A Comparison of the Pathogenesis of Marburg Virus Disease in Humans and Nonhuman Primates and Evaluation of the Suitability of These Animal Models for Predicting Clinical Efficacy under the 'Animal Rule'.

Marburg virus outbreaks are sporadic, infrequent, brief, and relatively small in terms of numbers of subjects affected. In addition, outbreaks most likely will occur in remote regions where clinical trials are not feasible; therefore, definitive, well-controlled human efficacy studies to test the effectiveness of a drug or biologic product are not feasible. Healthy human volunteers cannot ethically be deliberately exposed to a lethal agent such as Marburg virus in order to test the efficacy of a therapy or preventive prior to licensure. When human efficacy studies are neither ethical nor feasible, the US Food and Drug Administration may grant marketing approval of a drug or biologic product under the 'Animal Rule,' through which demonstration of the efficacy of a product can be 'based on adequate and well-controlled animal efficacy studies when the results of those studies establish that the drug is reasonably likely to produce clinical benefit in humans.' This process requires that the pathogenic determinants of the disease in the animal model are similar to those that have been identified in humans. After reviewing primarily English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles, we here summarize the clinical manifestations of Marburg virus disease and the results of studies in NHP showing the characteristics and progression of the disease. We also include a detailed comparison of the characteristics of the human disease relative to those for NHP. This review reveals that the disease characteristics of Marburg virus disease are generally similar for humans and 3 NHP species: cynomolgus macaques (Macaca fascicularis), rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta), and African green monkeys (Chlorocebus aethiops).