Dataset Information

Public health impact and cost-effectiveness of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine: a systematic comparison of predictions from four mathematical models.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The phase 3 trial of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine candidate showed modest efficacy of the vaccine against Plasmodium falciparum malaria, but was not powered to assess mortality endpoints. Impact projections and cost-effectiveness estimates for longer timeframes than the trial follow-up and across a range of settings are needed to inform policy recommendations. We aimed to assess the public health impact and cost-effectiveness of routine use of the RTS,S/AS01 vaccine in African settings.

Methods

We compared four malaria transmission models and their predictions to assess vaccine cost-effectiveness and impact. We used trial data for follow-up of 32 months or longer to parameterise vaccine protection in the group aged 5-17 months. Estimates of cases, deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted were calculated over a 15 year time horizon for a range of levels of Plasmodium falciparum parasite prevalence in 2-10 year olds (PfPR2-10; range 3-65%). We considered two vaccine schedules: three doses at ages 6, 7·5, and 9 months (three-dose schedule, 90% coverage) and including a fourth dose at age 27 months (four-dose schedule, 72% coverage). We estimated cost-effectiveness in the presence of existing malaria interventions for vaccine prices of US$2-10 per dose.

Findings

In regions with a PfPR2-10 of 10-65%, RTS,S/AS01 is predicted to avert a median of 93,940 (range 20,490-126,540) clinical cases and 394 (127-708) deaths for the three-dose schedule, or 116,480 (31,450-160,410) clinical cases and 484 (189-859) deaths for the four-dose schedule, per 100,000 fully vaccinated children. A positive impact is also predicted at a PfPR2-10 of 5-10%, but there is little impact at a prevalence of lower than 3%. At $5 per dose and a PfPR2-10 of 10-65%, we estimated a median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared with current interventions of $30 (range 18-211) per clinical case averted and $80 (44-279) per DALY averted for the three-dose schedule, and of $25 (16-222) and $87 (48-244), respectively, for the four-dose schedule. Higher ICERs were estimated at low PfPR2-10 levels.

Interpretation

We predict a significant public health impact and high cost-effectiveness of the RTS,S/AS01 vaccine across a wide range of settings. Decisions about implementation will need to consider levels of malaria burden, the cost-effectiveness and coverage of other malaria interventions, health priorities, financing, and the capacity of the health system to deliver the vaccine.

Funding

PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Global Good Fund; Medical Research Council; UK Department for International Development; GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance; WHO.

SUBMITTER: Penny MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4723722 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRTS,S/AS01 is the first vaccine against malaria to undergo pilot implementation, beginning in 2019 and vaccinating 360,000 children per year in Malawi, Ghana, and Kenya. The four-dose vaccine is given as a primary three-dose series with a fourth dose given approximately 18 months later. The efficacy of RTS,S/AS01 was variable among the 11 sites participating in the 2009-2014 phase III trial (MALARIA-055, NCT00866619), possibly due to differences in transmission intensity. However, a within-site examination of environmental factors related to transmission intensity and their impact on vaccine efficacy has yet to be conducted.MethodsWe implemented the phase III RTS,S/AS01 trial at the Malawi site, which enrolled 1578 infants (6-12 weeks) and children (5-17 months) living in the Lilongwe District in Central Malawi and followed them for 3 years between 2009 and 2014. A global positioning system survey and an ecological questionnaire were conducted to collect participant household locations and characteristics, while additional data on background malaria prevalence were obtained from a concurrent Malaria Transmission Intensity (MTI) survey. Negative binomial regression models were used to assess whether the efficacy of the vaccine varied by estimated background malaria prevalence, household roof type, or amount of nearby vegetation.ResultsVaccine efficacy did not significantly vary by estimated malaria prevalence or by roof type. However, increased vegetation cover was associated with an increase in the efficacy of the three-dose primary RTS,S/AS01 series in the 18 months before the fourth dose and a decrease in the efficacy of the primary vaccine series in the second 18 months following, if the fourth dose was not given. Vegetation cover did not alter the efficacy of the fourth dose in a statistically or practically significant manner.ConclusionsVegetation coverage in this study site might be a proxy for nearness to rivers or branching, shallow wetlands called "dambos" which could serve as breeding sites for mosquitoes. We observed statistically significant modification of the efficacy of RTS,S/AS01 by forest cover, suggesting that initial vaccine efficacy and the importance of the fourth dose varies based on ecological context.Trial registrationEfficacy of GSK Biologicals' Candidate Malaria Vaccine (257049) Against Malaria Disease Caused by P. falciparum Infection in Infants and Children in Africa. NCT00866619 prospectively registered 20 March 2009.

Project description:BackgroundThe candidate malaria vaccine RTS,S/AS01 is being evaluated in order to inform a decision regarding its inclusion in routine vaccination schedules.MethodsWe conducted 7 years of follow-up in children who had been randomly assigned, at 5 to 17 months of age, to receive three doses of either the RTS,S/AS01 vaccine or a rabies (control) vaccine. The end point was clinical malaria (temperature of ≥37.5°C and infection with Plasmodium falciparum of >2500 parasites per cubic millimeter). In an analysis that was not prespecified, the malaria exposure of each child was estimated with the use of information on the prevalence of malaria among residents within a 1-km radius of the child's home. Vaccine efficacy was defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio or the incidence-rate ratio, multiplied by 100, in the RTS,S/AS01 group versus the control group.ResultsOver 7 years of follow-up, we identified 1002 episodes of clinical malaria among 223 children randomly assigned to the RTS,S/AS01 group and 992 episodes among 224 children randomly assigned to the control group. The vaccine efficacy, as assessed by negative binomial regression, was 4.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], -17.0 to 21.9; P=0.66) in the intention-to-treat analysis and 7.0% (95% CI, -14.5 to 24.6; P=0.52) in the per-protocol analysis. Vaccine efficacy waned over time (P=0.006 for the interaction between vaccination and time), including negative efficacy during the fifth year among children with higher-than-average exposure to malaria parasites (intention-to-treat analysis: -43.5%; 95% CI, -100.3 to -2.8 [P=0.03]; per-protocol analysis: -56.8%; 95% CI, -118.7 to -12.3 [P=0.008]).ConclusionsA three-dose vaccination with RTS,S/AS01 was initially protective against clinical malaria, but this result was offset by rebound in later years in areas with higher-than-average exposure to malaria parasites. (Funded by the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00872963.).

