Safety and efficacy of the RTS,S/AS01E candidate malaria vaccine given with expanded-programme-on-immunisation vaccines: 19 month follow-up of a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The RTS,S/AS01(E) candidate malaria vaccine is being developed for immunisation of infants in Africa through the expanded programme on immunisation (EPI). 8 month follow-up data have been reported for safety and immunogenicity of RTS,S/AS01(E) when integrated into the EPI. We report extended follow-up to 19 months, including efficacy results. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial of safety and efficacy of the RTS,S/AS01(E) candidate malaria vaccine given with EPI vaccines between April 30, 2007, and Oct 7, 2009, in Ghana, Tanzania, and Gabon. Eligible children were 6-10 weeks of age at first vaccination, without serious acute or chronic illness. All children received the EPI diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (inactivated whole-cell), and hepatitis-B vaccines, Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine, and oral polio vaccine at study months 0, 1, and 2, and measles vaccine and yellow fever vaccines at study month 7. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive three doses of RTS,S/AS01(E) at 6, 10, and 14 weeks (0, 1, 2 month schedule) or at 6 weeks, 10 weeks, and 9 months (0, 2, 7 month schedule) or placebo. Randomisation was according to a predefined block list with a computer-generated randomisation code. Detection of serious adverse events and malaria was by passive case detection. Antibodies against Plasmodium falciparum circumsporozoite protein and HBsAg were monitored for 19 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00436007. FINDINGS: 511 children were enrolled. Serious adverse events occurred in 57 participants in the RTS,S/AS01(E) 0, 1, 2 month group (34%, 95% CI 27-41), 47 in the 0, 1, 7 month group (28%, 21-35), and 49 (29%, 22-36) in the control group; none were judged to be related to study vaccination. At month 19, anticircumsporozoite immune responses were significantly higher in the RTS,S/AS01(E) groups than in the control group. Vaccine efficacy for the 0, 1, 2 month schedule (2 weeks after dose three to month 19, site-adjusted according-to-protocol analysis) was 53% (95% CI 26-70; p=0·0012) against first malaria episodes and 59% (36-74; p=0·0001) against all malaria episodes. For the entire study period, (total vaccinated cohort) vaccine efficacy against all malaria episodes was higher with the 0, 1, 2 month schedule (57%, 95% CI 33-73; p=0·0002) than with the 0, 1, 7 month schedule (32% CI 16-45; p=0·0003). 1 year after dose three, vaccine efficacy against first malaria episodes was similar for both schedules (0, 1, 2 month group, 61·6% [95% CI 35·6-77·1], p<0·001; 0, 1, 7 month group, 63·8% [40·4-78·0], p<0·001, according-to-protocol cohort). INTERPRETATION: Vaccine efficacy was consistent with the target put forward by the WHO-sponsored malaria vaccine technology roadmap for a first-generation malaria vaccine. The 0, 1, 2 month vaccine schedule has been selected for phase 3 candidate vaccine assessment. FUNDING: Program for Appropriate Technology in Health Malaria Vaccine Initiative; GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.

Evaluation of the safety and immunogenicity of the RTS,S/AS01E malaria candidate vaccine when integrated in the expanded program of immunization.

BACKGROUND: The RTS,S/AS01(E) malaria candidate vaccine is being developed for immunization of African infants through the Expanded Program of Immunization (EPI). METHODS: This phase 2, randomized, open, controlled trial conducted in Ghana, Tanzania, and Gabon evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of RTS,S/AS01(E) when coadministered with EPI vaccines. Five hundred eleven infants were randomized to receive RTS,S/AS01(E) at 0, 1, and 2 months (in 3 doses with diphtheria, tetanus, and whole-cell pertussis conjugate [DTPw]; hepatitis B [HepB]; Haemophilus influenzae type b [Hib]; and oral polio vaccine [OPV]), RTS,S/AS01(E) at 0, 1, and 7 months (2 doses with DTPwHepB/Hib+OPV and 1 dose with measles and yellow fever), or EPI vaccines only. RESULTS: The occurrences of serious adverse events were balanced across groups; none were vaccine-related. One child from the control group died. Mild to moderate fever and diaper dermatitis occurred more frequently in the RTS,S/AS01(E) coadministration groups. RTS,S/AS01(E) generated high anti-circumsporozoite protein and anti-hepatitis B surface antigen antibody levels. Regarding EPI vaccine responses upon coadministration when considering both immunization schedules, despite a tendency toward lower geometric mean titers to some EPI antigens, predefined noninferiority criteria were met for all EPI antigens except for polio 3 when EPI vaccines were given with RTS,S/AS01(E) at 0, 1, and 2 months. However, when antibody levels at screening were taken into account, the rates of response to polio 3 antigens were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: RTS,S/AS01(E) integrated in the EPI showed a favorable safety and immunogenicity evaluation. Trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00436007 . GlaxoSmithKline study ID number: 106369 (Malaria-050).

