vs 9/10, p-value = 0.007). ConclusionWe observed a significant decline in the informational knowledge of informed consent, specifically in terms of basic knowledge on the study vaccine and trial procedures. As participant safety and understanding is a paramount ethical concern for researchers, it is crucial for participants to fully comprehend the study's objectives and potential risks. Therefore, our findings suggest the need for clinical researchers to re-explain participants to optimize the protection of their rights and wellbeing during the research.

Conducting an Ebola vaccine trial in a remote area of the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Challenges, mitigations, and lessons learned

Conducting a vaccine trial in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC) can present unique challenges and lessons learned. This Ebola vaccine trial, enrolling 699 healthcare providers and frontliners and jointly set up by the University of Antwerp (Sponsor) and the University of Kinshasa (Principal Investigator (PI)), was conducted in Boende, a remote city in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), between December 2019 and October 2022 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04186000). While being bound by strict ICH-GCP and international funder regulations, this trial, exemplary for being a public–private partnership, required collaboration between several international stakeholders (e.g., two universities, a pharmaceutical company, and a clinical research organization), local communities and government agencies. Here we address several logistical and administrative challenges, cultural differences, language barriers and regulatory, political, and ethical considerations over the trial’s 2.5-year duration, while tailoring and adapting the study to the specific local context.Lessons learned include the importance of clear communication with participants in all phases of the study, but also within the study team and among different stakeholders. Challenges, mitigations, and lessons learned are presented in nine categories (e.g., safety management; trial documentation, tools, and materials; communication, staff training and community engagement/sensitization; financial and administrative hurdles; and more). Ultimately, to reach the successful end of the vaccine trial in this remote Ebola endemic area in the DRC, careful planning, collaboration, and great flexibility and adaptability was often required from all involved partners. Despite the encountered challenges, the vaccine trial discussed in this paper was able to obtain high participant retention rates (i.e., 92% of participants completed the study). We hope that other international teams aspiring to conduct similar trials in remote areas of LMICs can learn from the way our challenges were addressed, mitigations developed, and lessons were learned.

Researchers’ responsibilities in resource-constrained settings: experiences of implementing an ancillary care policy in a vaccine trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

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.

Low seroprevalence of Ebola virus in health care providers in an endemic region (Tshuapa province) of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

A serosurvey among health care providers (HCPs) and frontliners of an area previously affected by Ebola virus disease (EVD) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) was conducted to assess the seroreactivity to Ebola virus antigens. Serum samples were collected in a cohort of HCPs and frontliners (n = 698) participants in the EBL2007 vaccine trial (December 2019 to October 2022). Specimens seroreactive for EBOV were confirmed using either the Filovirus Animal Nonclinical Group (FANG) ELISA or a Luminex multiplex assay. The seroreactivity to at least two EBOV-Mayinga (m) antigens was found in 10 (1.4%: 95% CI, 0.7-2.6) samples for GP-EBOV-m + VP40-EBOV-m, and 2 (0.3%: 95% CI, 0.0-1.0) samples for VP40-EBOV-m + NP-EBOV-m using the Luminex assay. Seroreactivity to GP-EBOV-Kikwit (k) was observed in 59 (8.5%: 95%CI, 6.5-10.9) samples using FANG ELISA. In contrast to previous serosurveys, a low seroprevalence was found in the HCP and frontline population participating in the EBL2007 Ebola vaccine trial in Boende, DRC. This underscores the high need for standardized antibody assays and cutoffs in EBOV serosurveys to avoid the broad range of reported EBOV seroprevalence rates in EBOV endemic areas.

The Effect of Previous Exposure to Malaria Infection and Clinical Malaria Episodes on the Immune Response to the Two-Dose Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo Ebola Vaccine Regimen.

