Could less be more? Accounting for fractional-dose regimens and different number of vaccine doses when measuring the impact of the RTS, S/AS01E malaria vaccine

BACKGROUND

The RTS, S/AS01E malaria vaccine (RTS, S) is recommended for children in moderate-to-high Plasmodium falciparum malaria transmission areas. This phase 2b trial (NCT03276962) evaluates RTS, S fractional- and full-dose regimens in Ghana and Kenya.

METHODS

1500 children aged 5-17 months were randomised (1:1:1:1:1) to receive RTS, S or rabies control vaccine. RTS, S groups received two full RTS, S doses at month (M)0/M1 followed by either full (groups R012-20, R012-14-26) or fractional (1/5) doses (groups Fx012-14-26, Fx017-20-32).

RESULTS

At M32 post-first dose, vaccine efficacy (VE) against clinical malaria (all episodes) ranged from 38% (R012-20; 95%CI: 24-49) to 53% (R012-14-26; 95%CI: 42-62). Vaccine impact estimates (cumulative number of malaria cases averted/1000 children vaccinated) were 1344 (R012-20), 2450 (R012-14-26), 2273 (Fx012-14-26), 2112 (Fx017-20-32). To account for differences in vaccine volume (fractional- versus full-dose), in a post-hoc analysis, we also estimated cases averted/1000 RTS, S full-dose equivalents: 336 (R012-20), 490 (R012-14-26), 874 (Fx012-14-26), 880 (Fx017-20-32).

CONCLUSIONS

VE against clinical malaria was similar in all RTS, S groups. Vaccine impact accounting for full-dose equivalence suggests that using fractional-dose regimens could be a viable dose-sparing strategy. If borne out through trial end (M50), these observations underscore the means to reduce cost per regimen with a goal of maximising impact and optimising supply.

The duration of protection against clinical malaria provided by the combination of seasonal RTS,S/AS01E vaccination and seasonal malaria chemoprevention versus either intervention given alone

BACKGROUND

A recent trial of 5920 children in Burkina Faso and Mali showed that the combination of seasonal vaccination with the RTS,S/AS01E malaria vaccine (primary series and two seasonal boosters) and seasonal malaria chemoprevention (four monthly cycles per year) was markedly more effective than either intervention given alone in preventing clinical malaria, severe malaria, and deaths from malaria.

METHODS

In order to help optimise the timing of these two interventions, trial data were reanalysed to estimate the duration of protection against clinical malaria provided by RTS,S/AS01E when deployed seasonally, by comparing the group who received the combination of SMC and RTS,S/AS01E with the group who received SMC alone. The duration of protection from SMC was also estimated comparing the combined intervention group with the group who received RTS,S/AS01E alone. Three methods were used: Piecewise Cox regression, Flexible parametric survival models and Smoothed Schoenfeld residuals from Cox models, stratifying on the study area and using robust standard errors to control for within-child clustering of multiple episodes.

RESULTS

The overall protective efficacy from RTS,S/AS01E over 6 months was at least 60% following the primary series and the two seasonal booster doses and remained at a high level over the full malaria transmission season. Beyond 6 months, protective efficacy appeared to wane more rapidly, but the uncertainty around the estimates increases due to the lower number of cases during this period (coinciding with the onset of the dry season). Protection from SMC exceeded 90% in the first 2-3 weeks post-administration after several cycles, but was not 100%, even immediately post-administration. Efficacy begins to decline from approximately day 21 and then declines more sharply after day 28, indicating the importance of preserving the delivery interval for SMC cycles at a maximum of four weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of both interventions was highest immediately post-administration. Understanding differences between these interventions in their peak efficacy and how rapidly efficacy declines over time will help to optimise the scheduling of SMC, malaria vaccination and the combination in areas of seasonal transmission with differing epidemiology, and using different vaccine delivery systems.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The RTS,S-SMC trial in which these data were collected was registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03143218.

