A phase 3 trial of RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine in African infants.

BACKGROUND: The candidate malaria vaccine RTS,S/AS01 reduced episodes of both clinical and severe malaria in children 5 to 17 months of age by approximately 50% in an ongoing phase 3 trial. We studied infants 6 to 12 weeks of age recruited for the same trial. METHODS: We administered RTS,S/AS01 or a comparator vaccine to 6537 infants who were 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination in conjunction with Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) vaccines in a three-dose monthly schedule. Vaccine efficacy against the first or only episode of clinical malaria during the 12 months after vaccination, a coprimary end point, was analyzed with the use of Cox regression. Vaccine efficacy against all malaria episodes, vaccine efficacy against severe malaria, safety, and immunogenicity were also assessed. RESULTS: The incidence of the first or only episode of clinical malaria in the intention-to-treat population during the 14 months after the first dose of vaccine was 0.31 per person-year in the RTS,S/AS01 group and 0.40 per person-year in the control group, for a vaccine efficacy of 30.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.6 to 36.1). Vaccine efficacy in the per-protocol population was 31.3% (97.5% CI, 23.6 to 38.3). Vaccine efficacy against severe malaria was 26.0% (95% CI, -7.4 to 48.6) in the intention-to-treat population and 36.6% (95% CI, 4.6 to 57.7) in the per-protocol population. Serious adverse events occurred with a similar frequency in the two study groups. One month after administration of the third dose of RTS,S/AS01, 99.7% of children were positive for anti-circumsporozoite antibodies, with a geometric mean titer of 209 EU per milliliter (95% CI, 197 to 222). CONCLUSIONS: The RTS,S/AS01 vaccine coadministered with EPI vaccines provided modest protection against both clinical and severe malaria in young infants. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals and the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative; RTS,S ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00866619.).

First results of phase 3 trial of RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine in African children.

BACKGROUND: An ongoing phase 3 study of the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of candidate malaria vaccine RTS,S/AS01 is being conducted in seven African countries. METHODS: From March 2009 through January 2011, we enrolled 15,460 children in two age categories--6 to 12 weeks of age and 5 to 17 months of age--for vaccination with either RTS,S/AS01 or a non-malaria comparator vaccine. The primary end point of the analysis was vaccine efficacy against clinical malaria during the 12 months after vaccination in the first 6000 children 5 to 17 months of age at enrollment who received all three doses of vaccine according to protocol. After 250 children had an episode of severe malaria, we evaluated vaccine efficacy against severe malaria in both age categories. RESULTS: In the 14 months after the first dose of vaccine, the incidence of first episodes of clinical malaria in the first 6000 children in the older age category was 0.32 episodes per person-year in the RTS,S/AS01 group and 0.55 episodes per person-year in the control group, for an efficacy of 50.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45.8 to 54.6) in the intention-to-treat population and 55.8% (97.5% CI, 50.6 to 60.4) in the per-protocol population. Vaccine efficacy against severe malaria was 45.1% (95% CI, 23.8 to 60.5) in the intention-to-treat population and 47.3% (95% CI, 22.4 to 64.2) in the per-protocol population. Vaccine efficacy against severe malaria in the combined age categories was 34.8% (95% CI, 16.2 to 49.2) in the per-protocol population during an average follow-up of 11 months. Serious adverse events occurred with a similar frequency in the two study groups. Among children in the older age category, the rate of generalized convulsive seizures after RTS,S/AS01 vaccination was 1.04 per 1000 doses (95% CI, 0.62 to 1.64). CONCLUSIONS: The RTS,S/AS01 vaccine provided protection against both clinical and severe malaria in African children. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals and the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative; RTS,S ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00866619 .).