We assessed whether the immunogenicity of the two-dose Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen with a 56-day interval between doses was affected by exposure to malaria before dose 1 vaccination and by clinical episodes of malaria in the period immediately after dose 1 and after dose 2 vaccinations. Previous malaria exposure in participants in an Ebola vaccine trial in Sierra Leone (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02509494) was classified as low, intermediate, and high according to their antibody responses to a panel of Plasmodium falciparum antigens detected using a Luminex MAGPIX platform. Clinical malaria episodes after vaccinations were recorded as part of the trial safety monitoring. Binding antibody responses against the Ebola virus (EBOV) glycoprotein (GP) were measured 57 days post dose 1 and 21 days post dose 2 by ELISA and summarized as Geometric Mean Concentrations (GMCs). Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) were used to compare groups with different levels of exposure to malaria. Overall, 587 participants, comprising 188 (32%) adults (aged ≥ 18 years) and 399 (68%) children (aged 1-3, 4-11, and 12-17 years), were included in the analysis. There was no evidence that the anti-EBOV-GP antibody GMCs post dose 1 and post dose 2 differed between categories of previous malaria exposure. There was weak evidence that the GMC at 57 days post dose 1 was lower in participants who had had at least one episode of clinical malaria post dose 1 compared to participants with no diagnosed clinical malaria in the same period (GMR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.69-0.98, p-value = 0.02). However, GMC post dose 2 was not reduced in participants who experienced clinical malaria post-dose 1 and/or post-dose 2 vaccinations. In conclusion, the Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen is immunogenic in individuals with previous exposure to malaria and in those who experience clinical malaria after vaccination. This vaccine regimen is suitable for prophylaxis against Ebola virus disease in malaria-endemic regions.

Factors affecting trust in clinical trials conduct: Views of stakeholders from a qualitative study in Ghana.

Evidence exists that scientists' dehumanization and exploitation of people in the name of science led to suspicion and mistrust in clinical trials conduct. In Ghana, there are equally signs of public distrust in the conduct of biomedical research. Typical examples are the unsuccessful conduct of the Ebola vaccine trial and the initial refusal of parents to allow their children to receive the recently piloted malaria vaccine in Ghana. Therefore, this study explored participants' views on factors affecting trust in clinical trials conduct in Ghana. This was a cross-sectional exploratory study using qualitative research approach. Forty-eight in-depth interviews and Key informant interviews were conducted with stakeholders. Purposive sampling technique was used to select participants. All the interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded into themes using QSR Nvivo 12 software to aid thematic analysis. Overall, participants saw the need for the conduct of clinical trials in Ghana because clinical trial studies enable scientists to come out with effective medicines for the management of diseases. Pre-implementation factors such as inadequate stakeholder engagement, rumours and negative influence affected trust. Implementation factors such as perceived risks about clinical trials medicines, apprehensions on drawing and use of blood samples, poor informed consent administration and perceived no illness all negatively affected trust in clinical trials conduct. Trust is a fundamental factor affecting a successful conduct of clinical trials. Thus, there is need for collective efforts by all stakeholders including research institutions and clinical trial regulatory bodies to take the issue of trust in clinical trials conduct seriously.

“Are You Sure It’s Not the Corona Vaccine?” An Ebola Vaccine Trial During COVID-19 in DRC

ABSTRACT The COVID-19 pandemic began as an Ebola epidemic was unfolding in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In this article, we examine how COVID-19 influenced experiences of an Ebola vaccine trial and attitudes towards medical research in Goma. First, critical debates about vaccine research became a forum in which to contest ineffective local governance and global inequality. Second, discussions about new COVID-19 therapeutics reignited critique of Western biomedical colonialism. Third, rumors were made powerful through everyday observations of the unexpected adaption of Ebola trial procedures in the pandemic. This illustrates the difficulties of maintaining participants’ trust, when circumstances dictate protocol alterations mid-trial.

Setting-up an Ebola vaccine trial in a remote area of the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Challenges, mitigations, and lessons learned

Since the largest Ebola outbreak in West Africa (2013–2016) highlighted the potential threat of the Ebola virus to the world, several vaccines have been under development by different pharmaceutical companies. To obtain vaccine licensure, vaccine trials assessing the safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of new vaccines among different populations (e.g. different in age, gender, race, and ethnicity) play a crucial role. However, while this deadly disease mainly affects Central and West Africa, clinical trial regulations are becoming increasingly complex and consequently more expensive, influencing the affected low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in performing high quality clinical trials. Consequently, the completion of such trials in LMICs takes more time and vaccines and drugs take longer to be licensed. To overcome some of the obstacles faced, the EBOVAC3 consortium, funded by the European Union’s Innovative Medicines Initiative and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, enabled high quality vaccine trials in Central and West Africa through extensive North-South collaborations. In this article, the encountered challenges, mitigations, recommendations and lessons learned from setting-up an Ebola vaccine trial in a remote area of the Democratic Republic of Congo are presented. These challenges are grouped into eight categories: (1) Regulatory, political and ethical, (2) Trial documents, (3) International collaborations, (4) Local trial staff, (5) Community engagement and sensitization, (6) Logistics, (7) Remoteness and climate conditions, (8) Financial. By sharing the encountered challenges, implemented mitigations and lessons learned for each of these categories, we hope to prepare and inform other researchers aspiring a well-functioning clinical trial unit in similar remote settings in LMICs. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04186000.

