CLINICAL TRIALS PROFILE FOR INMAZEB
✉ Email this page to a colleague
All Clinical Trials for INMAZEB
| Trial ID | Title | Status | Sponsor | Phase | Start Date | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NCT05202288 ↗ | Pilot Study Evaluating the Impact of Delay Between Administration of Inmazeb Administration and Vaccination by Ervebo on Vaccine Immune Response on Healthy Volunteers | Not yet recruiting | Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de Guinée (ANSS) | Phase 2 | 2022-03-01 | Ebola virus disease (EVD) is emerging regularly in various African countries for various reasons: during contact with mortal remains, during an unsafe burial or following the viral dissemination around a recovered patient. However, tools to fight the spread of the disease are being made available to countries affected by MVE. A vaccine (Ervebo), developed by the Merck laboratory, demonstrated its efficacy in protecting contacts and contacts of contacts in the "Ebola That's Enough" trial and two monoclonal antibodies (Mabs) have demonstrated their efficacy in reducing mortality in patients with EVM: REGN-E3B and Mab114. The question of their use in post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), defined as the treatment of contacts at very high risk of contracting EVD, is essential. Vaccination with Ervebo alone does not appear to be a good option for PEP, particularly because antibody synthesis is delayed, and the vaccine is likely to be inactive for 10 days after administration. Monoclonal antibodies, on the other hand, seem to be a promising avenue in this indication because of their rapid action on the inhibition of virus entry into the cell. Moreover, Ervebo vaccine and monoclonal antibodies share the same viral target. It is therefore possible that the vaccine is inhibited by the monoclonal antibodies, particularly in the case of concomitant administration. However, no data on vaccine efficacy in combination are available. The question of the interaction between the monoclonal antibody and Ervebo and the delay between the administration of these two strategies remains unresolved. The hypothesis of this trial is that Ervebo vaccine efficacy is diminished with the concomitant administration of a monoclonal antibody, especially if this administration is close (short time between Mabs and vaccination). We hypothesize that with an optimal delay between Mabs and vaccination, the immunogenicity of the vaccine combined with monoclonal antibodies could be non-inferior to the vaccine alone, thus providing optimal short and long term protection. The primary objective of this study is to compare the vaccine immune response at 24 weeks induced by Ervebo administered on the same day (D0) or at S3, S6, or S12 of Inmazeb administration, in healthy volunteers, with vaccination with Ervebo alone. The trial will have 5 arms. The control arm (vaccination alone) will serve as a comparator of vaccine response in the intervention arms. The 4 intervention arms will assess the minimum time between Mab and vaccination. |
| NCT05202288 ↗ | Pilot Study Evaluating the Impact of Delay Between Administration of Inmazeb Administration and Vaccination by Ervebo on Vaccine Immune Response on Healthy Volunteers | Not yet recruiting | Alliance for International Medical Action | Phase 2 | 2022-03-01 | Ebola virus disease (EVD) is emerging regularly in various African countries for various reasons: during contact with mortal remains, during an unsafe burial or following the viral dissemination around a recovered patient. However, tools to fight the spread of the disease are being made available to countries affected by MVE. A vaccine (Ervebo), developed by the Merck laboratory, demonstrated its efficacy in protecting contacts and contacts of contacts in the "Ebola That's Enough" trial and two monoclonal antibodies (Mabs) have demonstrated their efficacy in reducing mortality in patients with EVM: REGN-E3B and Mab114. The question of their use in post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), defined as the treatment of contacts at very high risk of contracting EVD, is essential. Vaccination with Ervebo alone does not appear to be a good option for PEP, particularly because antibody synthesis is delayed, and the vaccine is likely to be inactive for 10 days after administration. Monoclonal antibodies, on the other hand, seem to be a promising avenue in this indication because of their rapid action on the inhibition of virus entry into the cell. Moreover, Ervebo vaccine and monoclonal antibodies share the same viral target. It is therefore possible that the vaccine is inhibited by the monoclonal antibodies, particularly in the case of concomitant administration. However, no data on vaccine efficacy in combination are available. The question of the interaction between the monoclonal antibody and Ervebo and the delay between the administration of these two strategies remains unresolved. The hypothesis of this trial is that Ervebo vaccine efficacy is diminished with the concomitant administration of a monoclonal antibody, especially if this administration is close (short time between Mabs and vaccination). We hypothesize that with an optimal delay between Mabs and vaccination, the immunogenicity of the vaccine combined with monoclonal antibodies could be non-inferior to the vaccine alone, thus providing optimal short and long term protection. The primary objective of this study is to compare the vaccine immune response at 24 weeks induced by Ervebo administered on the same day (D0) or at S3, S6, or S12 of Inmazeb administration, in healthy volunteers, with vaccination with Ervebo alone. The trial will have 5 arms. The control arm (vaccination alone) will serve as a comparator of vaccine response in the intervention arms. The 4 intervention arms will assess the minimum time between Mab and vaccination. |
