Measuring protective efficacy and quantifying the impact of drug resistance: A novel malaria chemoprevention trial design and methodology.

BACKGROUND: Recently revised WHO guidelines on malaria chemoprevention have opened the door to more tailored implementation. Countries face choices on whether to replace old drugs, target additional age groups, and adapt delivery schedules according to local drug resistance levels and malaria transmission patterns. Regular routine assessment of protective efficacy of chemoprevention is key. Here, we apply a novel modelling approach to aid the design and analysis of chemoprevention trials and generate measures of protection that can be applied across a range of transmission settings. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We developed a model of genotype-specific drug protection, which accounts for underlying risk of infection and circulating genotypes. Using a Bayesian framework, we fitted the model to multiple simulated scenarios to explore variations in study design, setting, and participant characteristics. We find that a placebo or control group with no drug protection is valuable but not always feasible. An alternative approach is a single-arm trial with an extended follow-up (>42 days), which allows measurement of the underlying infection risk after drug protection wanes, as long as transmission is relatively constant. We show that the currently recommended 28-day follow-up in a single-arm trial results in low precision of estimated 30-day chemoprevention efficacy and low power in determining genotype differences of 12 days in the duration of protection (power = 1.4%). Extending follow-up to 42 days increased precision and power (71.5%) in settings with constant transmission over this time period. However, in settings of unstable transmission, protective efficacy in a single-arm trial was overestimated by 24.3% if recruitment occurred during increasing transmission and underestimated by 15.8% when recruitment occurred during declining transmission. Protective efficacy was estimated with greater precision in high transmission settings, and power to detect differences by resistance genotype was lower in scenarios where the resistant genotype was either rare or too common. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have important implications for the current guidelines on chemoprevention efficacy studies and will be valuable for informing where these studies should be optimally placed. The results underscore the need for a comparator group in seasonal settings and provide evidence that the extension of follow-up in single-arm trials improves the accuracy of measures of protective efficacy in settings with more stable transmission. Extension of follow-up may pose logistical challenges to trial feasibility and associated costs. However, these studies may not need to be repeated multiple times, as the estimates of drug protection against different genotypes can be applied to different settings by adjusting for transmission intensity and frequency of resistance.

Seasonal use case for the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine: a mathematical modelling study.

BACKGROUND: A 2021 clinical trial of seasonal RTS,S/AS01E (RTS,S) vaccination showed that vaccination was non-inferior to seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) in preventing clinical malaria. The combination of these two interventions provided significant additional protection against clinical and severe malaria outcomes. Projections of the effect of this novel approach to RTS,S vaccination in seasonal transmission settings for extended timeframes and across a range of epidemiological settings are needed to inform policy recommendations. METHODS: We used a mathematical, individual-based model of malaria transmission that was fitted to data on the relationship between entomological inoculation rate and parasite prevalence, clinical disease, severe disease, and deaths from multiple sites across Africa. The model was validated with results from a phase 3b trial assessing the effect of SV-RTS,S in Mali and Burkina Faso. We developed three intervention efficacy models with varying degrees and durations of protection for our population-level modelling analysis to assess the potential effect of an RTS,S vaccination schedule based on age (doses were delivered to children aged 6 months, 7·5 months, and 9 months for the first three doses, and at 27 months of age for the fourth dose) or season (children aged 5-17 months at the time of first vaccination received the first three doses in the 3 months preceding the transmission season, with any subsequent doses up to five doses delivered annually) in seasonal transmission settings both in the absence and presence of SMC with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine plus amodiaquine. This is modelled as a full therapeutic course delivered every month for four or five months of the peak in transmission season. Estimates of cases and deaths averted in a population of 100 000 children aged 0-5 years were calculated over a 15-year time period for a range of levels of malaria transmission intensity (Plasmodium falciparum parasite prevalence in children aged 2-10 years between 10% and 65%) and over two west Africa seasonality archetypes. FINDINGS: Seasonally targeting RTS,S resulted in greater absolute reductions in malaria cases and deaths compared with an age-based strategy, averting an additional 14 000-47 000 cases per 100 000 children aged 5 years and younger over 15 years, dependent on seasonality and transmission intensity. We predicted that adding seasonally targeted RTS,S to SMC would reduce clinical incidence by up to an additional 42 000-67 000 cases per 100 000 children aged 5 years and younger over 15 years compared with SMC alone. Transmission season duration was a key determinant of intervention effect, with the advantage of adding RTS,S to SMC predicted to be smaller with shorter transmission seasons. INTERPRETATION: RTS,S vaccination in seasonal settings could be a valuable additional tool to existing interventions, with seasonal delivery maximising the effect relative to an age-based approach. Decisions surrounding deployment strategies of RTS,S in such settings will need to consider the local and regional variations in seasonality, current rates of other interventions, and potential achievable RTS,S coverage. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, UK Foreign Commonwealth & Development Office, The Wellcome Trust, and The Royal society.