Case reduction and cost-effectiveness of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine alongside bed nets in Lilongwe, Malawi.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
RTS,S/AS01, the most advanced vaccine against malaria, is now undergoing pilot implementation in Malawi, Ghana, and Kenya where an estimated 360,000 children will be vaccinated each year. In this study we evaluate RTS,S/AS01 alongside bed net use and estimate cost-effectiveness.Methods
RTS,S/AS01 phase III trial and bed net prevalence data were used to determine the effect of vaccination in the urban/periurban and rural areas of Lilongwe, Malawi. Cost data were used to calculate the cost-effectiveness of various interventions over three years.Findings
Since bed nets reduce malaria incidence and homogeneous vaccine efficacy was assumed, participants without bed nets received greater relative benefit from vaccination with RTS,S/AS01 than participants with bed nets. Similarly, since malaria incidence in rural Lilongwe is higher than in urban Lilongwe, the impact and cost-effectiveness of vaccine interventions is increased in rural areas. In rural Lilongwe, we estimated that vaccinating one child without a bed net would prevent 2·59 (1·62 to 3·38) cases of malaria over three years, corresponding to a cost of $10·08 (7·71 to 16·13) per case averted. Alternatively, vaccinating one child with a bed net would prevent 1·59 (0·87 to 2·57) cases, corresponding to $16·43 (10·16 to 30·06) per case averted. Providing RTS,S/AS01 to 30,000 children in rural Lilongwe was estimated to cost $782,400 and to prevent 58,611 (35,778 to 82,932) cases of malaria over a three-year period. Joint interventions providing both vaccination and bed nets (to those without them) were estimated to prevent additional cases of malaria and to be similarly cost-effective, compared to vaccine-only interventions.Interpretation
To maximize malaria prevention, vaccination and bed net distribution programs could be integrated.Funding
Impacts of Environment, Host Genetics and Antigen Diversity on Malaria Vaccine Efficacy (1R01AI137410-01).
SUBMITTER: Bell GJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7282487 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7291743 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe protective effect of insecticide-treated bed nets against individual-level malaria transmission is well known, however community-level effects are less understood. Protective effects from community-level bed net use against malaria transmission have been observed in clinical trials, however, the relationship is less clear outside of a controlled research setting. The objective of this research was to investigate the effect of community-level bed net use against malaria transmission outside of a bed net clinical trial setting in Lilongwe, Malawi following national efforts to scale-up ownership of long-lasting, insecticide-treated bed nets.MethodsAn annual, cross-sectional, household-randomized, malaria transmission intensity survey was conducted in Lilongwe, Malawi (2011-2013). Health, demographic, and geographic-location data were collected. Participant blood samples were tested for Plasmodium falciparum presence. The percentage of people sleeping under a bed net within 400-m and 1-km radii of all participants was measured. Mixed effects logistic regression models were used to measure the relationship between malaria prevalence and surrounding bed net coverage. Each year, 800 people were enrolled (400 <5 years; 200 5-19 years; 200 ≥20 years; total n = 2400).ResultsFrom 2011 to 2013, malaria prevalence declined from 12.9 to 5.6%, while bed net use increased from 53.8 to 78.6%. For every 1% increase in community bed net coverage, malaria prevalence decreased among children under 5 years old [adjusted odds ratio: 0.98 (0.96, 1.00)]. Similar effects were observed in participants 5-19 years [unadjusted odds ratio: 0.98 (0.97, 1.00)]; the effect was attenuated after adjusting for individual-level bed net use. Community coverage was not associated with malaria prevalence among adults ≥20 years. Supplemental analyses identified more pronounced indirect protective effects from community-level bed net use against malaria transmission among children under 5 years who were sleeping under a bed net [adjusted odds ratio: 0.97 (0.94, 0.99)], compared to children who were not sleeping under a bed net [adjusted odds ratio: 0.99 (0.97, 1.01)].ConclusionsMalawi's efforts to scale up ownership of long-lasting, insecticide-treated bed nets are effective in increasing reported use. Increased community-level bed net coverage appears to provide additional protection against malaria transmission beyond individual use in a real-world context.
