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

Introduction

Ebola virus disease (EVD) was first observed during two simultaneous epidemics in 1976 in South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) [1, 2]. Since then, there were fifteen epidemics throughout the DRC, including one in the Boende area, province of Tshuapa in 2014 [3, 4]. The frequency of EVD epidemics in the DRC increased tremendously over the past five yearswith seven epidemics occurring between 2017 and 2022. Mathematical models predict at least one epidemic each year [5]. The increasing trend can partly be explained by an improved surveillance system and better diagnostic tools. Further, villagers are more likley to come into contact with the natural reservoir of Ebolavirus Zaire (EBOV), as pristine habitats in the Congo Basin are transformed into farmland and cut at an unprecedented rate to provide wood for industries [6]. Human encroachment into these new habitats results in increased bushmeat hunting and a higher level of exposure to the virus, which is most likely spilled over from bats or monkeys [7]. Furthermore, flare-ups of EVD epidemics might also result from chronically infected patients, which was noted recently in Guinea where a survivor passed the virus on to his partner via semen more than 500 days after contracting EVD [5, 8, 9].

While spillover from animals to humans is considered to be rare [10], epidemics are primarily the result of direct person-to-person transmission via body fluids or indirect transmission via contaminated materials [11]. Due to occupational exposure, healthcare providers (HCPs) are more at risk during an outbreak than others in the general community and become a potential source of transmission themselves [12]. For example, during the seventh EVD outbreak in the DRC, which occurred in Boende Health District (2014), three HCPs were identified as potential super-spreaders of community-level disease transmission [13]. Similarly, health facilities may facilitate transmission to the community as infected patients, visitors, and the general public come together there [14, 15]. For example, the EBOV epidemic in 1995 was mainly driven by nosocomial transmission at Kikwit General Hospital of DRC [16].

While epidemics are typically monitored through PCR-confirmed active cases, serosurveillance data represents the accumulative number of infections and may detect several undiagnosed cases. Indeed, EBOV infections may remain asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic after exposure to the pathogen [17]. This has been observed in recent studies where EBOV antigen seroreactivity is increasingly reported [8, 18, 19]. In unaffected areas, seroreactivity to EBOV-GP was reported in urban areas of Cameroon (1.3%), and DRC in Kinshasa (2%) and Kasaï Oriental (3.5%) [8, 18, 20, 21]. In a resident pygmy population including traditional hunters in Watsa locality (Haut-Uele province, DRC) a seroprevalence of 18.7% was reported [8]. A study including HCP and frontliners, regardless of their self-reported history of EVD, found 3.4% of EBOV antigens seroreactivity in Kabondo - Dianda (southeastern DRC and forest-savannah area) [22]. A serosurvey conducted at the end of the 2014-2016 epidemic in Sierra Leone showed a seroreactivity of 8% among apparently healthy participants volunteering for an Ebola vaccine trial, with no self-reported history of EVD [23]. Serosurveys in the DRC obtained highly variable seroprevalence estimates depending on the region and the target group. While the EBOV seroprevalence in Boende after the previous epidemic of 2014 was high (28.1%) among healthy HCP never reporting an infection [24], the seroprevalence estimate was much lower in another study conducted in the same area (7%) [22]. A serosurvey conducted on blood samples collected from clinically suspected EVD cases that were sent home after testing negative in two consecutive EBOV RT-PCR during the tenth EBOV outbreak in DRC Ituri, Nord Kivu and Sud Kivu provinces, 2018-2020), reported an EBOV antigen seroreactivity of 2.3% [25] (Table 1).

However, despite many studies assessing the GP-EBOV antigen seroreactivity in different populations and different locations/countries, the interpretation of this seroprevalence data is challenging given the variation of the assays employed and diversity of cutoff algorithms used [8, 12, 18, 26-28]. Seroreactivity to a single EBOV antigen may not be sufficient to demonstrate prior exposure to EBOV, especially in asymptomatically infected persons [29, 30]. Despite the broad range of EBOV seroprevalence rates in the EBOV endemic areas, previous serological surveys may have overestimated seroprevalence rates due to cross-reactivity against other infectious diseases (i.e. low specificity) [10, 28]. The use of more specific assays to determine the seroreactivity based on at least two antigens may therefore provide a better understanding of the baseline seroprevalence before a vaccine immunogenicity assessment [31, 32].

The study presented here, combines (1) the seroresults of baseline blood samples collected among HCP and frontliners participating in the EBL2007 vaccine trial which evaluates the safety and immunogenicity of the two-dose Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo Ebola virus vaccine regimen (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04186000) with (2) the results from an ecological survey to determine information related to the current and past residence and work locations of a cohort of HCP included in the EBL2007 vaccine trial [33]. On the baseline blood samples collected, pre-existing antibodies against EBOV among the participants were assessed using both FANG ELISA and Luminex assay. While the first assay only targets IgG antibodies against the glycoprotein (GP) of EBOV, the second assay also tartgets the nucleocapsid (NP) and the viral matrix protein 40 (VP40) which increases its specificity to 99% [34]. This manuscript reports the baseline seroprevalence of Ebolavirus Zaire (EBOV) among HCP and frontliners participants in the EBL2007 trial conducted in the health district of Boende in DRC.