Serological markers for monitoring historical changes in malaria transmission intensity in a highly endemic region of Western Kenya, 1994-2009.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring local malaria transmission intensity is essential for planning evidence-based control strategies and evaluating their impact over time. Anti-malarial antibodies provide information on cumulative exposure and have proven useful, in areas where transmission has dropped to low sustained levels, for retrospectively reconstructing the timing and magnitude of transmission reduction. It is unclear whether serological markers are also informative in high transmission settings, where interventions may reduce transmission, but to a level where considerable exposure continues. METHODS: This study was conducted through ongoing KEMRI and CDC collaboration. Asembo, in Western Kenya, is an area where intense malaria transmission was drastically reduced during a 1997-1999 community-randomized, controlled insecticide-treated net (ITN) trial. Two approaches were taken to reconstruct malaria transmission history during the period from 1994 to 2009. First, point measurements were calculated for seroprevalence, mean antibody titre, and seroconversion rate (SCR) against three Plasmodium falciparum antigens (AMA-1, MSP-119, and CSP) at five time points for comparison against traditional malaria indices (parasite prevalence and entomological inoculation rate). Second, within individual post-ITN years, age-stratified seroprevalence data were analysed retrospectively for an abrupt drop in SCR by fitting alternative reversible catalytic conversion models that allowed for change in SCR. RESULTS: Generally, point measurements of seroprevalence, antibody titres and SCR produced consistent patterns indicating that a gradual but substantial drop in malaria transmission (46-70%) occurred from 1994 to 2007, followed by a marginal increase beginning in 2008 or 2009. In particular, proportionate changes in seroprevalence and SCR point estimates (relative to 1994 baseline values) for AMA-1 and CSP, but not MSP-119, correlated closely with trends in parasite prevalence throughout the entire 15-year study period. However, retrospective analyses using datasets from 2007, 2008 and 2009 failed to detect any abrupt drop in transmission coinciding with the timing of the 1997-1999 ITN trial. CONCLUSIONS: In this highly endemic area, serological markers were useful for generating accurate point estimates of malaria transmission intensity, but not for retrospective analysis of historical changes. Further investigation, including exploration of different malaria antigens and/or alternative models of population seroconversion, may yield serological tools that are more informative in high transmission settings.

Cost of introducing and delivering RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine within the malaria vaccine implementation program.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommended widespread use of the RTS,S/AS01 (RTS,S) malaria vaccine among children residing in regions of moderate to high malaria transmission. This recommendation is informed by RTS,S evidence, including findings from the pilot rollout of the vaccine in Ghana, Kenya, and Malawi. This study estimates the incremental costs of introducing and delivering the malaria vaccine within routine immunization programs in the context of malaria vaccine pilot introduction, to help inform decision-making. METHODS: An activity-based, retrospective costing was conducted from the governments' perspective. Vaccine introduction and delivery costs supported by the donors during the pilot introduction were attributed as costs to the governments under routine implementation. Detailed resource use data were extracted from the pilot program expenditure and activity reports for 2019-2021. Primary data from representative health facilities were collected to inform recurrent operational and service delivery costs.Costs were categorized as introduction or recurrent costs. Both financial and economic costs were estimated and reported in 2020 USD. The cost of donated vaccine doses was evaluated at $2, $5 and $10 per dose and included in the economic cost estimates. Financial costs include the procurement add on costs for the donated vaccines and immunization supplies, along with other direct expenses. FINDINGS: At a vaccine price of $5 per dose, the incremental cost per dose administered across countries ranges from $2.30 to $3.01 (financial), and $8.28 to $10.29 (economic). The non-vaccine cost of delivery ranges between $1.04 and $2.46 (financial) and $1.52 and $4.62 (economic), by country. Considering only recurrent costs, the non-vaccine cost of delivery per dose ranges between $0.29 and $0.89 (financial) and $0.59 and $2.29 (economic), by country. Introduction costs constitute between 33% and 71% of total financial costs. Commodity and procurement add-on costs are the main cost drivers of total cost across countries. Incremental resource needs for implementation are dependent on country's baseline immunization program capacity constraints. INTERPRETATION: The financial costs of introducing RTS,S are comparable with costs of introducing other new vaccines. Country resource requirements for malaria vaccine introduction are most influenced by vaccine price and potential donor funding for vaccine purchases and introduction support.

Exploring Shigella vaccine priorities and preferences: Results from a mixed-methods study in low- and middle-income settings.

