Search

Background: The R21/Matrix-M vaccine has demonstrated high efficacy against Plasmodium falciparum clinical malaria in children in sub-Saharan Africa. Using trial data, we aimed to estimate the public health impact and cost-effectiveness of vaccine introduction across sub-Saharan Africa., Methods: We fitted a semi-mechanistic model of the relationship between anti-circumsporozoite protein antibody titres and vaccine efficacy to data from 3 years of follow-up in the phase 2b trial of R21/Matrix-M in Nanoro, Burkina Faso. We validated the model by comparing predicted vaccine efficacy to that observed over 12-18 months in the phase 3 trial. Integrating this framework within a mathematical transmission model, we estimated the cases, malaria deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted and cost-effectiveness over a 15-year time horizon across a range of transmission settings in sub-Saharan Africa. Cost-effectiveness was estimated incorporating the cost of vaccine introduction (dose, consumables, and delivery) relative to existing interventions at baseline. We report estimates at a median of 20% parasite prevalence in children aged 2-10 years (PfPR 2-10 ) and ranges from 3% to 65% PfPR 2-10 ., Findings: Anti-circumsporozoite protein antibody titres were found to satisfy the criteria for a surrogate of protection for vaccine efficacy against clinical malaria. Age-based implementation of a four-dose regimen of R21/Matrix-M vaccine was estimated to avert 181 825 (range 38 815-333 491) clinical cases per 100 000 fully vaccinated children in perennial settings and 202 017 (29 868-405 702) clinical cases per 100 000 fully vaccinated children in seasonal settings. Similar estimates were obtained for seasonal or hybrid implementation. Under an assumed vaccine dose price of US$3, the incremental cost per clinical case averted was $7 (range 4-48) in perennial settings and $6 (3-63) in seasonal settings and the incremental cost per DALY averted was $34 (29-139) in perennial settings and $30 (22-172) in seasonal settings, with lower cost-effectiveness ratios in settings with higher PfPR 2-10 ., Interpretation: Introduction of the R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine could have a substantial public health benefit across sub-Saharan Africa., Funding: The Wellcome Trust, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the UK Medical Research Council, the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership 2 and 3, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, and the Serum Institute of India, Open Philanthropy., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AVSH and KJE are named as co-inventors on patent applications related to R21 and are entitled to a royalty share on any future income in conformity with the University of Oxford's policy. KJE was an employee of the University of Oxford at the time of the work and is now an employee of GSK. KJE holds restricted shares in the GSK group of companies. The University of Oxford has received funding from the Serum Institute of India to support funding of several African trials including the ongoing phase 3 trial of R21/Matrix-M. AVSH is chief investigator of these trials. PW has received funding from Gavi and the Wellcome Trust in the past 36 months. ACG has received funding from Gavi and NIH and consulting fees from the Global Fund in the past 36 months and is a trustee at Malaria No More UK. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The World Health Organization has recommended a 4-dose schedule of the RTS,S/AS01 (RTS,S) vaccine for children in regions of moderate to high P. falciparum transmission. Faced with limited supply and finite resources, global funders and domestic malaria control programs will need to examine the relative cost-effectiveness of RTS,S and identify target areas for vaccine implementation relative to scale-up of existing interventions., Methods: Using an individual-based mathematical model of P. falciparum, we modelled the cost-effectiveness of RTS,S across a range of settings in sub-Saharan Africa, incorporating various rainfall patterns, insecticide-treated net (ITN) use, treatment coverage, and parasite prevalence bands. We compare age-based and seasonal RTS,S administration to increasing ITN usage, switching to next generation ITNs in settings experiencing insecticide-resistance, and introduction of seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) in areas of seasonal transmission., Results: For RTS,S to be the most cost-effective intervention option considered, the maximum cost per dose was less than $9.30 USD in 90.9% of scenarios. Nearly all (89.8%) values at or above $9.30 USD per dose were in settings with 60% established bed net use and / or with established SMC, and 76.3% were in the highest PfPR 2-10 band modelled (40%). Addition of RTS,S to strategies involving 60% ITN use, increased ITN usage or a switch to PBO nets, and SMC, if eligible, still led to significant marginal case reductions, with a median of 2,653 (IQR: 1,741 to 3,966) cases averted per 100,000 people annually, and 82,270 (IQR: 54,034 to 123,105) cases averted per 100,000 fully vaccinated children (receiving at least three doses)., Conclusions: Use of RTS,S results in reductions in malaria cases and deaths even when layered upon existing interventions. When comparing relative cost-effectiveness, scale up of ITNs, introduction of SMC, and switching to new technology nets should be prioritized in eligible settings., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: A 2021 clinical trial of seasonal RTS,S/AS01 E (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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests ABH has received personal consultancy fees from WHO outside the submitted work. ABH was previously engaged by Pfizer to advise on modelling respiratory syncytial virus vaccination strategies for which she received no financial compensation. ACG has a data-transfer agreement with GSK Vaccines to cover ongoing analysis of trial data related to the RTS,S/AS01 