Safety, Immunogenicity and Duration of Protection of the RTS,S/AS02D Malaria Vaccine: One Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Phase I/IIb Trial

The RTS,S/AS02(D) vaccine has been shown to have a promising safety profile, to be immunogenic and to confer protection against malaria in children and infants.We did a randomized, controlled, phase I/IIb trial of RTS,S/AS02(D) given at 10, 14 and 18 weeks of age staggered with routine immunization vaccines in 214 Mozambican infants. The study was double-blind until the young child completed 6 months of follow-up over which period vaccine efficacy against new Plasmodium falciparum infections was estimated at 65.9% (95% CI 42.6-79.8, p<0.0001). We now report safety, immunogenicity and estimated efficacy against clinical malaria up to 14 months after study start. Vaccine efficacy was assessed using Cox regression models. The frequency of serious adverse events was 32.7% in the RTS,S/AS02(D) and 31.8% in the control group. The geometric mean titers of anti-circumsporozoite antibodies declined from 199.9 to 7.3 EU/mL from one to 12 months post dose three of RTS,S/AS02(D), remaining 15-fold higher than in the control group. Vaccine efficacy against clinical malaria was 33% (95% CI: -4.3-56.9, p = 0.076) over 14 months of follow-up. The hazard rate of disease per 2-fold increase in anti-CS titters was reduced by 84% (95% CI 35.1-88.2, p = 0.003).The RTS,S/AS02(D) malaria vaccine administered to young infants has a good safety profile and remains efficacious over 14 months. A strong association between anti-CS antibodies and risk of clinical malaria has been described for the first time. The results also suggest a decrease of both anti-CS antibodies and vaccine efficacy over time.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00197028

Intermittent preventive therapy for malaria: arguments in favour of artesunate and sulphamethoxypyrazine - pyrimethamine combination

Recent publications put a serious warning regarding the inefficacy of sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) for the intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in young children (IPTi). Recommendations for other therapies are being made. By using a different and better sulphonamide (sulphamethoxypyrazine), it is possible to manufacture fixed dose combination pills with artesunate and pyrimethamine. This combination permits a full therapy over 24 hours (dosing interval being 12 hours). It is recommended that this combination should be tested in future field studies of IPTi

Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Long Term Safety, Immunogenicity and Efficacy of RTS,S/AS02(D) Malaria Vaccine in Infants Living in a Malaria-Endemic Region.

The RTS,S/AS malaria candidate vaccine is being developed with the intent to be delivered, if approved, through the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) of the World Health Organization. Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of the RTS,S/AS02(D) vaccine candidate when integrated into a standard EPI schedule for infants have been reported over a nine-month surveillance period. This paper describes results following 20 months of follow up. This Phase IIb, single-centre, randomized controlled trial enrolled 340 infants in Tanzania to receive three doses of RTS,S/AS02(D) or hepatitis B vaccine at 8, 12, and 16 weeks of age. All infants also received DTPw/Hib (diphtheria and tetanus toxoids, whole-cell pertussis vaccine, conjugated Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine) at the same timepoints. The study was double-blinded to month 9 and single-blinded from months 9 to 20. From month 0 to 20, at least one SAE was reported in 57/170 infants who received RTS,S/AS02(D) (33.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.5, 41.2) and 62/170 infants who received hepatitis B vaccine (36.5%; 95% CI: 29.2, 44.2). The SAE profile was similar in both vaccine groups; none were considered to be related to vaccination. At month 20, 18 months after completion of vaccination, 71.8% of recipients of RTS,S/AS02(D) and 3.8% of recipients of hepatitis B vaccine had seropositive titres for anti-CS antibodies; seroprotective levels of anti-HBs antibodies remained in 100% of recipients of RTS,S/AS02(D) and 97.7% recipients of hepatitis B vaccine. Anti-HBs antibody GMTs were higher in the RTS,S/AS02(D) group at all post-vaccination time points compared to control. According to protocol population, vaccine efficacy against multiple episodes of malaria disease was 50.7% (95% CI: -6.5 to 77.1, p = 0.072) and 26.7% (95% CI: -33.1 to 59.6, p = 0.307) over 12 and 18 months post vaccination, respectively. In the Intention to Treat population, over the 20-month follow up, vaccine efficacy against multiple episodes of malaria disease was 14.4% (95% CI: -41.9 to 48.4, p = 0.545). The acceptable safety profile and good tolerability of RTS,S/AS02(D) in combination with EPI vaccines previously reported from month 0 to 9 was confirmed over a 20 month surveillance period in this infant population. Antibodies against both CS and HBsAg in the RTS,S/AS02(D) group remained significantly higher compared to control for the study duration. Over 18 months follow up, RTS,S/AS02(D) prevented approximately a quarter of malaria cases in the study population. CLINICAL TRIALS: Gov identifier: NCT00289185

Intermittent Preventive Treatment to Reduce the Burden of Malaria in Children: New Evidence on Integration and Delivery

James Beeson and colleagues discuss three new studies in PLoS Medicine that provide valuable evidence on how to delivery and integrate intermittent preventive reatment for malaria in children (IPTc)