Background: Shigella is the leading bacterial cause of diarrheal mortality in children and can cause long-term effects on growth and development. No licensed Shigella vaccines currently exist but several promising candidates are in development and could be available in the next five years. Despite Shigella being a well-known public health target of the World Health Organization for decades, given current burden estimates and competing preventable disease priorities in low-income settings, whether the availability of an effective Shigella vaccine will lead to its prioritization and widespread introduction among countries at highest risk is unknown. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study of national stakeholders and healthcare providers in five countries in Asia and Africa and regional stakeholders in the Pan American Health Organization to identify preferences and priorities for forthcoming Shigella vaccines. Results: In our study of 89 individuals, diarrhea was the most frequently mentioned serious health concern for children under five years. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) was more often considered very concerning than diarrhea or stunting. Shigella awareness was high but not considered a serious health concern by most stakeholders. Most participants were willing to consider adding a new vaccine to the routine immunization schedule but expressed reservations about a Shigella vaccine because of lower perceived burden relative to other preventable diseases and an already crowded schedule; interest was highest among national stakeholders in countries receiving more financial support for immunization. The priority of a Shigella vaccine rose when participants considered vaccine impacts on reducing stunting and AMR. Participants strongly preferred oral and combination vaccines compared to injectable and a single-antigen presentations, citing greater perceived community acceptability. Conclusions: This study provides a critical opportunity to hear directly from country and regional stakeholders about health priorities and preferences around new vaccines. These findings should inform ongoing Shigella vaccine development efforts and eventual vaccine introduction and implementation planning.

Healthcare provider perspectives on delivering next generation rotavirus vaccines in five low-to-middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Live oral rotavirus vaccines (LORVs) have significantly reduced rotavirus hospitalizations and deaths worldwide. However, LORVs are less effective in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Next-generation rotavirus vaccines (NGRVs) may be more effective but require administration by injection or a neonatal oral dose, adding operational complexity. Healthcare providers (HPs) were interviewed to assess rotavirus vaccine preferences and identify delivery issues as part of an NGRV value proposition. OBJECTIVE: Determine HP vaccine preferences about delivering LORVs compared to injectable (iNGRV) and neonatal oral (oNGRV) NGRVs. METHODS: 64 HPs from Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Peru, and Senegal were interviewed following a mixed-method guide centered on three vaccine comparisons: LORV vs. iNGRV; LORV vs. oNGRV; oNGRV vs. iNGRV. HPs reviewed attributes for each vaccine in the comparisons, then indicated and explained their preference. Additional questions elicited views about co-administering iNGRV+LORV for greater public health impact, a possible iNGRV-DTP-containing combination vaccine, and delivering neonatal doses. RESULTS: Almost all HPs preferred oral vaccine options over iNGRV, with many emphasizing an aversion to additional injections. Despite this strong preference, HPs described challenges delivering oral doses. Preferences for LORV vs. oNGRV were split, marked by disparate views on rotavirus disease epidemiology and the safety, need, and feasibility of delivering neonatal vaccines. Although overwhelmingly enthusiastic about an iNGRV-DTP-containing combination option, several HPs had concerns. HP views were divided on the feasibility of co-administering iNGRV+LORV, citing challenges around logistics and caregiver sensitization. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide valuable insights on delivering NGRVs in routine immunization. Despite opposition to injectables, openness to co-administering LORV+iNGRV to improve efficacy suggests future HP support of iNGRV if adequately informed of its advantages. Rationales for LORV vs. oNGRV underscore needs for training on rotavirus epidemiology and stronger service integration. Expressed challenges delivering existing LORVs merit further examination and indicate need for improved delivery.

National stakeholder preferences for next-generation rotavirus vaccines: Results from a six-country study.