Assessing the safety, impact and effectiveness of RTS,S/AS01E malaria vaccine following its introduction in three sub-Saharan African countries: methodological approaches and study set-up

Background

Following a 30-year development process, RTS,S/AS01_E (GSK, Belgium) is the first malaria vaccine to reach Phase IV assessments. The World Health Organization-commissioned Malaria Vaccine Implementation Programme (MVIP) is coordinating the delivery of RTS,S/AS01_E through routine national immunization programmes in areas of 3 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The first doses were given in the participating MVIP areas in Malawi on 23 April, Ghana on 30 April, and Kenya on 13 September 2019. The countries participating in the MVIP have little or no baseline incidence data on rare diseases, some of which may be associated with immunization, a deficit that could compromise the interpretation of possible adverse events reported following the introduction of a new vaccine in the paediatric population. Further, effects of vaccination on malaria transmission, existing malaria control strategies, and possible vaccine-mediated selective pressure on Plasmodium falciparum variants, could also impact long-term malaria control. To address this data gap and as part of its post-approval commitments, GSK has developed a post-approval plan comprising of 4 complementary Phase IV studies that will evaluate safety, effectiveness and impact of RTS,S/AS01_E through active participant follow-up in the context of its real-life implementation.

Methods

EPI-MAL-002 (NCT02374450) is a pre-implementation safety surveillance study that is establishing the background incidence rates of protocol-defined adverse events of special interest. EPI-MAL-003 (NCT03855995) is an identically designed post-implementation safety and vaccine impact study. EPI-MAL-005 (NCT02251704) is a cross-sectional pre- and post-implementation study to measure malaria transmission intensity and monitor the use of other malaria control interventions in the study areas, and EPI-MAL-010 (EUPAS42948) will evaluate the P. falciparum genetic diversity in the periods before and after vaccine implementation.

Conclusion

GSK’s post-approval plan has been designed to address important knowledge gaps in RTS,S/AS01_E vaccine safety, effectiveness and impact. The studies are currently being conducted in the MVIP areas. Their implementation has provided opportunities and posed challenges linked to conducting large studies in regions where healthcare infrastructure is limited. The results from these studies will support ongoing evaluation of RTS,S/AS01_E’s benefit-risk and inform decision-making for its potential wider implementation across sub-Saharan Africa.

Graphic abstract

Impact of seasonal RTS,S/AS01E vaccination plus seasonal malaria chemoprevention on the nutritional status of children in Burkina Faso and Mali

BACKGROUND

A recent trial in Burkina Faso and Mali showed that combining seasonal RTS,S/AS01_E malaria vaccination with seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) substantially reduced the incidence of uncomplicated and severe malaria in young children compared to either intervention alone. Given the possible negative effect of malaria on nutrition, the study investigated whether these children also experienced lower prevalence of acute and chronic malnutrition.

METHODS

In Burkina Faso and Mali 5920 children were randomized to receive either SMC alone, RTS,S/AS01_E alone, or SMC combined with RTS,S/AS01_E for three malaria transmission seasons (2017-2019). After each transmission season, anthropometric measurements were collected from all study children at a cross-sectional survey and used to derive nutritional status indicators, including the binary variables wasted and stunted (weight-for-height and height-for-age z-scores below - 2, respectively). Binary and continuous outcomes between treatment groups were compared by Poisson and linear regression.

RESULTS

In 2017, compared to SMC alone, the combined intervention reduced the prevalence of wasting by approximately 12% [prevalence ratio (PR) = 0.88 (95% CI 0.75, 1.03)], and approximately 21% in 2018 [PR = 0.79 (95% CI 0.62, 1.01)]. Point estimates were similar for comparisons with RTS,S/AS01_E, but there was stronger evidence of a difference. There was at least a 30% reduction in the point estimates for the prevalence of severe wasting in the combined group compared to the other two groups in 2017 and 2018. There was no difference in the prevalence of moderate or severe wasting between the groups in 2019. The prevalence of stunting, low-MUAC-for-age or being underweight did not differ between groups for any of the three years. The prevalence of severe stunting was higher in the combined group compared to both other groups in 2018, and compared to RTS,S/AS01_E alone in 2017; this observation does not have an obvious explanation and may be a chance finding. Overall, malnutrition was very common in this cohort, but declined over the study as the children became older.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a high burden of malnutrition and malaria in the study populations, and a major reduction in the incidence of malaria in children receiving both interventions, this had only a modest impact on nutritional status. Therefore, other interventions are needed to reduce the high burden of malnutrition in these areas.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03143218 , registered 8th May 2017.