Materials and Methods

Results

Seroreativity to EBOV proteins using FANG ELISA and or Luminex

When considering antibody responses against EBOV antigens individually, we found that 8.4% (59/698; 95%CI 6.5 -10.6) of samples tested positive on the Luminex for GP-EBOV-m, 9.4% (66/698;95%CI 7.5 -11.8) for GP-EBOV-kis, 9.4% (87/698;95%CI10.3-12.9) for VP40-EBOV-m, and 1.3% (9/698;95%CI0.6-2.6) for NP-EBOV-m (Table 3). The seroreactivity to at least two EBOV antigens using Luminex was encountered in 1.4% (10/698;95%CI0.7-2.6) and 0.3% (2/698;95%CI0.0-1.0) of sera for VP40-EBOV-m + GP-EBOV-m and VP40-EBOV-m + NP-EBOV-m respectively. No sera tested positive for NP-EBOV-m+GP-EBOV-m.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 3:

Seroprevalence for different (combinations of) antibodies against Ebola virus antigens as measured by the Luminex or FANG ELISA in Health care providers from Boende, DRCongo.

GP-EBOV-m seroreactivity on the FANG ELISA was found in 7.1% (49/698; 95%CI6.5-10.9) of participants’ sera. Looking at participants whose GP-EBOV seroreactivity was identified in both Luminex and FANG ELISA, 0.8% (6/694; 95%CI0.1-1.5) of the tested samples were positive. We performed seroreactivity analyses using cutoffs determined in the literature and found similar results as depicted in the Supplementary material.

A weak correlation between the FANG ELISA and Luminex was shown (k=0.2) (Figure 1). In seeking which participant characteristics influenced seropositivity, we observed significant differences in the seropositivity rate between HCPs and frontliners who previously made direct contact with an Ebola patient or experienced an outbreak in their hometown. When looking at the GP-EBOV-k antigen, HCPs and frontliners who previously became into contact with Ebola were significantly less likely to be seropositive compared to HCPs and frontliners who never experienced an Ebola outbreak (estimate=-1.22, std. error = 0.52, P=0.02). When looking at the GP-EBOV-m, seropositivity status significantly decreased with age (estimate = -0.02, est.error = 0.01, P=0.04).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1

Pearson Correlation between FANG ELISA and Luminex

Seroreactivity against the glycoprotein (GP) of Ebola virus in health care providers from Boende. The X axis reports the log values of the antibody titers (IgG) as measured by Luminex in MFI/100 beads, while the Y axis represents antibody titers as measured by FANG ELISA in EU/ml. The vertical dashed line in red represents the cutoff of the changepoint analysis and the dashed horizontal line in green represents the cutoff obtained from previous studies.

Discussion

We report the baseline seroreactivity to EBOV-m antigens in apparently healthy HCPs and frontliners enrolled in the EBL2007 vaccine trial.

Based on seroreactivity in two different assay formats (FANG ELISA and Luminex), only a minority (0.8%) of HCPs and frontliners blood samples seroreacted to the GP-EBOV-m surface antigen. Similarly, a minority of participants sera tested positive to at least two antigens on the Luminex (0.3% for NP+VP40 EBOV-m and 1.4 for GP-EBOV-m+VP40-EBOV-m). None of the participants sera tested positive to GP-EBOV-m+NP-EBOV-m.

Additionally, when we investigated whether seropositivity correlated with participants’ prior exposure to EBOV-m, we did not observe a relevant positive correlation. This suggests that the majority of seropositive participants implied on the basis of the single antigen analysis are in fact false positives.

Overall, these results suggest that the baseline seroprevalence against EBOV-m in HCPs and frontliners in Boende is very low. Our seroprevalence estimates are much lower compared to previous serosurveys conducted after the EVD outbreak of 2014 in HCP of Boende Health District (22.5% and 28%) (GP-EBOV-m seroreactivity using ELISA) [12, 27]. Our estimates are also lower than the one previously reported in Boende Health District among the general population (7%) (GP-EBOV-m seroreactivity using ELISA) a year after the 2014 Ebola epidemic [22]. The seroprevalence based on one EBOV-m antigen (GP-EBOV-m) found in this study using either ELISA or Luminex is lower than other peviously reported in the Watsa Pygmy population of DRC in 2002 (18.7%) (GP-EBOV-m seroreactivity using ELISA) and the Sankuru rural population in 2007 (11%) (GP-EBOV-m seroreactivity using ELISA) [8, 21].

By employing this approach, our seroprevalence estimates became comparable to those of previous serological surveys conducted in Kikwit (2.2%) (GP-EBOV-m seroreactivity by ELISA) and Kinshasa (2%) (GP-EBOV-m seroreactivity by luciferase immunoprecipitation system + neutralization) [18, 40].

It is worth noting that LUMINEX built on an approach of simultaneously targeting multiple EBOV antigens, demonstrated a specificity (99.1%) and a sensitivity (95.7%) similar to higher than, respectively, the specificity (100%) and sensitivity (92.5%) of the commercial ELISA in a study [32]. The FANG ELISA was developed and validated to quantify Filovirus anti-EBOV-GP immunoglobulin G (IgG) binding antibodies in human and non-human primate serum sample to enable bridging of immunogenicity data between humans and animal models in vaccine trials [37].

The higher seroprevalences found in other serosurveys conducted in Boende or elsewhere in the DRC may be explained by the fact that different assays were used in the different studies, other cutoff algorithms were used, and the definition of reactivity discrimination (one or two EBOV antigens) may have decreased the specificity of these assays. This could have led to overestimation of EBOV antigen seropositivity. On the other hand, it cannot be ruled out that more people were indeed infected during the 2014 outbreak in Boende and that antibody titers waned over time or at least dropped below the detection threshold, explaining the low seroprevalence that we observed. Likewise, this low prevalence may reflect a rare incidence of asymptomatic EBOV infection among HCP and frontliner population from the Boende Health District. The previous scenario may reflect a susceptibility to future outbreaks of EBOV. Yet, negative antibody titers doe not rule out other types of immunity, such asT-cell immunity [41].

FANG ELISA or Luminex are assays that can only detect binding antibodies and are unable to differentiate them from neutralizing antibodies [37]. The latter are typically detected using neutralization assays, which are still considered the gold standard for serological testing [42, 43]. However, such testing involves infectious cells, are labour intenstive and time consuming [44]. For viruses such as EBOV, all experiments should be performed under a biosafety laboratory (BSL)-4 conditions, which are limited in availability and expensive to operate [45]. Thus, it is beneficial to use alternative neutralization assays that do not require viruses or live cells, and that can be performed in BSL-2 laboratories to assess neutralizing antibody capacity [44, 46]. These alternative assays should conclude if a person with high binding antibodies against EBOV (based on FANG ELISA or Luminex) was indeed infected with the virus (although some level of cross-reactivity can never be ruled out) [29]. The challenge of comparing different serosurveys that have assessed the EBOV seroprevalence makes the implementation of international standardization of units for EBOV antibody detection and quantification of paramount importance [47].

The poor linear relationship between the two assays used (FANG ELISA and Luminex) in this serosurvey confirms that both assays likely contain many false positive results, when using single antigens. Hence, the reported seropositivity could be an effect of other filoviruses or infectious microbes, which may cause cross-reactions [48].

A limitation of our study is the lack of positive and negative control samples to determine the positive cutoff. However, in the absence of a standard serological assay for EBOV seroreactivity, Luminex can still be employed in serosurveys due to its ability to detect seroreactivity to combinations of different EBOV antigens [32].

The strength of this survey resides in the use of high cutoffs to determine the EBOV seropositivity that aligns with recommendations in EBOV serosurveys generally applied to Congolese cohorts [18, 28, 49]. Thus, the combination of FANG ELISA and Luminex results can be considered a starting point, showing how previous serological surveys may have overestimated the seroprevalence of EBOV in a non-exempt area. Like the recent index case of the fourteenth outbreak in DRC (Mbandaka, 2022), whose symptoms began three weeks after returning from Boende with no notion of contact with an Ebola survivor [5]. The next step could be the use of a neutralization assay for assessment of neutralizing antibodies among this population of HCP and frontliners participants in the EBL2007 trial to further document whether or not this population of HCP is naive to EBOV exposure.

The low baseline seroreactivity to EBOV antigens observed in HCP and frontliner population of Boende suggests that the majority of this population never came into contact with the virus, despite the fact the many HCP and frontliners worked during previous EBV outbreak in 2014. In the event of a future epidemic, mathematical models suggested that the vaccination rate of HCP in an infected area should be at least (30%) to prevent a major epidemic [50]. Therefore it is clear that HCP in endemic regions should be primary targets for vaccination in the frame of the Ebola epidemic preparedness plan in DRC [50].

Conclusion

In contrast to previous studies that observed high seroreactivity against EBOV-m in Boende, our results show that the baseline seroprevalence of HCP and frontliners that reported no previous EBOV infections is low. This suggests that asymptomatic infections are unlikely to occur or that antibodies rapidly wane after infection (or at least drop below the cutoff of detection). Irrespective of the cause, it means that the majority of HCPs in the area are likely susceptible to EVD despite the history of outbreaks in and the area of Boende. Given the high variance between seroprevalence estimates by different studies in the same region, we highlight the need for more uniform antibody assays. Neutralizing antibody quantification methods, which are inexpensive in terms of resources, are likely to be crucial for improving EVD surveillance in this region, given the high background of concomitant parasitic disease burden that can be expected to be found in the serum of this population. Low resources affordable approaches to quantifying neutralizing antibodies are likely to be crucial in enhancing surveillance of EVD disease in this region.

Financial support

This work was supported by the EBOVAC3. This project has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No 800176 (IMI-EU). This Joint Undertaking receives support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-gramme, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). All vaccines were provided by Janssen Vaccines & Prevention B.V.