Project description:Models are useful to inform policy decisions on typhoid conjugate vaccine (TCV) deployment in endemic settings. However, methodological choices can influence model-predicted outcomes. To provide robust estimates for the potential public health impact of TCVs that account for structural model differences, we compared four dynamic and one static mathematical model of typhoid transmission and vaccine impact. All models were fitted to a common dataset of age-specific typhoid fever cases in Kolkata, India. We evaluated three TCV strategies: no vaccination, routine vaccination at 9 months of age, and routine vaccination at 9 months with a one-time catch-up campaign (ages 9 months to 15 years). The primary outcome was the predicted percent reduction in symptomatic typhoid cases over 10 years after vaccine introduction. For three models with economic analyses (Models A-C), we also compared the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), calculated as the incremental cost (US$) per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted. Routine vaccination was predicted to reduce symptomatic cases by 10-46 % over a 10-year time horizon under an optimistic scenario (95 % initial vaccine efficacy and 19-year mean duration of protection), and by 2-16 % under a pessimistic scenario (82 % initial efficacy and 6-year mean protection). Adding a catch-up campaign predicted a reduction in incidence of 36-90 % and 6-35 % in the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios, respectively. Vaccine impact was predicted to decrease as the relative contribution of chronic carriers to transmission increased. Models A-C all predicted routine vaccination with or without a catch-up campaign to be cost-effective compared to no vaccination, with ICERs varying from $95-789 per DALY averted; two models predicted the ICER of routine vaccination alone to be greater than with the addition of catch-up campaign. Despite differences in model-predicted vaccine impact and cost-effectiveness, routine vaccination plus a catch-up campaign is likely to be impactful and cost-effective in high incidence settings such as Kolkata.

Project description:BackgroundThe RTS,S/AS01 vaccine against Plasmodium falciparum malaria infection completed phase III trials in 2014 and demonstrated efficacy against clinical malaria of approximately 36% over 4 years for a 4-dose schedule in children aged 5-17 months. Pilot vaccine implementation has recently begun in 3 African countries. If the pilots demonstrate both a positive health impact and resolve remaining safety concerns, wider roll-out could be recommended from 2021 onwards. Vaccine demand may, however, outstrip initial supply. We sought to identify where vaccine introduction should be prioritised to maximise public health impact under a range of supply constraints using mathematical modelling.Methods and findingsUsing a mathematical model of P. falciparum malaria transmission and RTS,S vaccine impact, we estimated the clinical cases and deaths averted in children aged 0-5 years in sub-Saharan Africa under 2 scenarios for vaccine coverage (100% and realistic) and 2 scenarios for other interventions (current coverage and World Health Organization [WHO] Global Technical Strategy targets). We used a prioritisation algorithm to identify potential allocative efficiency gains from prioritising vaccine allocation among countries or administrative units to maximise cases or deaths averted. If malaria burden at introduction is similar to current levels-assuming realistic vaccine coverage and country-level prioritisation in areas with parasite prevalence >10%-we estimate that 4.3 million malaria cases (95% credible interval [CrI] 2.8-6.8 million) and 22,000 deaths (95% CrI 11,000-35,000) in children younger than 5 years could be averted annually at a dose constraint of 30 million. This decreases to 3.0 million cases (95% CrI 2.0-4.7 million) and 14,000 deaths (95% CrI 7,000-23,000) at a dose constraint of 20 million, and increases to 6.6 million cases (95% CrI 4.2-10.8 million) and 38,000 deaths (95% CrI 18,000-61,000) at a dose constraint of 60 million. At 100% vaccine coverage, these impact estimates increase to 5.2 million cases (95% CrI 3.5-8.2 million) and 27,000 deaths (95% CrI 14,000-43,000), 3.9 million cases (95% CrI 2.7-6.0 million) and 19,000 deaths (95% CrI 10,000-30,000), and 10.0 million cases (95% CrI 6.7-15.7 million) and 51,000 deaths (95% CrI 25,000-82,000), respectively. Under realistic vaccine coverage, if the vaccine is prioritised sub-nationally, 5.3 million cases (95% CrI 3.5-8.2 million) and 24,000 deaths (95% CrI 12,000-38,000) could be averted at a dose constraint of 30 million. Furthermore, sub-national prioritisation would allow introduction in almost double the number of countries compared to national prioritisation (21 versus 11). If vaccine introduction is prioritised in the 3 pilot countries (Ghana, Kenya, and Malawi), health impact would be reduced, but this effect becomes less substantial (change of <5%) if 50 million or more doses are available. We did not account for within-country variation in vaccine coverage, and the optimisation was based on a single outcome measure, therefore this study should be used to understand overall trends rather than guide country-specific allocation.ConclusionsThese results suggest that the impact of constraints in vaccine supply on the public health impact of the RTS,S malaria vaccine could be reduced by introducing the vaccine at the sub-national level and prioritising countries with the highest malaria incidence.