Negotiating the Role of Anthropological Evidence in Medical Research during Health Emergencies

The 2014–2016 West African Ebola outbreak is often cited as a watershed moment for the social science of epidemics. Anthropologists played a key role in clarifying the social, economic and political dimensions of the epidemic, highlighting both how outbreak control measures were disrupting social practices and how they could be adapted to reflect local realities and experiences. Whilst undoubtedly significant, this narrative of anthropology’s successful integration risks obscuring the fraught position of the anthropologist within the Ebola response. Taking debates about public anthropology and the balance of action and critique as a starting point, we offer reflexive considerations from our work in the Ebola vaccine trials in Sierra Leone. We look at the involvement of social scientists in HIV clinical trials, which led to the inclusion of a social science component in the Ebola trials, through to the everyday discussions on how to integrate ethnographic insights into the running of operations. In so doing, we highlight the importance of foregrounding participants’ and communities’ voices, and confront what gets lost in translation. Keeping this tension in focus, we consider the consequences of this complex position for the possibility of a ‘critically embedded’ anthropology of clinical research in health emergencies.

Vaccine Licensure in the Absence of Human Efficacy Data.

Clinical vaccine development and regulatory approval generally occurs in a linear, sequential manner: Phase 1: safety, immunogenicity; Phase 2: immunogenicity, safety, dose ranging, and preliminary efficacy; Phase 3: definitive efficacy, safety, lot consistency; and following regulatory approval, Phase 4: post-marketing safety and effectiveness. For candidate filovirus vaccines, where correlates of protection have not been identified, and phase 2 and 3 efficacy of disease prevention trials untenable, large and/or protracted, each trial may span decades, with full licensure expected only after several decades of development. Given the urgent unmet need for new Marburg virus and Ebola Sudan virus vaccines, the Sabin Vaccine Institute hosted a key stakeholder virtual meeting in May 2021 to explore the possibility of licensure by use of an “animal rule-like” licensure process, based on a risk/benefit assessment specific to regional needs and informed by epidemiology. This may be appropriate for diseases where there are no or limited treatment options, and those prone to sporadic outbreaks with high rates of transmission, morbidity, and mortality. The discussion focused on two contexts: licensure within the Ugandan regulatory environment, a high burden country where Ebola vaccine trials are ongoing, and licensure by the United States FDA—a well-resourced regulatory agency.

Use of Iris Scanning for Biometric Recognition of Healthy Adults Participating in an Ebola Vaccine Trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Mixed Methods Study.

BackgroundA partnership between the University of Antwerp and the University of Kinshasa implemented the EBOVAC3 clinical trial with an Ebola vaccine regimen administered to health care provider participants in Tshuapa Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo. This randomized controlled trial was part of an Ebola outbreak preparedness initiative financed through Innovative Medicines Initiative-European Union. The EBOVAC3 clinical trial used iris scan technology to identify all health care provider participants enrolled in the vaccine trial, to ensure that the right participant received the right vaccine at the right visit.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess the acceptability, accuracy, and feasibility of iris scan technology as an identification method within a population of health care provider participants in a vaccine trial in a remote setting.MethodsWe used a mixed methods study. The acceptability was assessed prior to the trial through 12 focus group discussions (FGDs) and was assessed at enrollment. Feasibility and accuracy research was conducted using a longitudinal trial study design, where iris scanning was compared with the unique study ID card to identify health care provider participants at enrollment and at their follow-up visits.ResultsDuring the FGDs, health care provider participants were mainly concerned about the iris scan technology causing physical problems to their eyes or exposing them to spiritual problems through sorcery. However, 99% (85/86; 95% CI 97.1-100.0) of health care provider participants in the FGDs agreed to be identified by the iris scan. Also, at enrollment, 99.0% (692/699; 95% CI 98.2-99.7) of health care provider participants accepted to be identified by iris scan. Iris scan technology correctly identified 93.1% (636/683; 95% CI 91.2-95.0) of the participants returning for scheduled follow-up visits. The iris scanning operation lasted 2 minutes or less for 96.0% (656/683; 95% CI 94.6-97.5), and 1 attempt was enough to identify the majority of study participants (475/683, 69.5%; 95% CI 66.1-73.0).ConclusionsIris scans are highly acceptable as an identification tool in a clinical trial for health care provider participants in a remote setting. Its operationalization during the trial demonstrated a high level of accuracy that can reliably identify individuals. Iris scanning is found to be feasible in clinical trials but requires a trained operator to reduce the duration and the number of attempts to identify a participant.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04186000; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04186000

Algorithm for the support of non-related (serious) adverse events in an Ebola vaccine trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Implementing an Ebola vaccine trial in a remote area in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and being confronted with a dysfunctional health care system and acute unmet health...