| S-EPMC5383956 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRTS,S/AS01 is the first malaria vaccine to be approved and recommended for widespread implementation by the World Health Organization (WHO). Trials reported lower vaccine efficacies in higher-incidence sites, potentially due to a "rebound" in malaria cases in vaccinated children. When naturally acquired protection in the control group rises and vaccine protection in the vaccinated wanes concurrently, malaria incidence can become greater in the vaccinated than in the control group, resulting in negative vaccine efficacies.MethodsUsing data from the 2009-2014 phase III trial (NCT00866619) in Lilongwe, Malawi; Kintampo, Ghana; and Lambaréné, Gabon, we evaluate this hypothesis by estimating malaria incidence in each vaccine group over time and in varying transmission settings. After estimating transmission intensities using ecological variables, we fit models with 3-way interactions between vaccination, time, and transmission intensity.ResultsOver time, incidence decreased in the control group and increased in the vaccine group. Three-dose efficacy in the lowest-transmission-intensity group (0.25 cases per person-year [CPPY]) decreased from 88.2% to 15.0% over 4.5 years, compared with 81.6% to -27.7% in the highest-transmission-intensity group (3 CPPY).ConclusionsThese findings suggest that interventions, including the fourth RTS,S dose, that protect vaccinated individuals during the potential rebound period should be implemented for high-transmission settings.
| S-EPMC10205900 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The World Health Organization has selected Malawi as one of three sites to pilot the roll-out of RTS,S/AS01 in phase 4 trials. As policy discussions for the expanded use of RTS,S/AS01 continue, it will be critical to determine the performance of the vaccine according to seasonal patterns of malaria transmission in regions of Africa. Given waning vaccine efficacy over time, this secondary analysis demonstrates that administering the vaccine to children in the months prior to malaria season could maximize impact of the vaccine. We followed children (5-17 months) and infants (6-12 weeks) assigned to one of three groups: (1) vaccine with four doses; (2) vaccine with three doses; (3) control. The primary endpoint was defined as episodes of clinical malaria. During the 4-years of follow-up, 658 of 1544 (42.6%) children and infants had at least one episode of clinical malaria. With each 1-inch increase in rainfall per month there was an associated increase in the rate of malaria by 12.6% (95% CI 9.6%, 15.6%, P < 0.0001) among children and 15.9% (95% CI 12.8%, 18.9%, P < 0.0001) among infants. There was no evidence of effect modification of vaccine efficacy by precipitation (89% power).
| S-EPMC5543056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The RTS,S/AS01 vaccine targets the circumsporozoite protein of Plasmodium falciparum and has partial protective efficacy against clinical and severe malaria disease in infants and children. We investigated whether the vaccine efficacy was specific to certain parasite genotypes at the circumsporozoite protein locus.We used polymerase chain reaction-based next-generation sequencing of DNA extracted from samples from 4985 participants to survey circumsporozoite protein polymorphisms. We evaluated the effect that polymorphic positions and haplotypic regions within the circumsporozoite protein had on vaccine efficacy against first episodes of clinical malaria within 1 year after vaccination.In the per-protocol group of 4577 RTS,S/AS01-vaccinated participants and 2335 control-vaccinated participants who were 5 to 17 months of age, the 1-year cumulative vaccine efficacy was 50.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 34.6 to 62.3) against clinical malaria in which parasites matched the vaccine in the entire circumsporozoite protein C-terminal (139 infections), as compared with 33.4% (95% CI, 29.3 to 37.2) against mismatched malaria (1951 infections) (P=0.04 for differential vaccine efficacy). The vaccine efficacy based on the hazard ratio was 62.7% (95% CI, 51.6 to 71.3) against matched infections versus 54.2% (95% CI, 49.9 to 58.1) against mismatched infections (P=0.06). In the group of infants 6 to 12 weeks of age, there was no evidence of differential allele-specific vaccine efficacy.These results suggest that among children 5 to 17 months of age, the RTS,S vaccine has greater activity against malaria parasites with the matched circumsporozoite protein allele than against mismatched malaria. The overall vaccine efficacy in this age category will depend on the proportion of matched alleles in the local parasite population; in this trial, less than 10% of parasites had matched alleles. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others.).
