# Enrolling study personnel in Ebola vaccine trials: from guidelines to practice in a non-epidemic context

Édouard Lhomme, Camara Modet, Augustin Augier, Sylvain Faye, Tienhan Sandrine Dabakuyo-Yonli, Claire Lévy-Marchal, Eric d'Ortenzio, Yazdan Yazdanpanah, Geneviève Chene, Abdoul Habib Beavogui, et al.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Édouard Lhomme, Camara Modet, Augustin Augier, Sylvain Faye, Tienhan Sandrine Dabakuyo-Yonli, et al.. Enrolling study personnel in Ebola vaccine trials: from guidelines to practice in a non-epidemic context. Trials, 2019, 20 (1), pp.422. 10.1186/s13063-019-3487-0. hal-02426902

HAL Id: hal-02426902

https://inria.hal.science/hal-02426902

Submitted on 15 Jan 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Enrolling study personnel in Ebola vaccine trials: from guidelines to practice in a non-epidemic context

Édouard Lhomme, Camara Modet, Augustin Augier, Sylvain Faye, Tienhan Sandrine Dabakuyo-Yonli, Claire Lévy-Marchal, Eric d'Ortenzio, Yazdan Yazdanpanah, Geneviève Chene, Abdoul Habib Beavogui, et al.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

To cite this version:

Édouard Lhomme, Camara Modet, Augustin Augier, Sylvain Faye, Tienhan Sandrine Dabakuyo-Yonli, et al.. Enrolling study personnel in Ebola vaccine trials: from guidelines to practice in a non-epidemic context. Trials, 2019, 20 (1), pp.422. 10.1186/s13063-019-3487-0 . hal-02426902

HAL Id: hal-02426902

https://inria.hal.science/hal-02426902v1

Submitted on 15 Jan 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
COMMENTARY

Open Access

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

Enrolling study personnel in Ebola vaccine
trials: from guidelines to practice in a non-
epidemic context

Edouard Lhomme¹* D, Camara Modet², Augustin Augier², Sylvain Faye³, Tienhan Sandrine Dabakuyo-Yonli¹,
Claire Levy-Marchal⁴, Eric D'Ortenzio⁵,⁶, Yazdan Yazdanpanah⁵,⁶, Geneviève Chêne¹, Abdoul Habib Beavogui⁷,
Laura Richert¹ and the PREVAC study team

**Abstract**

**Background:** Enrolling participants in clinical trials can be challenging, especially with respect to prophylactic vaccine trials. The vaccination of study personnel in Ebola vaccine trials during the 2014–2016 epidemic played a crucial role in inspiring trust and facilitating volunteer enrollment. We evaluated the ethical and methodological considerations as they applied to an ongoing phase 2 randomized prophylactic Ebola vaccine trial that enrolled healthy volunteers in Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Mali in a non-epidemic context.

**Methods:** On the assumption that the personnel on site involved in executing the protocol, as well as community mobilizers (not involved in the on-site procedures), might also volunteer to enter the trial, we considered both ethical and methodological considerations to set clear rules that can be shared a priori with these persons. We reviewed the scientific and gray literature to identify relevant references and then conducted an analysis of the ethical and methodological considerations.

**Results:** There are currently no regulations preventing a clinical investigator or site staff from participating in a trial. However, the enrollment of personnel raises the risk of undue influence and challenges the basic ethical principle of voluntary participation. The confidentiality of personal medical information, such as HIV test results, may also be difficult to ensure among personnel. There is a risk of disruption of trial operations due to the potential absence of the personnel for their commitment as trial participants, and there is also a potential for introducing differential behavior of on-site staff as they obtain access to accumulating information during the trial (e.g., the incidence of adverse events). Blinding could be jeopardized, given knowledge of product-specific adverse event profiles and the proximity to unblinded site staff. These aspects were considered more relevant for on-site staff than for community mobilizers, who have limited contact with site staff.

**Conclusion:** In a non-epidemic context, ethical and methodological considerations limit the collective benefit of enrolling site staff in a vaccine trial. These considerations do not apply to community mobilizers, whose potential enrollment should be considered as long as they meet the inclusion criteria and they are not exposed to any form of coercion.

**Keywords:** Clinical trials, Low- and middle-income countries, Ebola vaccine, Ethics, Trial participants, Research participants, Health workers, Site staff, Employees

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<footnote>* Correspondence: edouard.lhomme@u-bordeaux.fr
¹Univ. Bordeaux, Inserm, Bordeaux Population Health Research Center, UMR 1219, CHU Bordeaux, CIC 1401, EUCLID/F-CRIN Clinical Trials Platform, F-33000 Bordeaux, France</footnote>

<footnote>Full list of author information is available at the end of the article</footnote>
COMMENTARY

Open Access

Enrolling study personnel in Ebola vaccine
trials: from guidelines to practice in a non-
epidemic context

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

Edouard Lhomme¹* D, Camara Modet², Augustin Augier², Sylvain Faye³, Tienhan Sandrine Dabakuyo-Yonli¹,
Claire Levy-Marchal⁴, Eric D'Ortenzio⁵,⁶, Yazdan Yazdanpanah⁵,⁶, Geneviève Chêne¹, Abdoul Habib Beavogui⁷,
Laura Richert¹ and the PREVAC study team

**Abstract**

**Background:** Enrolling participants in clinical trials can be challenging, especially with respect to prophylactic vaccine trials. The vaccination of study personnel in Ebola vaccine trials during the 2014–2016 epidemic played a crucial role in inspiring trust and facilitating volunteer enrollment. We evaluated the ethical and methodological considerations as they applied to an ongoing phase 2 randomized prophylactic Ebola vaccine trial that enrolled healthy volunteers in Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Mali in a non-epidemic context.

**Methods:** On the assumption that the personnel on site involved in executing the protocol, as well as community mobilizers (not involved in the on-site procedures), might also volunteer to enter the trial, we considered both ethical and methodological considerations to set clear rules that can be shared a priori with these persons. We reviewed the scientific and gray literature to identify relevant references and then conducted an analysis of the ethical and methodological considerations.

**Results:** There are currently no regulations preventing a clinical investigator or site staff from participating in a trial. However, the enrollment of personnel raises the risk of undue influence and challenges the basic ethical principle of voluntary participation. The confidentiality of personal medical information, such as HIV test results, may also be difficult to ensure among personnel. There is a risk of disruption of trial operations due to the potential absence of the personnel for their commitment as trial participants, and there is also a potential for introducing differential behavior of on-site staff as they obtain access to accumulating information during the trial (e.g., the incidence of adverse events). Blinding could be jeopardized, given knowledge of product-specific adverse event profiles and the proximity to unblinded site staff. These aspects were considered more relevant for on-site staff than for community mobilizers, who have limited contact with site staff.

**Conclusion:** In a non-epidemic context, ethical and methodological considerations limit the collective benefit of enrolling site staff in a vaccine trial. These considerations do not apply to community mobilizers, whose potential enrollment should be considered as long as they meet the inclusion criteria and they are not exposed to any form of coercion.