Non-epistemic values in shaping the parameters for evaluating the effectiveness of candidate vaccines: the case of an Ebola vaccine trial.

This paper examines the case of Ebola, ça Suffit trial which was conducted in Guinea during Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak in 2015. I demonstrate that various non-epistemic considerations may legitimately influence the criteria for evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of a candidate vaccine. Such non-epistemic considerations, which are social, ethical, and pragmatic, can be better placed and addressed in scientific research by appealing to non-epistemic values. I consider two significant features any newly developed vaccine should possess; (1) the duration of immunity the vaccine provides; and (2) safety with respect to the side effects of the vaccine. Then, I argue that social and ethical values are relevant and desirable in setting the parameters for evaluating these two features of vaccines. The parameters that are employed for setting up the criteria for assessing the features might have far-reaching implications on the well-being of society in general, and the health conditions of several thousand people in particular. The reason is that these features can play a decisive role during the evaluation of the efficacy and effectiveness of the vaccine. I conclude by showing why it is necessary to reject the concept of epistemic priority, at least when scientists engage in policy-oriented research.

Under consent: participation of people with HIV in an Ebola vaccine trial in Canada

BackgroundLittle is known about volunteers from Northern research settings who participate in vaccine trials of highly infectious diseases with no approved treatments. This article explores the motivations of HIV immunocompromised study participants in Canada who volunteered in a Phase II clinical trial that evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of an Ebola vaccine candidate.MethodsObservation at the clinical study site and semi-structured interviews employing situational and discursive analysis were conducted with clinical trial participants and staff over one year. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using critical qualitative interpretivist thematic analytical techniques. Patterns were identified, clustered and sorted to generate distinct and comprehensive themes. We then reassembled events and contexts from the study participants’ stories to develop two ideal portraits based on "composite characters" based on study participants features. These provide ethnographically rich details of participants’ meaningful social worlds while protecting individual identities.ResultsTen of the 14 clinical trial participants, and 3 study staff were interviewed. Participant demographics and socio-economic profiles expressed limited contextual diversity. Half were men who have sex with men, half were former injection drug users experiencing homelessness, one was female, none were racialized minorities and there were no people from HIV endemic countries. Fully 90% had previous involvement in other clinical studies. Their stories point to particular socio-economic situations that motivated their participation as clinical labor through trial participation.ConclusionsOur findings support Fisher’s argument of “structural coercion” in clinical trial recruitment of vulnerable individuals experiencing precarious living conditions. Clinical trials should provide more detail of the structural socio-economic conditions and healthcare needs which lie “under consent” of study participants. Going well beyond an overly convenient narrative of altruism, ethical deliberation frameworks need to sufficiently address the structural conditions of clinical trials. We offer concrete possibilities for this and acknowledge that further research and clinical data should be made available underlying study participant contexts with regards to recruitment and participation in resource poor settings, in both the South and the North.

Botched Ebola Vaccine Trials in Ghana: An Analysis of Discourses in the Media.

In June 2015, proposed Ebola vaccine trials were suspended by the Ministry of Health of Ghana amid protests from members of parliament and the general public. Scholarship has often focused on the design, development, and administration of vaccines. Of equal importance are the social issues surrounding challenges with vaccine trials and their implementation. The purpose of this study was to analyze discourses in the media that led to the suspension of the 2015 Ebola vaccine trials in Ghana. I use a sociological lens drawing on moral panic and risk society theories. The study qualitatively analyzed discourses in 18 semi-structured interviews with media workers, selected online publications, and user comments about the Ebola vaccine trials. The findings show that discourses surrounding the Ebola vaccine trials drew on cultural, biomedical, historical, and even contextual knowledge and circumstances to concretize risk discourses and garner support for their positions. Historical, political, and cultural underpinnings have a strong influence on biomedical practices and how they are (not) accepted. This study highlights the complexity and challenges of undertaking much needed vaccine tests in societies where the notion of drug trials has underlying historical and sociological baggage that determine whether (or not) the trials proceed.