Long-term safety and efficacy of the RTS,S/AS02A malaria vaccine in Mozambican children.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that the RTS,S/AS02A vaccine had an acceptable safety profile, was immunogenic, and demonstrated efficacy against Plasmodium falciparum malaria disease for 21 months. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled, phase 2b trial of RTS,S/AS02A in 2022 Mozambican children aged 1-4 years. We now report safety results for all randomized subjects and vaccine efficacy (VE) findings for children in the Manhiça area over the 45-month surveillance period. RESULTS: During the surveillance period, the VE((2.5-45)) (VE over months 2.5-45 of surveillance) against a first or only episode of clinical malaria disease was 30.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.9%-40.4%; P < .001), and the VE((2.5-45)) against all episodes was 25.6% (95% CI, 11.9%-37.1%; P < .001). When the same period was considered, the VE((2.5-45)) for subjects protected against severe malaria was 38.3% (95% CI, 3.4%-61.3%; P = .045). At study month 45, the prevalence of P. falciparum was 34% lower in the RTS,S/AS02A group than in the control group (66 [12.2%] of 541 patients vs 101 [18.5%] of 547 patients) (P = .004). CONCLUSION: These results show evidence that RTS,S/AS02A maintained protection during the 45-month surveillance period, and they highlight the feasibility of developing an effective vaccine against malaria. In combination with other malaria-control measures, such a vaccine could greatly contribute to reducing the intolerable global burden of this disease. Trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT00197041 and NCT00323622 .

Safety of the RTS,S/AS02D candidate malaria vaccine in infants living in a highly endemic area of Mozambique: a double blind randomised controlled phase I/IIb trial.

BACKGROUND: Malaria remains a leading global health problem that requires the improved use of existing interventions and the accelerated development of new control methods. We aimed to assess the safety, immunogenicity, and initial efficacy of the malaria vaccine RTS,S/AS02D in infants in Africa. METHODS: We did a phase I/IIb double-blind randomised trial of 214 infants in Mozambique. Infants were randomly assigned to receive three doses either of RTS,S/AS02D or the hepatitis B vaccine Engerix-B at ages 10 weeks, 14 weeks, and 18 weeks of age, as well as routine immunisation vaccines given at 8, 12, and 16 weeks of age. The primary endpoint was safety of the RTS,S/AS02D during the first 6 months of the study, and analysis was by intention to treat. Secondary endpoints included immunogenicity and analysis of new Plasmodium falciparum infections during a 3-month follow up after the third dose. Time to new infections in the per-protocol cohort were compared between groups using Cox regression models. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00197028. FINDINGS: There were 17 children (15.9%; 95% CI 9.5-24.2) with serious adverse events in each group. In the follow-up which ended on March 6, 2007, there were 31 serious adverse events in the RTS,S/AS02D group and 30 serious adverse events in the Engerix-B group, none of which were reported as related to vaccination. There were four deaths during this same follow-up period; all of them after the active detection of infection period had finished at study month 6 (two in RTSS/AS02D group and two in the Engerix-B group). RTS,S/AS02D induced high titres of anti-circumsporozoite antibodies. 68 first or only P falciparum infections were documented: 22 in the RTS,S/AS02D group and 46 in the control group. The adjusted vaccine efficacy was 65.9% (95% CI 42.6-79.8%, p<0.0001). INTERPRETATION: The RTS,S/AS02D malaria vaccine was safe, well tolerated, and immunogenic in young infants. These findings set the stage for expanded phase III efficacy studies to confirm vaccine efficacy against clinical malaria disease.

Evaluation of two formulations of adjuvanted RTS, S malaria vaccine in children aged 3 to 5 years living in a malaria-endemic region of Mozambique: a Phase I/IIb randomized double-blind bridging trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials of the RTS, S malaria candidate vaccine have shown that this vaccine is safe, tolerated and immunogenic. The development plan for this vaccine aims at administering it in the first year of life through the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI). The objective was to evaluate the safety and reactogenicity of RTS, S/AS02D (0.5 ml dose), a pediatric formulation of GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals' current malaria candidate vaccine RTS, S/AS02A (0.25 ml dose). A 0.5 ml dose of AS02D is composed of the same active ingredients in the same quantities as in a 0.25 ml dose of AS02A and has been developed to be easily introduced into routine EPI practices. METHODS: We performed a phase I/IIb randomized double-blind bridging study in a malaria-endemic region of Mozambique, to compare the safety and immunogenicity of both candidate vaccines with the aim of replacing RTS, S/AS02A with RTS, S/AS02D as the candidate pediatric vaccine. 200 Mozambican children aged 3 to 5 years were randomized 1:1 to receive one of the 2 vaccines according to a 0, 1, 2 month schedule. RESULTS: Both vaccines were safe and had similar reactogenicity profiles. All subjects with paired pre and post-vaccination samples showed a vaccine response with respect to anti-circumsporozoite (CS) antibodies irrespective of initial anti-CS serostatus. Geometric mean titers (GMTs) were 191 EU/ml (95% CI 150-242) in recipients of RTS, S/AS02D compared to 180 EU/ml (95% CI 146-221) in recipients of RTS, S/AS02A. For the anti-hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), all subjects were seroprotected at day 90, and the GMTs were 23,978 mIU/ml (95% CI 17,896-32,127) in RTS, S/AS02D recipients and 17,410 mIU/ml (95% CI 13,322-22,752) in RTS, S/AS02A recipients. There was a decrease in anti-CS GMTs between months 3 and 14 in both groups (191 vs 22 EU/mL in RTS, S/AS02D group and 180 vs 29 EU/mL in RTS, S/AS02A group). CONCLUSION: Our data show that the RTS, S/AS02D is safe, well tolerated, and demonstrates non-inferiority (defined as upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the anti-CS GMT ratio of RTS, S/AS02A to RTS, S/AS02D below 3.0) of the antibody responses to circumsporozoite and HBsAg induced by the RTS, S/AS02D as compared to the RTS, S/AS02A.