**Keywords:** Clinical trials, Low- and middle-income countries, Ebola vaccine, Ethics, Trial participants, Research participants, Health workers, Site staff, Employees

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<footnote>* Correspondence: edouard.lhomme@u-bordeaux.fr
¹Univ. Bordeaux, Inserm, Bordeaux Population Health Research Center, UMR 1219, CHU Bordeaux, CIC 1401, EUCLID/F-CRIN Clinical Trials Platform, F-33000 Bordeaux, France</footnote>

<footnote>Full list of author information is available at the end of the article</footnote>
**Introduction**

The 2014–2016 Ebola virus disease outbreak in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone included more than 28,000 cases and more than 11,000 deaths [1]. The scale of the outbreak was unprecedented and prompted the development of prophylactic vaccine candidates [2–4]. A number of clinical vaccine trials were conducted in the affected countries during the epidemic [4–7]. Although these studies made many advances during the epidemic, further research is required to prevent and limit the impact of further outbreaks, such as the current outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo [8]. Therefore, Ebola vaccine clinical trials continue to be conducted in a non-epidemic context.

Recruiting and enrolling participants in any clinical trial can be challenging, but this is especially true in the case of prophylactic vaccine trials; participants are volunteers from the community and do not have the specific disease, but rather are at hypothetical risk thereof. The Ebola epidemic context bred a well-documented climate of fear and mistrust [9, 10]. Therefore, setting up vaccine trials during the epidemic required the development of unique, highly sensitive communication (community engagement) strategies, specific to the socio-cultural context, to engage local populations in interventional research and thus facilitate study enrollment. One of the strategies used to inspire trust and combat rumors was the enrollment of “study staff,” i.e., local healthcare professionals working at the study site, as exemplified by the PREVAIL 1 trial in Liberia [5]. Nevertheless, in a non-epidemic context where there is no indication for emergency vaccination with vaccine candidates still being under development, the enrollment of study staff raises ethical and methodological concerns.

These considerations have been examined while setting
up the Partnership for Research on Ebola Vaccinations
(PREVAC) trial, a randomized phase 2 double-blind vac-
cine trial evaluating the immunogenicity and the safety of
three prophylactic vaccine strategies against Ebola
(NCT02876328). In this trial, healthy adult and children
(aged ≥1 year) volunteers have been enrolled in Guinea
and Liberia since March 2017, and in Sierra Leone and
Mali, since respectively May and July 2018; the trial is
ongoing. For this prophylactic vaccine clinical trial con-
ducted in West Africa, study personnel of the PREVAC
trial comprise the clinical study site staff and the commu-
nity mobilizers, both employed and paid by the trial
sponsors or their delegates. The clinical study site staff
comprises the medical team, nurses, pharmacists, lab
technicians, administrative personnel, logistics personnel,
and communications staff. The community mobilizers are
involved in recruitment and follow-up of participants
within the communities. In the case of PREVAC, they
were recruited based on a profile of community workers
and community champions. Figures of exemplarity within

their communities (e.g., football/soccer coach, nurse) were
encouraged to apply for these positions because of their
strong community involvement.

In this article, we examined the ethical and methodo-
logical considerations of enrolling study personnel in
Ebola vaccine trials in a non-epidemic context. We then
defined the most appropriate course of action for the
implementation of the PREVAC trial in Guinea.

Methods

We performed a review of the scientific literature using
the PubMed electronic database, and of the gray litera-
ture [11] using Google searches for documents pub-
lished on the Internet (in English and French), to
identify relevant references regarding the enrollment of
study personnel in clinical trials. Key words used for the
literature search were “enrollment”, “study personnel”,
“staff”, and “clinical trials”. For the review of the scien-
tific literature, the selection was performed on the title
and abstract, and then in a second step by reading the
full article. For the gray literature, as it is impossible to
screen all retrieved results from Google searches, we
screened the most relevant results based on the Google
relevancy ranking on the first 15 pages. The search was
performed on March 2017 with a publication date limit
of the same date. We then examined the methodological
and ethical considerations pertaining enrolling study
personnel in a prophylactic Ebola vaccine trial outside of
an epidemic context.

As community mobilizers are rarely present at the
vaccination sites (mainly being present only to provide
information for the purposes of the participant consent
process) and are not involved in the vaccination process,
we assumed that some of the ethical and methodological
considerations would not apply to them. Therefore, we
distinguished between the two types of personnel—clin-
ical study site staff and community mobilizers—for the
evaluation of ethical and methodological considerations.

We then reached a consensus on how to proceed in
the context of PREVAC in Guinea in March 2017 after
studying all the ethical and methodological consider-
ations. This decision was made in a multidisciplinary
fashion involving the sponsor, the investigator coordin-
ator of the study, the clinical trial unit responsible for
the trial methodology, anthropologists, and study staff in
the field.

Results

Assessment of the ethical and methodological
considerations

We found no regulations preventing a clinical investigator
or site staff from participating in a trial. No relevant bio-
medical literature was identified in PubMed among 325
**Introduction**

The 2014–2016 Ebola virus disease outbreak in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone included more than 28,000 cases and more than 11,000 deaths [1]. The scale of the outbreak was unprecedented and prompted the development of prophylactic vaccine candidates [2–4]. A number of clinical vaccine trials were conducted in the affected countries during the epidemic [4–7]. Although these studies made many advances during the epidemic, further research is required to prevent and limit the impact of further outbreaks, such as the current outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo [8]. Therefore, Ebola vaccine clinical trials continue to be conducted in a non-epidemic context.

Recruiting and enrolling participants in any clinical trial can be challenging, but this is especially true in the case of prophylactic vaccine trials; participants are volunteers from the community and do not have the specific disease, but rather are at hypothetical risk thereof. The Ebola epidemic context bred a well-documented climate of fear and mistrust [9, 10]. Therefore, setting up vaccine trials during the epidemic required the development of unique, highly sensitive communication (community engagement) strategies, specific to the socio-cultural context, to engage local populations in interventional research and thus facilitate study enrollment. One of the strategies used to inspire trust and combat rumors was the enrollment of “study staff,” i.e., local healthcare professionals working at the study site, as exemplified by the PREVAIL 1 trial in Liberia [5]. Nevertheless, in a non-epidemic context where there is no indication for emergency vaccination with vaccine candidates still being under development, the enrollment of study staff raises ethical and methodological concerns.

These considerations have been examined while setting
up the Partnership for Research on Ebola Vaccinations
(PREVAC) trial, a randomized phase 2 double-blind vac-
cine trial evaluating the immunogenicity and the safety of
three prophylactic vaccine strategies against Ebola
(NCT02876328). In this trial, healthy adult and children
(aged ≥1 year) volunteers have been enrolled in Guinea
and Liberia since March 2017, and in Sierra Leone and
Mali, since respectively May and July 2018; the trial is
ongoing. For this prophylactic vaccine clinical trial con-
ducted in West Africa, study personnel of the PREVAC
trial comprise the clinical study site staff and the commu-
nity mobilizers, both employed and paid by the trial
sponsors or their delegates. The clinical study site staff
comprises the medical team, nurses, pharmacists, lab
technicians, administrative personnel, logistics personnel,
and communications staff. The community mobilizers are
involved in recruitment and follow-up of participants
within the communities. In the case of PREVAC, they
were recruited based on a profile of community workers
and community champions. Figures of exemplarity within

their communities (e.g., football/soccer coach, nurse) were
encouraged to apply for these positions because of their
strong community involvement.

