Modeling the Impact of a Highly Potent Plasmodium falciparum Transmission-Blocking Monoclonal Antibody in Areas of Seasonal Malaria Transmission.

Transmission-blocking interventions can play an important role in combating malaria worldwide. Recently, a highly potent Plasmodium falciparum transmission-blocking monoclonal antibody (TB31F) was demonstrated to be safe and efficacious in malaria-naive volunteers. Here we predict the potential public health impact of large-scale implementation of TB31F alongside existing interventions. We developed a pharmaco-epidemiological model, tailored to 2 settings of differing transmission intensity with already established insecticide-treated nets and seasonal malaria chemoprevention interventions. Community-wide annual administration (at 80% coverage) of TB31F over a 3-year period was predicted to reduce clinical incidence by 54% (381 cases averted per 1000 people per year) in a high-transmission seasonal setting, and 74% (157 cases averted per 1000 people per year) in a low-transmission seasonal setting. Targeting school-aged children gave the largest reduction in terms of cases averted per dose. An annual administration of the transmission-blocking monoclonal antibody TB31F may be an effective intervention against malaria in seasonal malaria settings.

Modeling resource allocation strategies for insecticide-treated bed nets to achieve malaria eradication.

Large reductions in the global malaria burden have been achieved, but plateauing funding poses a challenge for progressing towards the ultimate goal of malaria eradication. Using previously published mathematical models of Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax transmission incorporating insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) as an illustrative intervention, we sought to identify the global funding allocation that maximized impact under defined objectives and across a range of global funding budgets. The optimal strategy for case reduction mirrored an allocation framework that prioritizes funding for high-transmission settings, resulting in total case reductions of 76% and 66% at intermediate budget levels, respectively. Allocation strategies that had the greatest impact on case reductions were associated with lesser near-term impacts on the global population at risk. The optimal funding distribution prioritized high ITN coverage in high-transmission settings endemic for P. falciparum only, while maintaining lower levels in low-transmission settings. However, at high budgets, 62% of funding was targeted to low-transmission settings co-endemic for P. falciparum and P. vivax. These results support current global strategies to prioritize funding to high-burden P. falciparum-endemic settings in sub-Saharan Africa to minimize clinical malaria burden and progress towards elimination, but highlight a trade-off with 'shrinking the map' through a focus on near-elimination settings and addressing the burden of P. vivax.

The public health impact and cost-effectiveness of the R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine: a mathematical modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The R21/Matrix-M vaccine has demonstrated high efficacy against Plasmodium falciparum clinical malaria in children in sub-Saharan Africa. Using trial data, we aimed to estimate the public health impact and cost-effectiveness of vaccine introduction across sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: We fitted a semi-mechanistic model of the relationship between anti-circumsporozoite protein antibody titres and vaccine efficacy to data from 3 years of follow-up in the phase 2b trial of R21/Matrix-M in Nanoro, Burkina Faso. We validated the model by comparing predicted vaccine efficacy to that observed over 12-18 months in the phase 3 trial. Integrating this framework within a mathematical transmission model, we estimated the cases, malaria deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted and cost-effectiveness over a 15-year time horizon across a range of transmission settings in sub-Saharan Africa. Cost-effectiveness was estimated incorporating the cost of vaccine introduction (dose, consumables, and delivery) relative to existing interventions at baseline. We report estimates at a median of 20% parasite prevalence in children aged 2-10 years (PfPR2-10) and ranges from 3% to 65% PfPR2-10. FINDINGS: Anti-circumsporozoite protein antibody titres were found to satisfy the criteria for a surrogate of protection for vaccine efficacy against clinical malaria. Age-based implementation of a four-dose regimen of R21/Matrix-M vaccine was estimated to avert 181 825 (range 38 815-333 491) clinical cases per 100 000 fully vaccinated children in perennial settings and 202 017 (29 868-405 702) clinical cases per 100 000 fully vaccinated children in seasonal settings. Similar estimates were obtained for seasonal or hybrid implementation. Under an assumed vaccine dose price of US$3, the incremental cost per clinical case averted was $7 (range 4-48) in perennial settings and $6 (3-63) in seasonal settings and the incremental cost per DALY averted was $34 (29-139) in perennial settings and $30 (22-172) in seasonal settings, with lower cost-effectiveness ratios in settings with higher PfPR2-10. INTERPRETATION: Introduction of the R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine could have a substantial public health benefit across sub-Saharan Africa. FUNDING: The Wellcome Trust, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the UK Medical Research Council, the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership 2 and 3, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, and the Serum Institute of India, Open Philanthropy.