The Role of Age and Exposure to Plasmodium falciparum in the Rate of Acquisition of Naturally Acquired Immunity: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: The rate of acquisition of naturally acquired immunity (NAI) against malaria predominantly depends on transmission intensity and age, although disentangling the effects of these is difficult. We used chemoprophylaxis to selectively control exposure to P. falciparum during different periods in infancy and explore the effect of age in the build-up of NAI, measured as risk of clinical malaria.\ud \ud Methods and Findings: A three-arm double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial was conducted in 349 infants born to Mozambican HIV-negative women. The late exposure group (LEG) received monthly Sulfadoxine-Pyrimethamine (SP) plus Artesunate (AS) from 2.5–4.5 months of age and monthly placebo from 5.5–9.5 months; the early exposure group (EEG) received placebo from 2.5–4.5 months and SP+AS from 5.5–9.5 months; and the control group (CG) received placebo from 2.5–9.5 months. Active and passive case detection (PCD) were conducted from birth to 10.5 and 24 months respectively. The primary endpoint was time to first or only episode of malaria in the second year detected by PCD. The incidence of malaria during the second year was of 0.50, 0.51 and 0.35 episodes/PYAR in the LEG, EEG and CG respectively (p = 0.379 for the adjusted comparison of the 3 groups). The hazard ratio of the adjusted comparison between the LEG and the CG was 1.38 (0.83–2.28, p = 0.642) and that between the EEG and the CG was 1.35 (0.81–2.24, p = 0.743).\ud \ud Conclusions: After considerably interfering with exposure during the first year of life, there was a trend towards a higher risk of malaria in the second year in children who had received chemoprophylaxis, but there was no significant rebound. No evidence was found that the age of first exposure to malaria affects the rate of acquisition of NAI. Thus, the timing of administration of antimalarial interventions like malaria vaccines during infancy does not appear to be a critical determinant

Statistical methodology for the evaluation of vaccine efficacy in a phase III multi-centre trial of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine in African children

BACKGROUND\ud \ud There has been much debate about the appropriate statistical methodology for the evaluation of malaria field studies and the challenges in interpreting data arising from these trials.\ud \ud METHODS\ud \ud The present paper describes, for a pivotal phase III efficacy of the RTS, S/AS01 malaria vaccine, the methods of the statistical analysis and the rationale for their selection. The methods used to estimate efficacy of the primary course of vaccination, and of a booster dose, in preventing clinical episodes of uncomplicated and severe malaria, and to determine the duration of protection, are described. The interpretation of various measures of efficacy in terms of the potential public health impact of the vaccine is discussed.\ud \ud CONCLUSIONS\ud \ud The methodology selected to analyse the clinical trial must be scientifically sound, acceptable to regulatory authorities and meaningful to those responsible for malaria control and public health policy

Impact of the RTS,S Malaria Vaccine Candidate on Naturally Acquired Antibody Responses to Multiple Asexual Blood Stage Antigens

Partial protective efficacy lasting up to 43 months after vaccination with the RTS,S malaria vaccine has been reported in one cohort (C1) of a Phase IIb trial in Mozambique, but waning efficacy was observed in a smaller contemporaneous cohort (C2). We hypothesized that low dose exposure to asexual stage parasites resulting from partial pre-erythrocytic protection afforded by RTS,S may contribute to long-term vaccine efficacy to clinical disease, which was not observed in C2 due to intense active detection of infection and treatment. in C2 only (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 0.76, 95% CI 0.66–0.88; HR: 0.75, 95% CI 0.62–0.92, respectively).Vaccination with RTS,S modestly reduces anti-AMA-1 and anti-MSP-1 antibodies in very young children. However, for antigens associated with lower risk of clinical malaria, there were no vaccine group or cohort-specific effects, and age did not influence antibody levels between treatment groups for these antigens. The antigens tested do not explain the difference in protective efficacy in C1 and C2. Other less-characterized antigens or VSA may be important to protection

Malaria in rural Mozambique. Part I: Children attending the outpatient clinic

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

In Global Health Research, Is It Legitimate To Stop Clinical Trials Early on Account of Their Opportunity Costs?

This debate examines the ethics of reallocating resources invested in existing trials of older products into new trials of more scientifically advanced products

Insights into Long-Lasting Protection Induced by RTS,S/AS02A Malaria Vaccine: Further Results from a Phase IIb Trial in Mozambican Children

Background: The pre-erythrocytic malaria vaccine RTS,S/AS02A has shown to confer protection against clinical malaria for at least 21 months in a trial in Mozambican children. Efficacy varied between different endpoints, such as parasitaemia or clinical malaria; however the underlying mechanisms that determine efficacy and its duration remain unknown. We performed a new, exploratory analysis to explore differences in the duration of protection among participants to better understand the protection afforded by RTS,S. Methodology/Principal Findings: The study was a Phase IIb double-blind, randomized controlled trial in 2022 children aged 1 to 4 years. The trial was designed with two cohorts to estimate vaccine efficacy against two different endpoints: clinical malaria (cohort 1) and infection (cohort 2). Participants were randomly allocated to receive three doses of RTS,S/AS02A or control vaccines. We did a retrospective, unplanned sub-analysis of cohort 2 data using information collected for safety through the health facility-based passive case detection system. Vaccine efficacy against clinical malaria was estimated over the first six-month surveillance period (double-blind phase) and over the following 12 months (single-blind phase), and analysis was per-protocol. Adjusted vaccine efficacy against first clinical malaria episodes in cohort 2 was of 35.4% (95% CI 4.5-56.3; p = 0.029) over the double-blind phase and of 9.0% (230.6-36.6; p = 0.609) during the single-blind phase. Conclusions/Significance: Contrary to observations in cohort 1, where efficacy against clinical malaria did not wane over time, in cohort 2 the efficacy decreases with time. We hypothesize that this reduced duration of protection is a result of the early diagnosis and treatment of infections in cohort 2 participants, preventing sufficient exposure to asexual-stage antigens. On the other hand, the long-term protection against clinical disease observed in cohort 1 may be a consequence of a prolonged exposure to low-dose blood-stage asexual parasitaemia