In this article, we examined the ethical and methodo-
logical considerations of enrolling study personnel in
Ebola vaccine trials in a non-epidemic context. We then
defined the most appropriate course of action for the
implementation of the PREVAC trial in Guinea.

**Methods**

We performed a review of the scientific literature using
the PubMed electronic database, and of the gray litera-
ture [11] using Google searches for documents pub-
lished on the Internet (in English and French), to
identify relevant references regarding the enrollment of
study personnel in clinical trials. Key words used for the
literature search were “enrollment”, “study personnel”,
“staff”, and “clinical trials”. For the review of the scien-
tific literature, the selection was performed on the title
and abstract, and then in a second step by reading the
full article. For the gray literature, as it is impossible to
screen all retrieved results from Google searches, we
screened the most relevant results based on the Google
relevancy ranking on the first 15 pages. The search was
performed on March 2017 with a publication date limit
of the same date. We then examined the methodological
and ethical considerations pertaining enrolling study
personnel in a prophylactic Ebola vaccine trial outside of
an epidemic context.

As community mobilizers are rarely present at the
vaccination sites (mainly being present only to provide
information for the purposes of the participant consent
process) and are not involved in the vaccination process,
we assumed that some of the ethical and methodological
considerations would not apply to them. Therefore, we
distinguished between the two types of personnel—clin-
ical study site staff and community mobilizers—for the
evaluation of ethical and methodological considerations.

We then reached a consensus on how to proceed in
the context of PREVAC in Guinea in March 2017 after
studying all the ethical and methodological consider-
ations. This decision was made in a multidisciplinary
fashion involving the sponsor, the investigator coordin-
ator of the study, the clinical trial unit responsible for
the trial methodology, anthropologists, and study staff in
the field.

**Results**

**Assessment of the ethical and methodological
considerations**

We found no regulations preventing a clinical investigator
or site staff from participating in a trial. No relevant bio-
medical literature was identified in PubMed among 325
articles retrieved. Our main sources were thus reference sources pertaining to the protection of human subjects such as the Declaration of Helsinki and the Belmont Report [12, 13], International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects [14], and the Institutional Review Board Guidebook of the Office for Human Research Protections (USA), especially Chapter 6 which concerns special classes of subjects [15].

The ethical and methodological features and challenges associated with enrolling study personnel in a prophylactic Ebola vaccine trial are summarized in Table 1.

Respect for persons is a fundamental principle of medical research involving human subjects. As defined in the Belmont Report [13], respect for persons incorporates that individuals should be treated as autonomous agents and requires that subjects, to the degree that they are capable, be given the opportunity to choose what

<table><caption>**Table 1** Ethical and methodological considerations according to the type of study personnel to be potentially included in a prophylactic Ebola vaccine clinical trial conducted in West Africa outside of the context of an active epidemic</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Principles</th><th rowspan="2">Considerations</th><th rowspan="2">Explanation</th><th colspan="2">Affected study personnel</th></tr><tr><th>Clinical study site staff</th><th>Community mobilizers</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Ethical principles</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Respect for persons: no research without informed consent of those involved, respect of autonomy, the requirement to protect those with diminished autonomy</td><td>Direct or indirect undue influence regarding participation in the trial</td><td>As with other participants in a clinical trial, the participation of study staff must always be voluntary</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Beneficence: do not harm and maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms</td><td>No particular consideration: the risks and benefits of the research are the same for all the participants</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Justice: respect for the principle of equality of human beings, fair treatment during investigations</td><td>Breach of confidentiality regarding medical information</td><td>Every precaution must be taken to protect the privacy of research subjects and the confidentiality of their personal information</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Methodological principles</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Subject selection</td><td>Eligibility criteria</td><td>As with other participants, any study staff enrolled must meet the eligibility criteria and participate in the information session, and give informed consent</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Selection of an adequate control group</td><td>No particular consideration</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Number of subjects: statistical assessments of sample size</td><td>No particular consideration</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Response variables: primary and secondary endpoints</td><td>No particular consideration</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Methods to minimize or assess bias: randomization, blinding, compliance</td><td>Imperfect blinding</td><td>Maintaining blinding could be difficult due to the proximity to unblinded site personnel and potential knowledge of product-specific adverse events</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Dropout rate differences between arms</td><td>The study staff enrolled as participants may have access to accumulating information during the trial to which other participants do not typically have access (e.g., overall adverse event rates)</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Analysis: the study protocol should have a specified analysis plan that is appropriate for the objectives and design of the study</td><td>No particular consideration</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>Disruption of trial operations</td><td>During their participation in trial activities as participants, the staff are not available to perform their professional duties</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr></tbody></table>
articles retrieved. Our main sources were thus reference sources pertaining to the protection of human subjects such as the Declaration of Helsinki and the Belmont Report [12, 13], International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects [14], and the Institutional Review Board Guidebook of the Office for Human Research Protections (USA), especially Chapter 6 which concerns special classes of subjects [15].

The ethical and methodological features and challenges associated with enrolling study personnel in a prophylactic Ebola vaccine trial are summarized in Table 1.

Respect for persons is a fundamental principle of medical research involving human subjects. As defined in the Belmont Report [13], respect for persons incorporates that individuals should be treated as autonomous agents and requires that subjects, to the degree that they are capable, be given the opportunity to choose what

<table><caption>**Table 1** Ethical and methodological considerations according to the type of study personnel to be potentially included in a prophylactic Ebola vaccine clinical trial conducted in West Africa outside of the context of an active epidemic</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Principles</th><th rowspan="2">Considerations</th><th rowspan="2">Explanation</th><th colspan="2">Affected study personnel</th></tr><tr><th>Clinical study site staff</th><th>Community mobilizers</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Ethical principles</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Respect for persons: no research without informed consent of those involved, respect of autonomy, the requirement to protect those with diminished autonomy</td><td>Direct or indirect undue influence regarding participation in the trial</td><td>As with other participants in a clinical trial, the participation of study staff must always be voluntary</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Beneficence: do not harm and maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms</td><td>No particular consideration: the risks and benefits of the research are the same for all the participants</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Justice: respect for the principle of equality of human beings, fair treatment during investigations</td><td>Breach of confidentiality regarding medical information</td><td>Every precaution must be taken to protect the privacy of research subjects and the confidentiality of their personal information</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Methodological principles</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Subject selection</td><td>Eligibility criteria</td><td>As with other participants, any study staff enrolled must meet the eligibility criteria and participate in the information session, and give informed consent</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Selection of an adequate control group</td><td>No particular consideration</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Number of subjects: statistical assessments of sample size</td><td>No particular consideration</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Response variables: primary and secondary endpoints</td><td>No particular consideration</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Methods to minimize or assess bias: randomization, blinding, compliance</td><td>Imperfect blinding</td><td>Maintaining blinding could be difficult due to the proximity to unblinded site personnel and potential knowledge of product-specific adverse events</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Dropout rate differences between arms</td><td>The study staff enrolled as participants may have access to accumulating information during the trial to which other participants do not typically have access (e.g., overall adverse event rates)</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Analysis: the study protocol should have a specified analysis plan that is appropriate for the objectives and design of the study</td><td>No particular consideration</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>Disruption of trial operations</td><td>During their participation in trial activities as participants, the staff are not available to perform their professional duties</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr></tbody></table>
shall or shall not happen to them. This opportunity is
provided when adequate standards for informed consent
are satisfied. Participation must always be voluntary, and
the volunteer has the right to refuse to participate in a
study or to withdraw consent to participate at any time.
Regarding this point, our consideration concerns the risk
of direct or indirect undue influence because staff may
feel pressured to join the clinical trial due to the
hierarchical relationship with the employer. This consi-
deration concerns clinical study site staff as well as
community mobilizers, who are both in a dependent re-
lationship with the employer.

