ReviewMedecine tropicale et sante internationale2026
[Post-exposure prophylaxis against Ebola virus: arguments for expanding the role of monoclonal antibodies in a context of limited access].
Review in Medecine tropicale et sante internationale, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and methods: While Ebola virus disease (EVD) remains a major threat, recent advances have led to the approval of several medical products, in particular the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine (Ervebo) and two monoclonal antibody treatments, mAb114 (Ebanga) and REGN-EB3 (Inmazeb). However, their use in post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) remains poorly documented. Our narrative review of the literature and guidelines aims to assess the potential of the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine and monoclonal antibodies mAb114 and REGN-EB3 for PEP following high-risk exposure. Results: Very few studies have been conducted specifically to determine the efficacy of vaccines or monoclonal antibodies as PEP. Data from animals and humans suggest that the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine offers only limited protection as PEP, although it may reduce the severity of EVD if it occurs. None of the 34 individuals who have received the vaccine as PEP to date have developed EVD. A retrospective case-control study suggests an efficacy of only 16% against the occurrence of EVD when the vaccine is administered during a period compatible with PEP. In contrast, the monoclonal antibodies mAb114 and REGN-EB3, due to their immediate action through passive immunisation, appear to confer higher protection against the onset of EVD after high-risk exposure, with 100% survival in animal models, although human clinical data remain scarce with only 23 cases of use reported in PEP and no occurrence of EVD. Discussion and conclusion: Access to monoclonal antibodies for community members following high-risk exposure should be ensured, while optimising risk assessment criteria. Further research, particularly on the interaction between vaccination and antibody administration, is essential to determine the most effective PEP strategies. Finally, an emergency stockpile of monoclonal antibodies and improved contact tracing are essential to strengthen the response to epidemics. Despite the limitations of current data, monoclonal antibodies should be considered a priority option for PEP after high-risk exposure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.