vaccine. ACG does not receive any funding from GSK for this work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine is currently being evaluated in a cluster-randomized pilot implementation programme in three African countries. This study seeks to identify whether vaccination could reach additional children who are at risk from malaria but do not currently have access to, or use, core malaria interventions., Methods: Using data from household surveys, the overlap between malaria intervention coverage and childhood vaccination (diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis dose 3, DTP3) uptake in 20 African countries with at least one first administrative level unit with Plasmodium falciparum parasite prevalence greater than 10% was calculated. Multilevel logistic regression was used to explore patterns of overlap by demographic and socioeconomic variables. The public health impact of delivering RTS,S/AS01 to those children who do not use an insecticide-treated net (ITN), but who received the DTP3 vaccine, was also estimated., Results: Uptake of DTP3 was higher than malaria intervention coverage in most countries. Overall, 34% of children did not use ITNs and received DTP3, while 35% of children used ITNs and received DTP3, although this breakdown varied by country. It was estimated that there are 33 million children in these 20 countries who do not use an ITN. Of these, 23 million (70%) received the DTP3 vaccine. Vaccinating those 23 million children who receive DTP3 but do not use an ITN could avert up to an estimated 9.7 million (range 8.5-10.8 million) clinical malaria cases each year, assuming all children who receive DTP3 are administered all four RTS,S doses. An additional 10.8 million (9.5-12.0 million) cases could be averted by vaccinating those 24 million children who receive the DTP3 vaccine and use an ITN. Children who had access to or used an ITN were 9-13% more likely to reside in rural areas compared to those who had neither intervention regardless of vaccination status. Mothers' education status was a strong predictor of intervention uptake and was positively associated with use of ITNs and vaccination uptake and negatively associated with having access to an ITN but not using it. Wealth was also a strong predictor of intervention coverage., Conclusions: Childhood vaccination to prevent malaria has the potential to reduce inequity in access to existing malaria interventions and could substantially reduce the childhood malaria burden in sub-Saharan Africa, even in regions with lower existing DTP3 coverage., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: The 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 Findings: Using 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., Conclusions: These 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., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: PW discloses consultancy services to the Global Fund to support investment case and allocation modelling and country planning support. ACG discloses financial consultancy services to the Global Fund to support investment case and allocation modelling and country planning support and unrestricted research grants from a range of funders, including BMGF, UK Medical Research Council, The Wellcome Trust, NIH, Medicines for Malaria Venture, Integrated Vector Control Consortium, and Gavi. ACG is also a member of the WHO Malaria Policy Advisory Committee and of the Gavi Vaccine Investment Strategy Scientific Committee. ABH declares no competing interests.

Background: The RTS,S/AS01 vaccine for Plasmodium falciparum malaria demonstrated moderate efficacy in 5-17-month-old children in phase 3 trials, and from 2018, the vaccine will be evaluated through a large-scale pilot implementation program. Work is ongoing to optimise this vaccine, with higher efficacy for a different schedule demonstrated in a phase 2a challenge study. The objective of our study was to investigate the population-level impact of a modified RTS,S/AS01 schedule and dose amount in order to inform the target product profile for a second-generation malaria vaccine., Methods: We used a mathematical modelling approach as the basis for our study. We simulated the changing anti-circumsporozoite antibody titre following vaccination and related the titre to vaccine efficacy. We then implemented this efficacy profile within an individual-based model of malaria transmission. We compared initial efficacy, duration and dose timing, and evaluated the potential public health impact of a modified vaccine in children aged 5-17 months, measuring clinical cases averted in children younger than 5 years., Results: In the first decade of delivery, initial efficacy was associated with a higher reduction in childhood clinical cases compared to vaccine duration. This effect was more pronounced in high transmission settings and was due to the efficacy benefit occurring in younger ages where disease burden is highest. However, the low initial efficacy and long duration schedule averted more cases across all age cohorts if a longer time horizon was considered. We observed an age-shifting effect due to the changing immunological profile in higher transmission settings, in scenarios where initial efficacy was higher, and the fourth dose administered earlier., Conclusions: Our findings indicate that, for an imperfect childhood malaria vaccine with suboptimal efficacy, it may be advantageous to prioritise initial efficacy over duration. We predict that a modified vaccine could outperform the current RTS,S/AS01, although fourth dose timing will affect the age group that derives the greatest benefit. Further, the outcome measure and timeframe over which a vaccine is assessed are important when prioritising vaccine elements. This study provides insight into the most important characteristics of a malaria vaccine for at-risk groups and shows how distinct vaccine properties translate to public health outcomes. These findings may be used to prioritise target product profile elements for second-generation childhood malaria vaccines.