Background malaria incidence and parasitemia during the three-dose RTS,S/AS01 vaccination series do not reduce magnitude of antibody response nor efficacy against the first case of malaria.

BACKGROUND: RTS,S/AS01 has been recommended by WHO for widespread implementation in medium to high malaria transmission settings. Previous analyses have noted lower vaccine efficacies in higher transmission settings, possibly due to the more rapid development of naturally acquired immunity in the control group. METHODS: To investigate a reduced immune response to vaccination as a potential mechanism behind lower efficacy in high transmission areas, we examine initial vaccine antibody (anti-CSP IgG) response and vaccine efficacy against the first case of malaria (to exclude the effect of naturally acquired immunity) using data from three study areas (Kintampo, Ghana; Lilongwe, Malawi; Lambaréné, Gabon) from the 2009-2014 phase III trial (NCT00866619). Our key exposures are parasitemia during the vaccination series and background malaria incidence. We calculate vaccine efficacy (one minus hazard ratio) using a cox-proportional hazards model and allowing for the time-varying effect of RTS,S/AS01. RESULTS: We find that antibody responses to the primary three-dose vaccination series were higher in Ghana than in Malawi and Gabon, but that neither antibody levels nor vaccine efficacy against the first case of malaria varied by background incidence or parasitemia during the primary vaccination series. CONCLUSIONS: We find that vaccine efficacy is unrelated to infections during vaccination. Contributing to a conflicting literature, our results suggest that vaccine efficacy is also unrelated to infections before vaccination, meaning that control-group immunity is likely a major reason for lower efficacy in high transmission settings, not reduced immune responses to RTS,S/AS01. This may be reassuring for implementation in high transmission settings, though further studies are needed.

Malaria Transmission Intensity and Parasitemia during the Three-Dose RTS,S/AS01 Vaccination Series do not Reduce Magnitude of Antibody Response nor Efficacy Against the First Case of Malaria.

Background: RTS,S/AS01 has been recommended by WHO for widespread implementation in medium to high malaria transmission settings. Previous analyses have noted lower vaccine efficacies in higher transmission settings, possibly due to the more rapid development of naturally acquired immunity in the control group. Methods: To investigate a reduced immune response to vaccination as a potential mechanism behind lower efficacy in high transmission areas, we examine initial vaccine antibody (anti-CSP IgG) response and vaccine efficacy against the first case of malaria to exclude the delayed malaria effect using data from three study areas (Kintampo, Ghana; Lilongwe, Malawi; Lambaréné, Gabon) from the 2009-2014 phase III trial (NCT00866619). Our key exposures are parasitemia during the vaccination series and malaria transmission intensity. We calculate vaccine efficacy (one minus hazard ratio) using a cox-proportional hazards model and allowing for the time-varying effect of RTS,S/AS01. Results: We find that antibody responses to the primary three-dose vaccination series were higher in Ghana than in Malawi and Gabon, but that neither antibody levels nor vaccine efficacy against the first case of malaria varied by transmission intensity or parasitemia during the primary vaccination series. Conclusions: We find that vaccine efficacy is unrelated to infections during vaccination. Contributing to a conflicting literature, our results suggest that vaccine efficacy is also unrelated to infections before vaccination, meaning that delayed malaria is likely the main reason for lower efficacy in high transmission settings, not reduced immune responses. This may be reassuring for implementation in high transmission settings, though further studies are needed.

Rebounding Malaria and the failures of eradication in Zanzibar: The World Health Organization campaign and the after effects, 1957-1985.

This article presents a case study of the WHO's malaria elimination attempt in Zanzibar and the decades after the program's conclusion in 1968. Drawing on archival, ethnographic, and interview data, we find that Zanzibar experienced a rebound malaria epidemic in the 1970s-1980s when prevalence rates surged higher than they were prior to the WHO's intervention. We show that scientists were aware of the risks of rebound before it happened and recognized the rebound epidemic as it was happening. We argue that many of the challenges facing Zanzibar in the 1960s remain dilemmas today, and many of the ethical questions about rebound malaria remain unaddressed.

Resurgent and delayed malaria.

The populations of moderate or highly malaria endemic areas gradually acquire some immunity to malaria as a result of repeated exposure to the infection. When this exposure is reduced as a result of effective malaria control measures, subjects who benefitted from the intervention may consequently be at increased risk of malaria if the intervention is withdrawn, especially if this is done abruptly, and an effective malaria vector remains. There have been many examples of this occurring in the past, a phenomenon often termed 'rebound malaria', with the incidence of malaria rebounding to the level present before the intervention was introduced. Because the main clinical burden of malaria in areas with a high level of malaria transmission is in young children, malaria control efforts have, in recent decades, focussed on this group, with substantial success being obtained with interventions such as insecticide treated mosquito nets, chemoprevention and, most recently, malaria vaccines. These are interventions whose administration may not be sustained. This has led to concerns that in these circumstances, the overall burden of malaria in children may not be reduced but just delayed, with the main period of risk being in the period shortly after the intervention is no longer given. Although dependent on the same underlying process as classical 'resurgent' malaria, it may be helpful to differentiate the two conditions, describing the later as 'delayed malaria'. In this paper, some of the evidence that delayed malaria occurs is discussed and potential measures for reducing its impact are suggested.