4.7 Article

The ring vaccination trial: a novel cluster randomised controlled trial design to evaluate vaccine efficacy and effectiveness during outbreaks, with special reference to Ebola

Journal

BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
Volume 351, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h3740

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Research Council of Norway through the Norwegian Institute of Public Health
  2. Canadian government through the Public Health Agency of Canada
  3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  4. International Development Research Centre
  5. Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
  6. WHO
  7. Wellcome Trust, United Kingdom
  8. Research for Health in Humanitarian Crises (R2HC) Programme [13165]
  9. UK Medical Research Council [MR/J003999/1]
  10. Medical Research Council [1263989] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A World Health Organization expert meeting on Ebola vaccines proposed urgent safety and efficacy studies in response to the outbreak in West Africa. One approach to communicable disease control is ring vaccination of individuals at high risk of infection due to their social or geographical connection to a known case. This paper describes the protocol for a novel cluster randomised controlled trial design which uses ring vaccination. In the Ebola ca suffit ring vaccination trial, rings are randomised 1:1 to (a) immediate vaccination of eligible adults with single dose vaccination or (b) vaccination delayed by 21 days. Vaccine efficacy against disease is assessed in participants over equivalent periods from the day of randomisation. Secondary objectives include vaccine effectiveness at the level of the ring, and incidence of serious adverse events. Ring vaccination trials are adaptive, can be run until disease elimination, allow interim analysis, and can go dormant during inter-epidemic periods.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available