Protecting sickle cell care during Ebola outbreaks
Haematologica
Clear, trusted answers about Ebola — when it matters most
Ebola has been the subject of intensive research since 1976, dramatically accelerating after the 2014–16 epidemic. Landmark studies and authoritative resources spanning virology, treatment, vaccines, and epidemiology.
Compiled from peer-reviewed literature. Sources: PubMed, NEJM, The Lancet, Nature, CDC, WHO. Last reviewed: August 2026.
Last updated: September 17, 2026
Haematologica
Journal of travel medicine
Tropical doctor
Lancet (London, England)
Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin
Key peer-reviewed papers that shaped our understanding of Ebola.
ebola_100_days_combined.csv, giving daily cumulative cases for the 2014, 2018 and 2026 outbreaks; we read it directly for the history pageThe studies cited above span five decades, and reading them as a body of work rather than as individual papers reveals a research arc that is worth understanding. The 1977 Pattyn paper documenting first isolation from the 1976 Zaire outbreak was foundational virology — at that point, no one knew how the virus caused disease, where it came from, or whether treatment was possible. The 2020 Jacob et al. Nature Reviews Disease Primers paper represents the current state of that accumulated knowledge: a detailed mechanistic account of how Ebola suppresses the interferon response, targets endothelial cells, and causes vascular collapse. The distance between those two papers is a measure of how much was learned — and how much it cost to learn it, in outbreak deaths and healthcare worker infections.
The PALM trial (Mulangu et al., 2019) is the most clinically significant entry on this list. Its design was unusual: it ran inside the 2018–20 DRC outbreak, using a multi-arm randomized controlled design to compare four experimental treatments under active outbreak conditions. The finding that REGN-EB3 (atoltivimab/maftivimab/odesivimab) reduced 28-day mortality from roughly 49% to 33% — and that the benefit was substantially larger for patients treated early — converted a death sentence into a disease with meaningful survival odds for the first time in Ebola's recorded history. Both approved antivirals (Inmazeb and Ebanga) descend directly from this trial's results.
The vaccine studies tell a similar story with higher stakes. The 2017 Henao-Restrepo Lancet paper reporting 100% ring-vaccination efficacy for Ervebo was not conducted in a controlled laboratory — it was conducted during the 2014–16 West Africa epidemic, when the disease had already killed more than 11,000 people. Ring vaccination (vaccinating concentric rings of contacts around confirmed cases) is the same strategy that eradicated smallpox; the Guinea trial was proof it could work for Ebola. The Janssen prime-boost data cited here extends that coverage with a regimen that can be cold-chain stored differently — a practical consideration that matters enormously in remote outbreak settings.
The 2026 DRC outbreak — caused by Bundibugyo virus, an established but far less-studied ebolavirus species — creates an immediate research gap. Ervebo and the Inmazeb and Ebanga antibody treatments were developed and licensed against Zaire ebolavirus, and their efficacy against Bundibugyo virus is not established; the FDA labels for both antibodies say so in those words. WHO's SAGE concluded on August 19, 2026 that Ervebo should be used against Bundibugyo virus only inside a research protocol, and 2,007 health workers had received it under one by September 6 (WHO DON 617). The only registered Bundibugyo-specific vaccine trial is a Phase 1 study of Moderna's mRNA-1469 in 84 Canadian adults, begun July 31, 2026 (NCT07737717). This analysis reflects the state of published evidence as of September 14, 2026 and is provided for informational purposes only.
Four months into the largest Bundibugyo outbreak ever, the peer-reviewed record is thin and fast-moving. This is the complete list we could verify on PubMed as of September 14, 2026, with what each adds.
| Published | Paper | What it adds |
|---|---|---|
| June 11, 2026 | Mooring EQ, et al. Modeled Scenario Projections. CDC MMWR 75(22):285. doi | Branching-process scenarios: with 20% isolation, 65% chance of exceeding 20,000 cases in 3 months; with 70%, 1-in-20 chance of 10,000. Plausible spillover mid–late February 2026. |
| June 11, 2026 | Richard DM, et al. Assessment of Risk to the U.S. Population. CDC MMWR 75(22):290. doi | Likelihood extremely low, impact high, overall risk low, confidence moderate — the method behind CDC's standing "low." |
| June 11, 2026 | Zomahoun DL, et al. Notes from the Field: Outbreak in DRC and Uganda, May 2026. CDC MMWR 75(22):293. doi | CDC's first field description of the outbreak. |
| Aug 27, 2026 | Elvis Akem T, et al. Operational epidemiology of the early phase. PLOS Global Public Health 6(8):e0006680. doi | Earliest onset April 24; 20-day onset-to-detection interval; by May 27, 125 confirmed cases, 16 of them health workers (12.8%); Ituri 88% of cases. |
| Sept 3, 2026 | Olwit G, et al. The Re-Emergence of Bundibugyo Ebolavirus — narrative review. Infection and Drug Resistance 19:632723. doi | Summarises early estimates: R0 1.4–2.1 (central 1.71); health workers 7.2% of DRC and 20% of Uganda cases; 2007 and 2012 case counts as reported by different sources. A review, not primary data. |
| Sept 10, 2026 | Mutegeki M, et al. Clinical Characteristics of Patients — Uganda. CDC MMWR 75(35):551. doi | First clinical and laboratory series of the 2026 species: 18 treatment-unit patients, universal AST elevation, low albumin and sodium; remdesivir compassionate use; CFR 10%. |
| Sept 10, 2026 | Kabasele D, et al. Characteristics and Monitoring — DRC, August 2026. CDC MMWR 75(35):554. doi | Response indicators against targets: 10.6 contacts per case (target ≥20), 59% of deaths outside treatment units (target 0%), 49% of zones with burial teams (target 100%). Conclusion: "uncontrolled expansion." |
Compared to what? For how Ebola's measured risk compares with 14 other viruses, see the Virus Risk Perspective and this site's Ebola risk perspective.
For accessible, long-form accounts of Ebola outbreaks, research, and the science behind the disease.