Modelling the relative cost-effectiveness of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine compared to investment in vector control or chemoprophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization has recommended a 4-dose schedule of the RTS,S/AS01 (RTS,S) vaccine for children in regions of moderate to high P. falciparum transmission. Faced with limited supply and finite resources, global funders and domestic malaria control programs will need to examine the relative cost-effectiveness of RTS,S and identify target areas for vaccine implementation relative to scale-up of existing interventions. METHODS: Using an individual-based mathematical model of P. falciparum, we modelled the cost-effectiveness of RTS,S across a range of settings in sub-Saharan Africa, incorporating various rainfall patterns, insecticide-treated net (ITN) use, treatment coverage, and parasite prevalence bands. We compare age-based and seasonal RTS,S administration to increasing ITN usage, switching to next generation ITNs in settings experiencing insecticide-resistance, and introduction of seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) in areas of seasonal transmission. RESULTS: For RTS,S to be the most cost-effective intervention option considered, the maximum cost per dose was less than $9.30 USD in 90.9% of scenarios. Nearly all (89.8%) values at or above $9.30 USD per dose were in settings with 60% established bed net use and / or with established SMC, and 76.3% were in the highest PfPR2-10 band modelled (40%). Addition of RTS,S to strategies involving 60% ITN use, increased ITN usage or a switch to PBO nets, and SMC, if eligible, still led to significant marginal case reductions, with a median of 2,653 (IQR: 1,741 to 3,966) cases averted per 100,000 people annually, and 82,270 (IQR: 54,034 to 123,105) cases averted per 100,000 fully vaccinated children (receiving at least three doses). CONCLUSIONS: Use of RTS,S results in reductions in malaria cases and deaths even when layered upon existing interventions. When comparing relative cost-effectiveness, scale up of ITNs, introduction of SMC, and switching to new technology nets should be prioritized in eligible settings.

Modelling the impact of vaccine hesitancy in prolonging the need for Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions to control the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Vaccine hesitancy - a delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability - has the potential to threaten the successful roll-out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines globally. In this study, we aim to understand the likely impact of vaccine hesitancy on the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We modelled the potential impact of vaccine hesitancy on the control of the pandemic and the relaxation of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) by combining an epidemiological model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission with data on vaccine hesitancy from population surveys. Results: Our simulations suggest that the mortality over a 2-year period could be up to 7.6 times higher in countries with high vaccine hesitancy compared to an ideal vaccination uptake if NPIs are relaxed. Alternatively, high vaccine hesitancy could prolong the need for NPIs to remain in place. Conclusions: While vaccination is an individual choice, vaccine-hesitant individuals have a substantial impact on the pandemic trajectory, which may challenge current efforts to control COVID-19. In order to prevent such outcomes, addressing vaccine hesitancy with behavioural interventions is an important priority in the control of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Within-country age-based prioritisation, global allocation, and public health impact of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: A mathematical modelling analysis.

The worldwide endeavour to develop safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines has been extraordinary, and vaccination is now underway in many countries. However, the doses available in 2021 are likely to be limited. We extend a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission across different country settings to evaluate the public health impact of potential vaccines using WHO-developed target product profiles. We identify optimal vaccine allocation strategies within- and between-countries to maximise averted deaths under constraints on dose supply. We find that the health impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination depends on the cumulative population-level infection incidence when vaccination begins, the duration of natural immunity, the trajectory of the epidemic prior to vaccination, and the level of healthcare available to effectively treat those with disease. Within a country we find that for a limited supply (doses for < 20% of the population) the optimal strategy is to target the elderly. However, with a larger supply, if vaccination can occur while other interventions are maintained, the optimal strategy switches to targeting key transmitters to indirectly protect the vulnerable. As supply increases, vaccines that reduce or block infection have a greater impact than those that prevent disease alone due to the indirect protection provided to high-risk groups. Given a 2 billion global dose supply in 2021, we find that a strategy in which doses are allocated to countries proportional to population size is close to optimal in averting deaths and aligns with the ethical principles agreed in pandemic preparedness planning.