BACKGROUND: Currently available live, oral rotavirus vaccines (LORVs) have significantly reduced severe rotavirus hospitalizations and deaths worldwide. However, LORVs are not as effective in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) where rotavirus disease burden is highest. Next-generation rotavirus vaccine (NGRV) candidates in development may have a greater public health impact where they are needed most. The feasibility and acceptability of possible new rotavirus vaccines were explored as part of a larger public health value proposition for injectable NGRVs in LMICs. OBJECTIVE: To assess national stakeholder preferences for currently available LORVs and hypothetical NGRVs and understand rationales and drivers for stated preferences. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 71 national stakeholders who influence vaccine policy and national programming. Stakeholders from Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Peru, Senegal, and Sri Lanka were interviewed using a mixed-method guide. Vaccine preferences were elicited on seven vaccine comparisons involving LORVs and hypothetical NGRVs based on information presented comparing the vaccines' attributes. Reasons for vaccine preference were elicited in open-ended questions, and the qualitative data were analyzed on key preference drivers. RESULTS: Nearly half of the national stakeholders interviewed preferred a highly effective standalone, injectable NGRV over current LORVs. When presented as having similar efficacy to the LORV, however, very few stakeholders preferred the injectable NGRV, even at substantially lower cost. Similarly, a highly effective standalone injectable NGRV was generally not favored over an equally effective oral NGRV following a neonatal-infant schedule, despite higher cost of the neonatal option. An NGRV-DTP-containing combination vaccine was strongly preferred over all other options, whether delivered alone with efficacy similar to current LORVs or co-administered alongside an LORV (LORV + NGRV-DTP) to increase efficacy. CONCLUSION: Results from these national stakeholder interviews provide valuable insights to inform ongoing and future NGRV research and development.

Costs of continuing RTS,S/ASO1E malaria vaccination in the three malaria vaccine pilot implementation countries.

BACKGROUND: The RTS,S/ASO1E malaria vaccine is being piloted in three countries-Ghana, Kenya, and Malawi-as part of a coordinated evaluation led by the World Health Organization, with support from global partners. This study estimates the costs of continuing malaria vaccination upon completion of the pilot evaluation to inform decision-making and planning around potential further use of the vaccine in pilot areas. METHODS: We used an activity-based costing approach to estimate the incremental costs of continuing to deliver four doses of RTS,S/ASO1E through the existing Expanded Program on Immunization platform, from each government's perspective. The RTS,S/ASO1E pilot introduction plans were reviewed and adapted to identify activities for costing. Key informant interviews with representatives from Ministries of Health (MOH) were conducted to inform the activities, resource requirements, and assumptions that, in turn, inform the analysis. Both financial and economic costs per dose, cost of delivery per dose, and cost per fully vaccinated child (FVC) are estimated and reported in 2017 USD units. RESULTS: At a vaccine price of $5 per dose and assuming the vaccine is donor-funded, our estimated incremental financial costs range from $1.70 (Kenya) to $2.44 (Malawi) per dose, $0.23 (Malawi) to $0.71 (Kenya) per dose delivered (excluding procurement add-on costs), and $11.50 (Ghana) to $13.69 (Malawi) per FVC. Estimates of economic costs per dose are between three and five times higher than financial costs. Variations in activities used for costing, procurement add-on costs, unit costs of per diems, and allowances contributed to differences in cost estimates across countries. CONCLUSION: Cost estimates in this analysis are meant to inform country decision-makers as they face the question of whether to continue malaria vaccination, should the intervention receive a positive recommendation for broader use. Additionally, important cost drivers for vaccine delivery are highlighted, some of which might be influenced by global and country-specific financing and existing procurement mechanisms. This analysis also adds to the evidence available on vaccine delivery costs for products delivered outside the standard immunization schedule.

Correction: Costs of continuing RTS,S/ASO1E malaria vaccination in the three malaria vaccine pilot implementation countries.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244995.].

Host-mediated selection impacts the diversity of Plasmodium falciparum antigens within infections.