| S-EPMC4762279 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNew RTS,S malaria vaccines may soon be licensed, yet its cost-effectiveness is unknown. Before the widespread introduction of RTS,S vaccines, cost-effectiveness studies are needed to help inform governments in resource-poor settings about how best to prioritize between the new vaccine and existing malaria interventions.MethodsA Markov model simulated malaria progression in a hypothetical Malawian birth cohort. Parameters were based on published data. Three strategies were compared: no intervention, vaccination at one year, and long-lasting, insecticide-treated nets (LLINs) at birth. Both health service and societal perspectives were explored. Health outcomes were measured in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted and costed in 2012 US$. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted. Three times GDP per capita ($1,095) per DALY averted was used for a cost-effectiveness threshold, whilst one times GDP ($365) was considered 'very cost-effective'.ResultsFrom a societal perspective the vaccine strategy was dominant. It averted 0.11 more DALYs than LLINs and 0.372 more DALYs than the no intervention strategy per person, while costing $10.04 less than LLINs and $59.74 less than no intervention. From a health service perspective the vaccine's ICER was $145.03 per DALY averted, and thus can be considered very cost-effective. The results were robust to changes in all variables except the vaccine and LLINs' duration of efficacy. Vaccines remained cost-effective even at the lowest assumed efficacy levels of 49.6% (mild malaria) and 14.2% (severe malaria), and the highest price of $15. However, from a societal perspective, if the vaccine duration efficacy was set below 2.69 years or the LLIN duration of efficacy was greater than 4.24 years then LLINs became the more cost-effective strategy.ConclusionThe results showed that vaccinating Malawian children with RTS,S vaccines was very cost-effective from both a societal and a health service perspective. This result was robust to changes in most variables, including vaccine price and vaccine efficacy, but was sensitive to the duration of efficacy of the vaccine and LLINs. Given the best evidence currently available, vaccines can be considered as a very cost-effective component of Malawi's future malaria control programmes. However, long-term follow-up studies on both interventions are needed.
| S-EPMC4016032 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine confers only moderate protection against malaria. Evidence suggests that the effectiveness of the RTS,S/AS01 vaccine depends upon the parasite population genetics, specifically regarding the circumsporozoite protein haplotypes in the population. We investigated Plasmodium falciparum circumsporozoite protein (PfCSP) gene sequences from two endemic sites in 2018 in Senegal. The PfCSP sequences were compared with those retrieved from the Pf3k genome database. In the central repeat region of PfCSP, the distribution of haplotypes differed significantly between the two study sites (Fisher's exact test, P < 0.001). No 3D7 vaccine strain haplotype was observed in this locus. In the C-terminal region, there was no significant difference in haplotypes distribution between Kedougou and Diourbel (Fischer's exact test, P = 0.122). The 3D7 haplotype frequency was 8.4% in early samples (2001-2011), but then it contracted in the subsequent years. The extensive plasticity of the P. falciparum genes coding the RTS,S/AS01 vaccine target antigens may influence the immune responses to circulating alleles. Monitoring the genetic diversity baseline and its dynamics over time and space would be instrumental in rationally improving the malaria RTS,S/AS01 vaccine and/or its implementation schedule.
| S-EPMC8641351 | biostudies-literature
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.).
| S-EPMC4962898 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsThe 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.).
| S-EPMC10915853 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsWe 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.FindingsIn 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.InterpretationWe 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.FundingPATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Global Good Fund; Medical Research Council; UK Department for International Development; GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance; WHO.
| S-EPMC4723722 | biostudies-literature