| NCT05202288 ↗ | Pilot Study Evaluating the Impact of Delay Between Administration of Inmazeb Administration and Vaccination by Ervebo on Vaccine Immune Response on Healthy Volunteers | Not yet recruiting | Clinical and Operational Research Alliance (CORAL) | Phase 2 | 2022-03-01 | Ebola virus disease (EVD) is emerging regularly in various African countries for various reasons: during contact with mortal remains, during an unsafe burial or following the viral dissemination around a recovered patient. However, tools to fight the spread of the disease are being made available to countries affected by MVE. A vaccine (Ervebo), developed by the Merck laboratory, demonstrated its efficacy in protecting contacts and contacts of contacts in the "Ebola That's Enough" trial and two monoclonal antibodies (Mabs) have demonstrated their efficacy in reducing mortality in patients with EVM: REGN-E3B and Mab114. The question of their use in post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), defined as the treatment of contacts at very high risk of contracting EVD, is essential. Vaccination with Ervebo alone does not appear to be a good option for PEP, particularly because antibody synthesis is delayed, and the vaccine is likely to be inactive for 10 days after administration. Monoclonal antibodies, on the other hand, seem to be a promising avenue in this indication because of their rapid action on the inhibition of virus entry into the cell. Moreover, Ervebo vaccine and monoclonal antibodies share the same viral target. It is therefore possible that the vaccine is inhibited by the monoclonal antibodies, particularly in the case of concomitant administration. However, no data on vaccine efficacy in combination are available. The question of the interaction between the monoclonal antibody and Ervebo and the delay between the administration of these two strategies remains unresolved. The hypothesis of this trial is that Ervebo vaccine efficacy is diminished with the concomitant administration of a monoclonal antibody, especially if this administration is close (short time between Mabs and vaccination). We hypothesize that with an optimal delay between Mabs and vaccination, the immunogenicity of the vaccine combined with monoclonal antibodies could be non-inferior to the vaccine alone, thus providing optimal short and long term protection. The primary objective of this study is to compare the vaccine immune response at 24 weeks induced by Ervebo administered on the same day (D0) or at S3, S6, or S12 of Inmazeb administration, in healthy volunteers, with vaccination with Ervebo alone. The trial will have 5 arms. The control arm (vaccination alone) will serve as a comparator of vaccine response in the intervention arms. The 4 intervention arms will assess the minimum time between Mab and vaccination. |
| NCT05202288 ↗ | Pilot Study Evaluating the Impact of Delay Between Administration of Inmazeb Administration and Vaccination by Ervebo on Vaccine Immune Response on Healthy Volunteers | Not yet recruiting | Institut National de la Santé Et de la Recherche Médicale, France | Phase 2 | 2022-03-01 | Ebola virus disease (EVD) is emerging regularly in various African countries for various reasons: during contact with mortal remains, during an unsafe burial or following the viral dissemination around a recovered patient. However, tools to fight the spread of the disease are being made available to countries affected by MVE. A vaccine (Ervebo), developed by the Merck laboratory, demonstrated its efficacy in protecting contacts and contacts of contacts in the "Ebola That's Enough" trial and two monoclonal antibodies (Mabs) have demonstrated their efficacy in reducing mortality in patients with EVM: REGN-E3B and Mab114. The question of their use in post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), defined as the treatment of contacts at very high risk of contracting EVD, is essential. Vaccination with Ervebo alone does not appear to be a good option for PEP, particularly because antibody synthesis is delayed, and the vaccine is likely to be inactive for 10 days after administration. Monoclonal antibodies, on the other hand, seem to be a promising avenue in this indication because of their rapid action on the inhibition of virus entry into the cell. Moreover, Ervebo vaccine and monoclonal antibodies share the same viral target. It is therefore possible that the vaccine is inhibited by the monoclonal antibodies, particularly in the case of concomitant administration. However, no data on vaccine efficacy in combination are available. The question of the interaction between the monoclonal antibody and Ervebo and the delay between the administration of these two strategies remains unresolved. The hypothesis of this trial is that Ervebo vaccine efficacy is diminished with the concomitant administration of a monoclonal antibody, especially if this administration is close (short time between Mabs and vaccination). We hypothesize that with an optimal delay between Mabs and vaccination, the immunogenicity of the vaccine combined with monoclonal antibodies could be non-inferior to the vaccine alone, thus providing optimal short and long term protection. The primary objective of this study is to compare the vaccine immune response at 24 weeks induced by Ervebo administered on the same day (D0) or at S3, S6, or S12 of Inmazeb administration, in healthy volunteers, with vaccination with Ervebo alone. The trial will have 5 arms. The control arm (vaccination alone) will serve as a comparator of vaccine response in the intervention arms. The 4 intervention arms will assess the minimum time between Mab and vaccination. |
| >Trial ID | >Title | >Status | >Sponsor | >Phase | >Start Date | >Summary |
Clinical Trial Conditions for INMAZEB
Condition Name
Clinical Trial Locations for INMAZEB
Clinical Trial Progress for INMAZEB
Clinical Trial Phase
Clinical Trial Sponsors for INMAZEB
Sponsor Name