The second ethical consideration is related to the
principle of justice (i.e., respect of the principle of equality
of human beings, fair treatment during investigations),
where there is a risk of a breach of confidentiality of
medical information. For example, confidentiality could
be difficult to ensure in the case that a colleague has to
inform a participant about a positive human immuno-
deficiency virus (HIV) test result. This concern, however,
applies only to clinical study site staff, as community
mobilizers do not work directly with other study staff.

Regarding the ethical principle of beneficence (i.e., do
not harm and maximize possible benefits and minimize
possible harms), no particular consideration was raised
for the staff, as the risks and benefits of the research are
the same for all the participants.

Regarding the methodological aspects, we identified
three different points to consider. The first one is a
logistical risk of disruption of trial operations due to the
potential absence of the personnel for their commitment
to trial activities as participants. As participants, all
included personnel must adhere to the same trial pro-
cedures and follow-up as the other participants. This
affects both clinical study site staff and community
mobilizers, as it requires their availability as participants
during working hours and conflicts with their pro-
fessional duties as trial staff.

One of the methods used to minimize bias in clinical
trials is blinding, which allows maintaining the same
follow-up procedures and measurement of endpoints in
the different randomized groups. The second methodo-
logical risk we identified concerns imperfect blinding in
the case of single- or double-blind clinical trials, due to
the potential knowledge of product-specific adverse
events and to the proximity to unblinded site personnel.
Vaccines are prepared on site in the pharmacy by
unblinded personnel, and complete blinding is often
impossible due to differences in color or viscosity
between the active vaccine and placebo, even when
using opaque syringes. Despite all precautions taken to
achieve blinding, site staff are often familiar with subtle
differences between the tested interventions that are not
apparent to the participants.

The third methodological point concerns the risk of
non-differential dropout rates, as the study staff enrolled
as participants may have access to accumulating in-
formation during the trial to which other participants do
not typically have access. For example, staff may be
aware of the overall incidence of adverse events in the
trial and are more likely to discontinue their participa-
tion in the trial on that basis. If blinding is maintained,
this can lead to non-differential dropout rates between
arms and therefore a loss of information and power. In
the case of imperfect blinding, these dropout rates can
be differential. These last two concerns do not apply to
community mobilizers, who have a more distant rela-
tionship with the study site, are not involved in on-site
procedures, and lack access to accumulating confidential
information during the trial.

Regarding selection of subjects (eligibility criteria),
which is an important aspect of a clinical trial, study
staff enrolled must meet eligibility criteria, go through
an information session, and give informed consent, just
as the other participants do.

Definition of the appropriate course of action for
implementing the PREVAC trial in Guinea

Given the ethical and methodological concerns we
have described, the study team in Guinea decided not
to enroll investigators or site staff as participants in
the trial. As community mobilizers are prominent
figures who are trusted within the community, and
given that most of the methodological and ethical
factors did not apply to them, we allowed their
enrollment in the trial under the following conditions:
First, participation had to be voluntary and not re-
lated to the terms of employment. This fundamental
principle had to always be well explained to the
potential participants before consent was obtained;
this was mandatory. Second, like all other partici-
pants, they had to meet the eligibility criteria and
attend an information session, provide consent, and
enroll in the participant tracking process. Finally, all
site staff were reminded about their professional com-
mitment to secrecy, especially pertaining to the con-
fidentiality of medical information.

In October 2018, when the inclusion of participant in
the PREVAC trial in Guinea ended, a total of 10 commu-
nity mobilizers had been included in the trial, represent-
ing 13% of all community mobilizers working at
Guinean sites.

Discussion

The enrollment of study staff threatens two of the fun-
damental ethical principles of medical research involving
human subjects: voluntary participation and privacy/con-
fidentiality. It also raises logistical and methodological
shall or shall not happen to them. This opportunity is
provided when adequate standards for informed consent
are satisfied. Participation must always be voluntary, and
the volunteer has the right to refuse to participate in a
study or to withdraw consent to participate at any time.
Regarding this point, our consideration concerns the risk
of direct or indirect undue influence because staff may
feel pressured to join the clinical trial due to the
hierarchical relationship with the employer. This consi-
deration concerns clinical study site staff as well as
community mobilizers, who are both in a dependent re-
lationship with the employer.

The second ethical consideration is related to the
principle of justice (i.e., respect of the principle of equality
of human beings, fair treatment during investigations),
where there is a risk of a breach of confidentiality of
medical information. For example, confidentiality could
be difficult to ensure in the case that a colleague has to
inform a participant about a positive human immuno-
deficiency virus (HIV) test result. This concern, however,
applies only to clinical study site staff, as community
mobilizers do not work directly with other study staff.

Regarding the ethical principle of beneficence (i.e., do
not harm and maximize possible benefits and minimize
possible harms), no particular consideration was raised
for the staff, as the risks and benefits of the research are
the same for all the participants.

Regarding the methodological aspects, we identified
three different points to consider. The first one is a
logistical risk of disruption of trial operations due to the
potential absence of the personnel for their commitment
to trial activities as participants. As participants, all
included personnel must adhere to the same trial pro-
cedures and follow-up as the other participants. This
affects both clinical study site staff and community
mobilizers, as it requires their availability as participants
during working hours and conflicts with their pro-
fessional duties as trial staff.

One of the methods used to minimize bias in clinical
trials is blinding, which allows maintaining the same
follow-up procedures and measurement of endpoints in
the different randomized groups. The second methodo-
logical risk we identified concerns imperfect blinding in
the case of single- or double-blind clinical trials, due to
the potential knowledge of product-specific adverse
events and to the proximity to unblinded site personnel.
Vaccines are prepared on site in the pharmacy by
unblinded personnel, and complete blinding is often
impossible due to differences in color or viscosity
between the active vaccine and placebo, even when
using opaque syringes. Despite all precautions taken to
achieve blinding, site staff are often familiar with subtle
differences between the tested interventions that are not
apparent to the participants.

The third methodological point concerns the risk of
non-differential dropout rates, as the study staff enrolled
as participants may have access to accumulating in-
formation during the trial to which other participants do
not typically have access. For example, staff may be
aware of the overall incidence of adverse events in the
trial and are more likely to discontinue their participa-
tion in the trial on that basis. If blinding is maintained,
this can lead to non-differential dropout rates between
arms and therefore a loss of information and power. In
the case of imperfect blinding, these dropout rates can
be differential. These last two concerns do not apply to
community mobilizers, who have a more distant rela-
tionship with the study site, are not involved in on-site
procedures, and lack access to accumulating confidential
information during the trial.

Regarding selection of subjects (eligibility criteria),
which is an important aspect of a clinical trial, study
staff enrolled must meet eligibility criteria, go through
an information session, and give informed consent, just
as the other participants do.

Definition of the appropriate course of action for
implementing the PREVAC trial in Guinea

Given the ethical and methodological concerns we
have described, the study team in Guinea decided not
to enroll investigators or site staff as participants in
the trial. As community mobilizers are prominent
figures who are trusted within the community, and
given that most of the methodological and ethical
factors did not apply to them, we allowed their
enrollment in the trial under the following conditions:
First, participation had to be voluntary and not re-
lated to the terms of employment. This fundamental
principle had to always be well explained to the
potential participants before consent was obtained;
this was mandatory. Second, like all other partici-
pants, they had to meet the eligibility criteria and
attend an information session, provide consent, and
enroll in the participant tracking process. Finally, all
site staff were reminded about their professional com-
mitment to secrecy, especially pertaining to the con-
fidentiality of medical information.

In October 2018, when the inclusion of participant in
the PREVAC trial in Guinea ended, a total of 10 commu-
nity mobilizers had been included in the trial, represent-
ing 13% of all community mobilizers working at
Guinean sites.

Discussion

The enrollment of study staff threatens two of the fun-
damental ethical principles of medical research involving
human subjects: voluntary participation and privacy/con-
fidentiality. It also raises logistical and methodological
concerns that could jeopardize trial operations and blinding and result in increased dropout rates.

Our literature review has highlighted a lack of specific references regarding the participation of study staff to a trial, in both the scientific literature and the regulatory documents. Nevertheless, our review of scientific literature was limited to the PubMed database. There is currently no regulatory prohibition banning a clinical investigator or site staff from participating in a trial. Indeed, it would be difficult to draw up a general rule with regards to this. The public health but also socio-cultural context must be considered when determining the course of action that should be taken during the implementation of a clinical trial, especially in low-income settings and in emergency situations [8]. Regulatory authorities should consider making general or specific recommendations according to the study context, particularly in the case of a community trial for which the staff may meet the eligibility criteria. In the absence of specific rules, this matter should be addressed by the sponsor, and the opinion of an ethics committee on this question could also be sought before beginning the trial. Several strategies can be deployed to strengthen the protection of employees and minimize bias in this context [16]: Measures that will be implemented to protect the rights of employee participants should be described before the implementation and be reviewed by an ethics committee; supervisors should not directly recruit subordinates for research participation, or an independent party could monitor the informed consent process.

Building trust in the communities in West Africa as well as in other regions of the world is an essential step for the successful implementation of any community trial, including vaccine trials. The community engagement strategies developed and successfully implemented in previous vaccine trials in the epidemic Ebola context supported the tremendous effort to rapidly conduct much-needed health research on prophylactic vaccine candidates. In the epidemic context, the enrollment of study staff probably contributed to mobilize the communities, but this alone may not justify the implementation of such an initiative. During an epidemic, vaccination can potentially prevent the spread of a disease with high incidence and lethality, and a major benefit of vaccinating study staff could exist, provided that candidate vaccines have a risk-benefit ratio that has been sufficiently evaluated and that the study is well designed. These considerations could also apply to other emergent infectious diseases with high incidence and lethality and without effective prevention measures or available therapeutic treatments.

## Conclusion

The enrollment of study personnel can play a key role in facilitating the enrollment of participants in a community

trial and may provide potential personal benefits, especially in an epidemic context where the risk-benefit ratio is likely to be different from the non-epidemic one. In a non-epidemic context, methodological and ethical considerations suggest the need for increased caution. We conclude that study personnel not involved in on-site procedures and who meet the eligibility criteria without risk of coercion can be considered for enrollment as participants. Our structured analysis provides a framework for the systematic examination of the specific pros and cons during the preparation and implementation of prophylactic vaccine trials.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Ministries of Health of Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Mali, who permitted the conduct of the trial. We furthermore thank Alima and all site collaborators for their contributions in the implementation of the trial.

We also acknowledge the PREVAC study team: Coulibaly Abdoulaye, Jamilia Aboulhab, Esther Akpa, Pauline Akoo, Robert Akpata, Sara Albert, Boni Ale, Stephane Anoma, Benetta C. Andrews, Saw-San Assiandi, Augustin Augier, Moses Badio, Aminata Bagayoko, Nyasha Bakare, Abby Balde, Eric Barte de Saint Fare, Kesha Barrington, Beth Baseler, Ali Bauder, Claire Bauduin, Luke Bawo, Abdoul Habib Beavogui, Michael Belson, Marion Bererd, Teedoh Beyslow, Blandine Binachon, Julie Blie, Viki Bockstal, Youba Boire, Patricia Boison, Fatorma Bolay, Aliou Boly, Anne Gael Borg, Donna Bowers, Sarah Browne, Barbara Cagnard, Kelly Cahill, Jennifer Cash, Keira Camara, Modet Camara, Cécilia Campion, Siew Pin Chai, Francois Chambelin, Geneviève Chêne, Keita Chieck, Séverine Ciancia, Papa Ndiaga Cisse, Elfrida Clide, Céline Colin, Beth-Ann Coller, Djélikan Siaka Conde, Katherine Cone, Laurie Connor, Sandrine Couffin-Cardiergues, Fatoumata Coulibaly, Mariam Coulibaly, Sandrine Dabakuyo-Yonli, Thierry Damerval, Bionca Davids, Gibrilla Fadlu Deen, Eline Dekeyster, Jean-François Delfraissy, Christelle Delmas, Rokia Dembele, Mahamadou Diakite, Alpha Diallo, Ayouba Diarra, Oualy Diawara, Samba Diop, Waly Diouf, Laurie Doepel, Eric D'Ortenzio, Seydou Doumbia, Moussa Moise Doumbia, Macaya Douoguih, Alain DuChêne, Michael Duvenhage, Risa Eckes, Avril Egan, Luisa Enria, Hélène Espérou, Cécile Etienne, Allison Eyler, Sylvain Faye, José Fernandez, Suzanne Fleck, Kokulo Franklin, Daniela Fusco, Auguste Gaddah, Marylène Gaignet, Katherine Gallagher, Maima Gray, Julia Garcia Gozalbes, Brian Greenwood, Astrid Greijer, Louis Grue, Birgit Grund, Oumar Guindo, Swati Gupta, Fadima Haidara, Benjamin Hamze, Emma Hancox, Gavin Hart, Jean-Christophe Hébert, Esther Heijnen, Patricia Henley, Lisa Hensley, Elisabeth Higgs, Trudi Hilton, Preston Holley, Marie Hoover, Natasha Howard, Melissa Hughes, Jen Imes, Skip Irvine, David Ishola, Will Jacob, Yvonne Jato, Melvin Johnson, Aboubacar Sidiki Kaba, Myriam Kante, Judith Katoudi, Sakoba Keita, Stephen Kennedy, Babajide Jide Keshinro, Hassan Kiawu, Mark Kieh, Matt Kirchoff, Brian Khon, Mamoudou Kodio, Lamine Koivogui, Tania Kombi, Dickens Kowuors, Christine Lacabaratz, Laurie Lambert, Cliff Lane, Shelley Lees, Bailah Leigh, Frederic Lemarcis, Yves Lévy, Claire Levy-Marchal, Annabelle Lefèvre, Jemilla Lewally, Maarten Leyssen, Edouard Lhomme, Ken Liu, Brett Lowe, Julia Lysander, Claire Madelaine, Ibrah Mahamadou, Daniela Manno, Johnathan Marchand, Siegfried Marynissen, Moses B.F. Massaquoi, Laure Masson, Charly Matard, John McCullough, Noemie Mercier, Pauline Michavila, Alejandra Miranda, Soumaya Mohamed, Tom Mooney, Hans Morsch, Dally Muamba, Rita Lukoo Ndamenya, Désiré Neboua, James Neaton, Micki Nelson, Kevin Newell, Vinh-kim Nguyen, Leslie Nielsen, Millimouno Niouma, Amos Oburu, Kim Offergeld, Matthew Onorato, Inmaculada Ortega-Perez, Susan Orsega, Cynthia Osborne, Victorine Owira, Sushma Patel, Nathan Peiffer-Smadja, Robert Phillips, Jerome Pierson, Peter Piot, Micheal Piziali, Stephany Pong, Calvin Proffitt, Alexandre Quach, Nadeeka Randunu, Corina Ramers-Verhoeven, Laura Richert, Cynthia Robinson, Céline Roy, Priscille Rivière, Amy Falk Russell, Philip Sahr, Diallo Mamadou Saliou, Mohamed Samai, Sibiry Samake, Ballan Sangare, Ibrahim Sanogo, Yeya Sadio Sarro, Lorraine Sautter, Mélanie Saville, Serge Sawadogo, Maxime Schvartz, Christine Schwimmer, Fatou Secka, Jacques Seraphin, Denise Shelley, Sophia Siddiqui, Jakub Simon, Shelly Simpson, Billy Muyisa Sivahera, Irvine Skip, Karen Slater, Mary Smolskis, Elizabeth Smout, Emily Snowden, Anne-Aygline Souththiphong, Samba Sow, Ydrissa Sow, Daniel Splinter, Simone Spreng, Helen Stapleton, Jeroen Stoop, Mary Sweeney, Mili Tapia, Jemee Tegli, Monique Termote, Rodolphe
concerns that could jeopardize trial operations and blinding and result in increased dropout rates.

Our literature review has highlighted a lack of specific references regarding the participation of study staff to a trial, in both the scientific literature and the regulatory documents. Nevertheless, our review of scientific literature was limited to the PubMed database. There is currently no regulatory prohibition banning a clinical investigator or site staff from participating in a trial. Indeed, it would be difficult to draw up a general rule with regards to this. The public health but also socio-cultural context must be considered when determining the course of action that should be taken during the implementation of a clinical trial, especially in low-income settings and in emergency situations [8]. Regulatory authorities should consider making general or specific recommendations according to the study context, particularly in the case of a community trial for which the staff may meet the eligibility criteria. In the absence of specific rules, this matter should be addressed by the sponsor, and the opinion of an ethics committee on this question could also be sought before beginning the trial. Several strategies can be deployed to strengthen the protection of employees and minimize bias in this context [16]: Measures that will be implemented to protect the rights of employee participants should be described before the implementation and be reviewed by an ethics committee; supervisors should not directly recruit subordinates for research participation, or an independent party could monitor the informed consent process.

Building trust in the communities in West Africa as well as in other regions of the world is an essential step for the successful implementation of any community trial, including vaccine trials. The community engagement strategies developed and successfully implemented in previous vaccine trials in the epidemic Ebola context supported the tremendous effort to rapidly conduct much-needed health research on prophylactic vaccine candidates. In the epidemic context, the enrollment of study staff probably contributed to mobilize the communities, but this alone may not justify the implementation of such an initiative. During an epidemic, vaccination can potentially prevent the spread of a disease with high incidence and lethality, and a major benefit of vaccinating study staff could exist, provided that candidate vaccines have a risk-benefit ratio that has been sufficiently evaluated and that the study is well designed. These considerations could also apply to other emergent infectious diseases with high incidence and lethality and without effective prevention measures or available therapeutic treatments.

## Conclusion

The enrollment of study personnel can play a key role in facilitating the enrollment of participants in a community

trial and may provide potential personal benefits, especially in an epidemic context where the risk-benefit ratio is likely to be different from the non-epidemic one. In a non-epidemic context, methodological and ethical considerations suggest the need for increased caution. We conclude that study personnel not involved in on-site procedures and who meet the eligibility criteria without risk of coercion can be considered for enrollment as participants. Our structured analysis provides a framework for the systematic examination of the specific pros and cons during the preparation and implementation of prophylactic vaccine trials.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Ministries of Health of Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Mali, who permitted the conduct of the trial. We furthermore thank Alima and all site collaborators for their contributions in the implementation of the trial.

We also acknowledge the PREVAC study team: Coulibaly Abdoulaye, Jamilia Aboulhab, Esther Akpa, Pauline Akoo, Robert Akpata, Sara Albert, Boni Ale, Stephane Anoma, Benetta C. Andrews, Saw-San Assiandi, Augustin Augier, Moses Badio, Aminata Bagayoko, Nyasha Bakare, Abby Balde, Eric Barte de Saint Fare, Kesha Barrington, Beth Baseler, Ali Bauder, Claire Bauduin, Luke Bawo, Abdoul Habib Beavogui, Michael Belson, Marion Bererd, Teedoh Beyslow, Blandine Binachon, Julie Blie, Viki Bockstal, Youba Boire, Patricia Boison, Fatorma Bolay, Aliou Boly, Anne Gael Borg, Donna Bowers, Sarah Browne, Barbara Cagnard, Kelly Cahill, Jennifer Cash, Keira Camara, Modet Camara, Cécilia Campion, Siew Pin Chai, Francois Chambelin, Geneviève Chêne, Keita Chieck, Séverine Ciancia, Papa Ndiaga Cisse, Elfrida Clide, Céline Colin, Beth-Ann Coller, Djélikan Siaka Conde, Katherine Cone, Laurie Connor, Sandrine Couffin-Cardiergues, Fatoumata Coulibaly, Mariam Coulibaly, Sandrine Dabakuyo-Yonli, Thierry Damerval, Bionca Davids, Gibrilla Fadlu Deen, Eline Dekeyster, Jean-François Delfraissy, Christelle Delmas, Rokia Dembele, Mahamadou Diakite, Alpha Diallo, Ayouba Diarra, Oualy Diawara, Samba Diop, Waly Diouf, Laurie Doepel, Eric D'Ortenzio, Seydou Doumbia, Moussa Moise Doumbia, Macaya Douoguih, Alain DuChêne, Michael Duvenhage, Risa Eckes, Avril Egan, Luisa Enria, Hélène Espérou, Cécile Etienne, Allison Eyler, Sylvain Faye, José Fernandez, Suzanne Fleck, Kokulo Franklin, Daniela Fusco, Auguste Gaddah, Marylène Gaignet, Katherine Gallagher, Maima Gray, Julia Garcia Gozalbes, Brian Greenwood, Astrid Greijer, Louis Grue, Birgit Grund, Oumar Guindo, Swati Gupta, Fadima Haidara, Benjamin Hamze, Emma Hancox, Gavin Hart, Jean-Christophe Hébert, Esther Heijnen, Patricia Henley, Lisa Hensley, Elisabeth Higgs, Trudi Hilton, Preston Holley, Marie Hoover, Natasha Howard, Melissa Hughes, Jen Imes, Skip Irvine, David Ishola, Will Jacob, Yvonne Jato, Melvin Johnson, Aboubacar Sidiki Kaba, Myriam Kante, Judith Katoudi, Sakoba Keita, Stephen Kennedy, Babajide Jide Keshinro, Hassan Kiawu, Mark Kieh, Matt Kirchoff, Brian Khon, Mamoudou Kodio, Lamine Koivogui, Tania Kombi, Dickens Kowuors, Christine Lacabaratz, Laurie Lambert, Cliff Lane, Shelley Lees, Bailah Leigh, Frederic Lemarcis, Yves Lévy, Claire Levy-Marchal, Annabelle Lefèvre, Jemilla Lewally, Maarten Leyssen, Edouard Lhomme, Ken Liu, Brett Lowe, Julia Lysander, Claire Madelaine, Ibrah Mahamadou, Daniela Manno, Johnathan Marchand, Siegfried Marynissen, Moses B.F. Massaquoi, Laure Masson, Charly Matard, John McCullough, Noemie Mercier, Pauline Michavila, Alejandra Miranda, Soumaya Mohamed, Tom Mooney, Hans Morsch, Dally Muamba, Rita Lukoo Ndamenya, Désiré Neboua, James Neaton, Micki Nelson, Kevin Newell, Vinh-kim Nguyen, Leslie Nielsen, Millimouno Niouma, Amos Oburu, Kim Offergeld, Matthew Onorato, Inmaculada Ortega-Perez, Susan Orsega, Cynthia Osborne, Victorine Owira, Sushma Patel, Nathan Peiffer-Smadja, Robert Phillips, Jerome Pierson, Peter Piot, Micheal Piziali, Stephany Pong, Calvin Proffitt, Alexandre Quach, Nadeeka Randunu, Corina Ramers-Verhoeven, Laura Richert, Cynthia Robinson, Céline Roy, Priscille Rivière, Amy Falk Russell, Philip Sahr, Diallo Mamadou Saliou, Mohamed Samai, Sibiry Samake, Ballan Sangare, Ibrahim Sanogo, Yeya Sadio Sarro, Lorraine Sautter, Mélanie Saville, Serge Sawadogo, Maxime Schvartz, Christine Schwimmer, Fatou Secka, Jacques Seraphin, Denise Shelley, Sophia Siddiqui, Jakub Simon, Shelly Simpson, Billy Muyisa Sivahera, Irvine Skip, Karen Slater, Mary Smolskis, Elizabeth Smout, Emily Snowden, Anne-Aygline Souththiphong, Samba Sow, Ydrissa Sow, Daniel Splinter, Simone Spreng, Helen Stapleton, Jeroen Stoop, Mary Sweeney, Mili Tapia, Jemee Tegli, Monique Termote, Rodolphe
Thiebaut, Greg Thompson, John Tierney, Abdoulaye Touré, Stacey Traina, Moussa Traore, Tijili Tyee, Onwuchekwa Uma, David Vallée, Renaud Vatrinet, Katrien Van Der Donck, Nadia Verbruggen, Corine Vincent, Susan Vogel, Cedrick Wallet, Deborah Watson-Jones, Deborah Wentworth, Cecelia Wesseh, Jimmy Whitworth, Aurelie Wiedemann, Wouter Willem, Julian Williams, Barthalomew Wilson, Jayanthi Wolf, Alie Wurie, Delphine Yamadjako, Marcel Yaradouno, Yazdan Yazdanpanah, Zara Zeggani.

The authors and study team wish to thank the participants who consented to the trial.

## Authors' contributions

EL realized the review of the literature. EL, GC, and LR analyzed the methodological and ethical considerations. All authors participated in the reflection on the subject of this article and read and approved the final manuscript.

## Funding

This research was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and by Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (Inserm) and by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). Funding was provided in part by National Cancer Institute contract HHSN261201500003I through the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the US Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US government.

## Ethics approval and consent to participate

The legal sponsor of the trial in Guinea is the French Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (Inserm).

The clinical trial protocol has been approved by the Inserm institutional review board and the Guinean national ethics committee (Comité National d'Ethique pour la Recherche en Santé) for the conduct of the PREVAC trial in Guinea.

## Competing interests

The clinical trial was conducted with the support of Janssen, Bavarian Nordic, and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (MSD), who provided the vaccines. YY declares that he has been a board member receiving consultancy fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, MSD, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and ViiV Healthcare in the past 4 years outside the subjects of the meetings (on HIV and HCV mostly); however, all these activities were stopped in November 2016.

The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

## Author details

¹Univ. Bordeaux, Inserm, Bordeaux Population Health Research Center, UMR 1219, CHU Bordeaux, CIC 1401, EUCLID/F-CRIN Clinical Trials Platform, F-33000 Bordeaux, France. ²The Alliance for International Medical Action, Alima, B.P.15530, Dakar, Sénégal. ³Département de Sociologie, University Cheikh Anta DIOP, B.P. 5005, Dakar, Sénégal. ⁴INSERM, Pôle de Recherche Clinique, 75013 Paris, France. ⁵AP-HP, Hôpital Bichat-Claude Bernard, Service de Maladies Infectieuses et Tropicales, F-75018 Paris, France. ⁶REACTing, Institut Thématique Immunologie, Inflammation, Infectiologie et Microbiologie, Inserm, Paris, France. ⁷Centre de Formation et de Recherche en Santé Rurale de Mafèrinyah, B.P. 2649, Conakry, République de Guinée.

Received: 1 October 2018 Accepted: 3 June 2019

Published online: 11 July 2019

## References

1. Ebola Situation Report - 30 March 2016 | Ebola [Internet]. http://apps.who.int/ebola/current-situation/ebola-situation-report-30-march-2016. Accessed 24 Nov 2017.

2. Osterholm M, Moore K, Ostrowsky J, Kimball-Baker K, Farrar J, Wellcome Trust-CIDRAP Ebola Vaccine Team B. The Ebola Vaccine Team B: a model for promoting the rapid development of medical countermeasures for emerging infectious disease threats. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(1):e1-9.

3. Lévy Y, Lane C, Piot P, Beavogui AH, Kieh M, Leigh B, et al. Prevention of Ebola virus disease through vaccination: where we are in 2018. Lancet. 2018;392(10149):787-90.

4. Kennedy SB, Bolay F, Kieh M, Grandits G, Badio M, Ballou R. Phase 2 placebo-controlled trial of two vaccines to prevent Ebola in Liberia. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(15):1438-47.

5. Henao-Restrepo AM, Camacho A, Longini IM, Watson CH, Edmunds WJ, Egger M, et al. 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 Ça Suffit!). Lancet. 2017;389(10068):505-18.

6. Doe-Anderson J, Baseler B, Driscoll P, Johnson M, Lysander J, McNay L, et al. Beating the odds: successful establishment of a phase II/III clinical research trial in resource-poor Liberia during the largest-ever Ebola outbreak. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2016;4:68-73.

7. Mooney T, Smout E, Leigh B, Greenwood B, Enria L, Ishola D. EBOVAC-Salone: lessons learned from implementing an Ebola vaccine trial in an Ebola-affected country. Clin Trials. 2018;15(5):436-43.

8. External Situation Report 34. Ebola virus disease, Democratic Republic of the Congo. 2019. [Internet]. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/311507/SITREP_EVD_DRC_20190326-eng.pdf?ua=1. Accessed 30 Mar 2019.

9. Enria L, Lees S, Smout E, Mooney T, Tengbeh AF, Leigh B, et al. Power, fairness and trust: understanding and engaging with vaccine trial participants and communities in the setting up the EBOVAC-Salone vaccine trial in Sierra Leone. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):1140.

10. Laverack G, Manoncourt E. Key experiences of community engagement and social mobilization in the Ebola response. Glob Health Promot. 2016;23(1):79-82.

11. Conn VS, Valentine JC, Cooper HM, Rantz MJ. Grey literature in meta-analyses. Nurs Res. 2003;52(4):256-61.

12. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-4.

13. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Bethesda: The Commission; 1978.

14. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans, fourth edition. Geneva: CIOMS; 2016.

15. Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). IRB Guidebook. [Internet]. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/education-and-outreach/archived-materials/index.html. Accessed 24 Nov 2017.

16. Resnik D. Employees as research participants: ethical and policy issues. IRB: Ethics Hum Res. 2016;38(4):11-6.

## Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

### Ready to submit your research? Choose BMC and benefit from:

* fast, convenient online submission

* thorough peer review by experienced researchers in your field

* rapid publication on acceptance

* support for research data, including large and complex data types

* gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations

* maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year

At BMC, research is always in progress.

Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
Thiebaut, Greg Thompson, John Tierney, Abdoulaye Touré, Stacey Traina, Moussa Traore, Tijili Tyee, Onwuchekwa Uma, David Vallée, Renaud Vatrinet, Katrien Van Der Donck, Nadia Verbruggen, Corine Vincent, Susan Vogel, Cedrick Wallet, Deborah Watson-Jones, Deborah Wentworth, Cecelia Wesseh, Jimmy Whitworth, Aurelie Wiedemann, Wouter Willem, Julian Williams, Barthalomew Wilson, Jayanthi Wolf, Alie Wurie, Delphine Yamadjako, Marcel Yaradouno, Yazdan Yazdanpanah, Zara Zeggani.

The authors and study team wish to thank the participants who consented to the trial.

## Authors' contributions

EL realized the review of the literature. EL, GC, and LR analyzed the methodological and ethical considerations. All authors participated in the reflection on the subject of this article and read and approved the final manuscript.

## Funding

This research was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and by Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (Inserm) and by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). Funding was provided in part by National Cancer Institute contract HHSN261201500003I through the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the US Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US government.

## Ethics approval and consent to participate

The legal sponsor of the trial in Guinea is the French Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (Inserm).

The clinical trial protocol has been approved by the Inserm institutional review board and the Guinean national ethics committee (Comité National d'Ethique pour la Recherche en Santé) for the conduct of the PREVAC trial in Guinea.

## Competing interests

The clinical trial was conducted with the support of Janssen, Bavarian Nordic, and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (MSD), who provided the vaccines. YY declares that he has been a board member receiving consultancy fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, MSD, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and ViiV Healthcare in the past 4 years outside the subjects of the meetings (on HIV and HCV mostly); however, all these activities were stopped in November 2016.

The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

## Author details

¹Univ. Bordeaux, Inserm, Bordeaux Population Health Research Center, UMR 1219, CHU Bordeaux, CIC 1401, EUCLID/F-CRIN Clinical Trials Platform, F-33000 Bordeaux, France. ²The Alliance for International Medical Action, Alima, B.P.15530, Dakar, Sénégal. ³Département de Sociologie, University Cheikh Anta DIOP, B.P. 5005, Dakar, Sénégal. ⁴INSERM, Pôle de Recherche Clinique, 75013 Paris, France. ⁵AP-HP, Hôpital Bichat-Claude Bernard, Service de Maladies Infectieuses et Tropicales, F-75018 Paris, France. ⁶REACTing, Institut Thématique Immunologie, Inflammation, Infectiologie et Microbiologie, Inserm, Paris, France. ⁷Centre de Formation et de Recherche en Santé Rurale de Mafèrinyah, B.P. 2649, Conakry, République de Guinée.

Received: 1 October 2018 Accepted: 3 June 2019

Published online: 11 July 2019

## References

1. Ebola Situation Report - 30 March 2016 | Ebola [Internet]. http://apps.who.int/ebola/current-situation/ebola-situation-report-30-march-2016. Accessed 24 Nov 2017.

2. Osterholm M, Moore K, Ostrowsky J, Kimball-Baker K, Farrar J, Wellcome Trust-CIDRAP Ebola Vaccine Team B. The Ebola Vaccine Team B: a model for promoting the rapid development of medical countermeasures for emerging infectious disease threats. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(1):e1-9.

3. Lévy Y, Lane C, Piot P, Beavogui AH, Kieh M, Leigh B, et al. Prevention of Ebola virus disease through vaccination: where we are in 2018. Lancet. 2018;392(10149):787-90.

4. Kennedy SB, Bolay F, Kieh M, Grandits G, Badio M, Ballou R. Phase 2 placebo-controlled trial of two vaccines to prevent Ebola in Liberia. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(15):1438-47.

5. Henao-Restrepo AM, Camacho A, Longini IM, Watson CH, Edmunds WJ, Egger M, et al. 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 Ça Suffit!). Lancet. 2017;389(10068):505-18.

6. Doe-Anderson J, Baseler B, Driscoll P, Johnson M, Lysander J, McNay L, et al. Beating the odds: successful establishment of a phase II/III clinical research trial in resource-poor Liberia during the largest-ever Ebola outbreak. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2016;4:68-73.

7. Mooney T, Smout E, Leigh B, Greenwood B, Enria L, Ishola D. EBOVAC-Salone: lessons learned from implementing an Ebola vaccine trial in an Ebola-affected country. Clin Trials. 2018;15(5):436-43.

8. External Situation Report 34. Ebola virus disease, Democratic Republic of the Congo. 2019. [Internet]. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/311507/SITREP_EVD_DRC_20190326-eng.pdf?ua=1. Accessed 30 Mar 2019.

9. Enria L, Lees S, Smout E, Mooney T, Tengbeh AF, Leigh B, et al. Power, fairness and trust: understanding and engaging with vaccine trial participants and communities in the setting up the EBOVAC-Salone vaccine trial in Sierra Leone. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):1140.

10. Laverack G, Manoncourt E. Key experiences of community engagement and social mobilization in the Ebola response. Glob Health Promot. 2016;23(1):79-82.

11. Conn VS, Valentine JC, Cooper HM, Rantz MJ. Grey literature in meta-analyses. Nurs Res. 2003;52(4):256-61.

12. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-4.

13. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Bethesda: The Commission; 1978.

14. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans, fourth edition. Geneva: CIOMS; 2016.

15. Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). IRB Guidebook. [Internet]. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/education-and-outreach/archived-materials/index.html. Accessed 24 Nov 2017.

16. Resnik D. Employees as research participants: ethical and policy issues. IRB: Ethics Hum Res. 2016;38(4):11-6.

## Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

### Ready to submit your research? Choose BMC and benefit from:

* fast, convenient online submission

* thorough peer review by experienced researchers in your field

* rapid publication on acceptance

* support for research data, including large and complex data types

* gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations

* maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year

At BMC, research is always in progress.

Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>