Host immunity exerts strong selective pressure on pathogens. Population-level genetic analysis can identify signatures of this selection, but these signatures reflect the net selective effect of all hosts and vectors in a population. In contrast, analysis of pathogen diversity within hosts provides information on individual, host-specific selection pressures. Here, we combine these complementary approaches in an analysis of the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum using haplotype sequences from thousands of natural infections in sub-Saharan Africa. We find that parasite genotypes show preferential clustering within multi-strain infections in young children, and identify individual amino acid positions that may contribute to strain-specific immunity. Our results demonstrate that natural host defenses to P. falciparum act in an allele-specific manner to block specific parasite haplotypes from establishing blood-stage infections. This selection partially explains the extreme amino acid diversity of many parasite antigens and suggests that vaccines targeting such proteins should account for allele-specific immunity.

Safety and immunogenicity of RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine in infants and children with WHO stage 1 or 2 HIV disease: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Malaria remains a major global public health concern, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. The RTS,S/AS01 malaria candidate vaccine was reviewed by the European Medicines Agency and received a positive scientific opinion; WHO subsequently recommended pilot implementation in sub-Saharan African countries. Because malaria and HIV overlap geographically, HIV-infected children should be considered for RTS,S/AS01 vaccination. We therefore aimed to assess the safety of RTS,S/AS01 in HIV-infected children at two sites in western Kenya. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial at the clinical trial sites of the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)-Walter Reed Army Institute of research in Kisumu and the KEMRI/US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Siaya. Eligible participants were infants and children aged from 6 weeks to 17 months with WHO stage 1 or 2 HIV disease (documented positive by DNA PCR), whether or not they were receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART). We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to receive three doses of either RTS,S/AS01 or rabies vaccine (both 0·5 mL per dose by intramuscular injection), given once per month at 0, 1, and 2 months. We did the treatment allocation using a web-based central randomisation system stratified by age (6 weeks-4 months, 5-17 months), and by baseline CD4% (<10, 10-14, 15-19, and ≥20). Data were obtained in an observer-blind manner, and the vaccine recipient, their parent or carer, the funder, and investigators responsible for the assessment of endpoints were all masked to treatment allocation (only staff responsible for the preparation and administration of the vaccines were aware of the assignment and these individuals played no other role in the study). We provided ART, even if the participants were not receiving ART before the study, and daily co-trimoxazole for prevention of opportunistic infections. The primary outcome was the occurrence of serious adverse events until 14 months after dose 1 of the vaccine, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01148459. FINDINGS: Between July 30, 2010, and May 24, 2013, we enrolled 200 children to our study and randomly assigned 99 to receive RTS,S/AS01 and 101 to receive rabies vaccine. 177 (89%) of the 200 children enrolled completed 14 months of follow-up. Serious adverse events were noted in 41 (41·4%, 95% CI 31·6-51·8) of 99 RTS,S/AS01 recipients and 37 (36·6%, 27·3-46·8) of 101 rabies-vaccine recipients (relative risk 1·1, 95% CI 0·8-1·6). 20 (20·2%, 95% CI 12·8-29·5) of 99 RTS,S/AS01 recipients and 12 (11·9%, 6·3-19·8) of 101 rabies-vaccine recipients had at least one serious adverse event within 30 days after vaccination, mainly pneumonia, febrile convulsions, and salmonella sepsis. Five (5·1%, 95% CI 1·7-11·4) of 99 RTS,S/AS01 recipients and four (4·0%, 1·1-9·8) of 101 rabies-vaccine recipients died, but no deaths were deemed related to vaccination. Mortality was associated with five cases of pneumonia (1% RTS,S/AS01 recipients vs 3% rabies-vaccine recipients), five cases of gastroenteritis (3% RTS,S/AS01 recipients vs 2% rabies-vaccine recipients), five cases of malnutrition (2% RTS,S/AS01 recipients vs 3% rabies-vaccine recipients), one case of sepsis (1% rabies-vaccine recipients), one case of Haemophilus influenza meningitis (1% rabies-vaccine recipients), and one case of tuberculosis (1% RTS,S/AS01 recipients). INTERPRETATION: RTS, S/AS01 was well tolerated when given to children with WHO clinical stage 1 or 2 HIV disease along with high antiretroviral and co-trimoxazole use. Children with HIV disease could be included in future RTS,S/AS01 vaccination programmes. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative.