Search

Background: Plasmodium falciparum parasitaemia during pregnancy causes maternal, fetal, and infant mortality. Poor pregnancy outcomes are related to blood-stage parasite sequestration and the ensuing inflammatory response in the placenta, which decreases over successive pregnancies. A radiation-attenuated, non-replicating, whole-organism vaccine based on P falciparum sporozoites (PfSPZ Vaccine) has shown efficacy at preventing infection in African adults. Here, we aimed to examine vaccine safety and efficacy of the PfSPZ Vaccine in adults and women who anticipated conception., Methods: Two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (phase 1 MLSPZV3 and phase 2 MLSPZV4) were conducted at a clinical research centre in Mali. MLSPZV3 included adults aged 18-35 years and MLSPZV4 included non-pregnant women aged 18-38 years who anticipated conception within a year of enrolment. In MLSPZV3, participants were stratified by village and randomly assigned (2:1) using block randomisation to receive three doses of 9 × 10 5 PfSPZ Vaccine or saline placebo at weeks 0, 1, and 4 (4-week schedule) or at weeks 0, 8, and 16 (16-week schedule) and a booster dose around 1 year later. In MLSPZV4, women received presumptive artemether-lumefantrine twice per day for 3 days 2 weeks before dose one and were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using block randomisation to receive three doses of 9 × 10 5 or 1·8 × 10 6 PfSPZ Vaccine or saline placebo all administered at weeks 0, 1, and 4 (4-week schedule). Participants in both studies received artemether-lumefantrine 2 weeks before dose three and additionally 2 weeks before dose four (booster dose) in MLSPZV3. Investigators and participants were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome, assessed in the as-treated population, was PfSPZ Vaccine safety and tolerability within 7 days after each dose. The secondary outcome, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, was vaccine efficacy against P falciparum parasitaemia (defined as the time-to-first positive blood smear) from dose three until the end of transmission season. In exploratory analyses, MLSPZV4 evaluated incidence of maternal obstetric and neonatal outcomes as safety outcomes, and vaccine efficacy against P falciparum parasitaemia during pregnancy (defined as time-to-first positive blood smear post-conception). In MLSPZV4, women were followed at least once a month with human chorionic gonadotropin testing, and those who became pregnant received standard of care (including intermittent presumptive sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine antimalarial drugs after the first trimester) during routine antenatal visits. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03510481 and NCT03989102., Findings: Participants were enrolled for vaccination during the onset of malaria seasons for two sequential studies conducted from 2018 to 2019 for MLSPZV3 and from 2019 to 2021 for MLSPZV4, with follow-up during malaria seasons across 2 years. In MLSPZV3, 478 adults were assessed for eligibility, of whom 220 were enrolled between May 30 and June 12, 2018, and then between Aug 13 and Aug 18, 2018, and 210 received dose one. 66 (96%) of 69 participants who received the 16-week schedule and 68 (97%) of 70 who received the 4-week schedule of the 9 × 10 5 PfSPZ Vaccine and 70 (99%) of 71 who received saline completed all three doses in year 1. In MLSPZV4, 407 women were assessed for eligibility, of whom 324 were enrolled from July 3 to July 27, 2019, and 320 received dose one of presumptive artemether-lumefantrine. 300 women were randomly assigned with 100 per group (PfSPZ Vaccine 9 × 10 5 , 1·8 × 10 6 , or saline) receiving dose one. First trimester miscarriages were the most commonly reported serious adverse event but occurred at a similar rate across study groups (eight [15%] of 54 with 9 × 10 5 PfSPZ Vaccine, 12 [21%] of 58 with 1·8 × 10 6 PfSPZ Vaccine, and five [12%] of 43 with saline). One unrelated maternal death occurred 425 days after the last vaccine dose in the 1·8 × 10 6 PfSPZ Vaccine group due to peritonitis shortly after childbirth. Most related adverse events reported in MLSPZV3 and MLSPZV4 were mild (grade 1) and frequency of adverse events in the PfSPZ Vaccine groups did not differ from that in the saline group. Two unrelated serious adverse events occurred in MLSPZV3 (one participant had appendicitis in the 9 × 10 5 PfSPZ Vaccine group and the other in the saline group died due to a road traffic accident). In MLSPZV3, the 9 × 10 5 PfSPZ Vaccine did not show vaccine efficacy against parasitaemia with the 4-week (27% [95% CI -18 to 55] in year 1 and 42% [-5 to 68] in year 2) and 16-week schedules (16% [-34 to 48] in year 1 and -14% [-95 to 33] in year 2); efficacies were similar or worse against clinical malaria compared with saline. In MLSPZV4, the PfSPZ Vaccine showed significant efficacy against parasitaemia at doses 9 × 10 5 (41% [15 to 59]; p=0·0069 in year 1 and 61% [36 to 77]; p=0·0011 in year 2) and 1·8 × 10 6 (54% [34 to 69]; p<0·0001 in year 1 and 45% [13 to 65]; p=0·029 in year 2); and against clinical malaria at doses 9 × 10 5 (47% [20 to 65]; p=0·0045 in year 1 and 56% [22 to 75]; p=0·0081 in year 2) and 1·8 × 10 6 (48% [22 to 65]; p=0·0013 in year 1 and 40% [2 to 64]; p=0·069 in year 2). Vaccine efficacy against post-conception P falciparum parasitaemia during first pregnancies that arose in the 2-year follow-up was 57% (14 to 78; p=0·017) in the 9 × 10 5 PfSPZ Vaccine group versus 49% (3 to 73; p=0·042) in the 1·8 × 10 6 PfSPZ Vaccine group. Among 55 women who became pregnant within 24 weeks after dose three, vaccine efficacy against parasitaemia was 65% (23 to 84; p=0·0088) with the 9 × 10 5 PfSPZ Vaccine and 86% (64 to 94; p<0·0001) with the 1·8 × 10 6 PfSPZ Vaccine. When combined in a post-hoc analysis, women in the PfSPZ Vaccine groups had a non-significantly reduced time-to-first pregnancy after dose one compared with those in the saline group (log-rank test p=0·056). Exploratory maternal obstetric and neonatal outcomes did not differ significantly between vaccine groups and saline., Interpretation: PfSPZ Vaccine was safe and well tolerated in adults in Mali. The 9 × 10 5 and 1·8 × 10 6 doses of PfSPZ Vaccine administered as per the 4-week schedule, which incorporated presumptive antimalarial treatment before the first vaccine dose, showed significant efficacy against P falciparum parasitaemia and clinical malaria for two malaria transmission seasons in women of childbearing age and against pregnancy malaria. PfSPZ Vaccine without presumptive antimalarial treatment before the first vaccine dose did not show efficacy., Funding: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, and Sanaria., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests TM, NKC, BKLS, PFB, TLR, and SLH are employees of Sanaria, the developer and sponsor of Sanaria PfSPZ Vaccine. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Recently, we found that a new malaria vaccine, R21/Matrix-M, had over 75% efficacy against clinical malaria with seasonal administration in a phase 2b trial in Burkina Faso. Here, we report on safety and efficacy of the vaccine in a phase 3 trial enrolling over 4800 children across four countries followed for up to 18 months at seasonal sites and 12 months at standard sites., Methods: We did a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial of the R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine across five sites in four African countries with differing malaria transmission intensities and seasonality. Children (aged 5-36 months) were enrolled and randomly assigned (2:1) to receive 5 μg R21 plus 50 μg Matrix-M or a control vaccine (licensed rabies vaccine [Abhayrab]). Participants, their families, investigators, laboratory teams, and the local study team were masked to treatment. Vaccines were administered as three doses, 4 weeks apart, with a booster administered 12 months after the third dose. Half of the children were recruited at two sites with seasonal malaria transmission and the remainder at standard sites with perennial malaria transmission using age-based immunisation. The primary objective was protective efficacy of R21/Matrix-M from 14 days after third vaccination to 12 months after completion of the primary series at seasonal and standard sites separately as co-primary endpoints. Vaccine efficacy against multiple malaria episodes and severe malaria, as well as safety and immunogenicity, were also assessed. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04704830, and is ongoing., Findings: From April 26, 2021, to Jan 12, 2022, 5477 children consented to be screened, of whom 1705 were randomly assigned to control vaccine and 3434 to R21/Matrix-M; 4878 participants received the first dose of vaccine. 3103 participants in the R21/Matrix-M group and 1541 participants in the control group were included in the modified per-protocol analysis (2412 [51·9%] male and 2232 [48·1%] female). R21/Matrix-M vaccine was well tolerated, with injection site pain (301 [18·6%] of 1615 participants) and fever (754 [46·7%] of 1615 participants) as the most frequent adverse events. Number of adverse events of special interest and serious adverse events did not significantly differ between the vaccine groups. There were no treatment-related deaths. 12-month vaccine efficacy was 75% (95% CI 71-79; p<0·0001) at the seasonal sites and 68% (61-74; p<0·0001) at the standard sites for time to first clinical malaria episode. Similarly, vaccine efficacy against multiple clinical malaria episodes was 75% (71-78; p<0·0001) at the seasonal sites and 67% (59-73; p<0·0001) at standard sites. A modest reduction in vaccine efficacy was observed over the first 12 months of follow-up, of similar size at seasonal and standard sites. A rate reduction of 868 (95% CI 762-974) cases per 1000 children-years at seasonal sites and 296 (231-362) at standard sites occurred over 12 months. Vaccine-induced antibodies against the conserved central Asn-Ala-Asn-Pro (NANP) repeat sequence of circumsporozoite protein correlated with vaccine efficacy. Higher NANP-specific antibody titres were observed in the 5-17 month age group compared with 18-36 month age group, and the younger age group had the highest 12-month vaccine efficacy on time to first clinical malaria episode at seasonal (79% [95% CI 73-84]; p<0·001) and standard (75% [65-83]; p<0·001) sites., Interpretation: R21/Matrix-M was well tolerated and offered high efficacy against clinical malaria in African children. This low-cost, high-efficacy vaccine is already licensed by several African countries, and recently received a WHO policy recommendation and prequalification, offering large-scale supply to help reduce the great burden of malaria in sub-Saharan Africa., Funding: The Serum Institute of India, the Wellcome Trust, the UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, and Open Philanthropy., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Seasonal vaccination with the RTS,S/AS01 E vaccine combined with seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) prevented malaria in young children more effectively than either intervention given alone over a 3 year period. The objective of this study was to establish whether the added protection provided by the combination could be sustained for a further 2 years., Methods: This was a double-blind, individually randomised, controlled, non-inferiority and superiority, phase 3 trial done at two sites: the Bougouni district and neighbouring areas in Mali and Houndé district, Burkina Faso. Children who had been enrolled in the initial 3-year trial when aged 5-17 months were initially randomly assigned individually to receive SMC with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine plus control vaccines, RTS,S/AS01 E plus placebo SMC, or SMC plus RTS,S/AS01 E . They continued to receive the same interventions until the age of 5 years. The primary trial endpoint was the incidence of clinical malaria over the 5-year trial period in both the modified intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. Over the 5-year period, non-inferiority was defined as a 20% increase in clinical malaria in the RTS,S/AS01 E -alone group compared with the SMC alone group. Superiority was defined as a 12% difference in the incidence of clinical malaria between the combined and single intervention groups. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04319380, and is complete., Findings: In April, 2020, of 6861 children originally recruited, 5098 (94%) of the 5433 children who completed the initial 3-year follow-up were re-enrolled in the extension study. Over 5 years, the incidence of clinical malaria per 1000 person-years at risk was 313 in the SMC alone group, 320 in the RTS,S/AS01 E -alone group, and 133 in the combined group. The combination of RTS,S/AS01 E and SMC was superior to SMC (protective efficacy 57·7%, 95% CI 53·3 to 61·7) and to RTS,S/AS01 E (protective efficacy 59·0%, 54·7 to 62·8) in preventing clinical malaria. RTS,S/AS01 E was non-inferior to SMC (hazard ratio 1·03 [95% CI 0·95 to 1·12]). The protective efficacy of the combination versus SMC over the 5-year period of the study was very similar to that seen in the first 3 years with the protective efficacy of the combination versus SMC being 57·7% (53·3 to 61·7) and versus RTS/AS01 E -alone being 59·0% (54·7 to 62·8). The comparable figures for the first 3 years of the study were 62·8% (58·4 to 66·8) and 59·6% (54·7 to 64·0%), respectively. Hospital admissions for WHO-defined severe malaria were reduced by 66·8% (95% CI 40·3 to 81·5), for malarial anaemia by 65·9% (34·1 to 82·4), for blood transfusion by 68·1% (32·6 to 84·9), for all-cause deaths by 44·5% (2·8 to 68·3), for deaths excluding external causes or surgery by 41·1% (-9·2 to 68·3), and for deaths from malaria by 66·8% (-2·7 to 89·3) in the combined group compared with the SMC alone group. No safety signals were detected., Interpretation: Substantial protection against malaria was sustained over 5 years by combining seasonal malaria vaccination with seasonal chemoprevention, offering a potential new approach to malaria control in areas with seasonal malaria transmission., Funding: UK Joint Global Health Trials and PATH's Malaria Vaccine Initiative (through a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation)., Translation: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests OO-A is an employee of the GSK group of companies and has restricted shares in the GSK group of companies. All of the 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: A recent trial of 5920 children in Burkina Faso and Mali showed that the combination of seasonal vaccination with the RTS,S/AS01 E 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/AS01 E when deployed seasonally, by comparing the group who received the combination of SMC and RTS,S/AS01 E 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/AS01 E 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/AS01 E 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., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: A trial in African children showed that combining seasonal vaccination with the RTS,S/AS01E vaccine with seasonal malaria chemoprevention reduced the incidence of uncomplicated and severe malaria compared with either intervention given alone. Here, we report on the anti-circumsporozoite antibody response to seasonal RTS,S/AS01E vaccination in children in this trial., Methods: Sera from a randomly selected subset of children collected before and 1 month after 3 priming doses of RTS,S/AS01E and before and 1 month after 2 seasonal booster doses were tested for anti-circumsporozoite antibodies using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The association between post-vaccination antibody titer and incidence of malaria was explored., Results: A strong anti-circumsporozoite antibody response to 3 priming doses of RTS,S/AS01E was seen (geometric mean titer, 368.9 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay units/mL), but titers fell prior to the first booster dose. A strong antibody response to an annual, pre-malaria transmission season booster dose was observed, but this was lower than after the primary vaccination series and lower after the second than after the first booster dose (ratio of geometric mean rise, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], .57-.77). Children whose antibody response was in the upper tercile post-vaccination had a lower incidence of malaria during the following year than children in the lowest tercile (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, .28-.66)., Conclusions: Seasonal vaccination with RTS,S/AS01E induced a strong booster antibody response that was lower after the second than after the first booster dose. The diminished antibody response to the second booster dose was not associated with diminished efficacy., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT03143218., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. O. O.-A. is an employee of the GSK group of companies and has restricted shares in the GSK group of companies. A. D. reports a research grant from Grand Challenges Canada to test safety and efficacy of the PfSPZ vaccine for pregnant women and unborn children and a research contract with Oxford University to conduct a phase 3 randomized, controlled multicenter trial to evaluate the efficacy of the R21/Matrix-M vaccine in African children against clinical malaria outside of the submitted work. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Malaria control remains a challenge in many parts of the Sahel and sub-Sahel regions of Africa., Methods: We conducted an individually randomized, controlled trial to assess whether seasonal vaccination with RTS,S/AS01 E was noninferior to chemoprevention in preventing uncomplicated malaria and whether the two interventions combined were superior to either one alone in preventing uncomplicated malaria and severe malaria-related outcomes., Results: We randomly assigned 6861 children 5 to 17 months of age to receive sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine (2287 children [chemoprevention-alone group]), RTS,S/AS01 E (2288 children [vaccine-alone group]), or chemoprevention and RTS,S/AS01 E (2286 children [combination group]). Of these, 1965, 1988, and 1967 children in the three groups, respectively, received the first dose of the assigned intervention and were followed for 3 years. Febrile seizure developed in 5 children the day after receipt of the vaccine, but the children recovered and had no sequelae. There were 305 events of uncomplicated clinical malaria per 1000 person-years at risk in the chemoprevention-alone group, 278 events per 1000 person-years in the vaccine-alone group, and 113 events per 1000 person-years in the combination group. The hazard ratio for the protective efficacy of RTS,S/AS01 E as compared with chemoprevention was 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.01), which excluded the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.20. The protective efficacy of the combination as compared with chemoprevention alone was 62.8% (95% CI, 58.4 to 66.8) against clinical malaria, 70.5% (95% CI, 41.9 to 85.0) against hospital admission with severe malaria according to the World Health Organization definition, and 72.9% (95% CI, 2.9 to 92.4) against death from malaria. The protective efficacy of the combination as compared with the vaccine alone against these outcomes was 59.6% (95% CI, 54.7 to 64.0), 70.6% (95% CI, 42.3 to 85.0), and 75.3% (95% CI, 12.5 to 93.0), respectively., Conclusions: Administration of RTS,S/AS01 E was noninferior to chemoprevention in preventing uncomplicated malaria. The combination of these interventions resulted in a substantially lower incidence of uncomplicated malaria, severe malaria, and death from malaria than either intervention alone. (Funded by the Joint Global Health Trials and PATH; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03143218.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Introduction: Seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC), with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine plus amodiaquine (SP+AQ) is effective but does not provide complete protection against clinical malaria. The RTS,S/AS01 E malaria vaccine provides a high level of protection shortly after vaccination, but this wanes rapidly. Such a vaccine could be an alternative or additive to SMC. This trial aims to determine whether seasonal vaccination with RTS,S/AS01 E vaccine could be an alternative to SMC and whether a combination of the two interventions would provide added benefits., Methods and Analysis: This is an individually randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. 5920 children aged 5-17 months were enrolled in April 2017 in Mali and Burkina Faso. Children in group 1 received three priming doses of RTS,S/AS01 E vaccine before the start of the 2017 malaria transmission season and a booster dose at the beginning of two subsequent transmission seasons. In addition, they received SMC SP+AQ placebo on four occasions each year. Children in group 2 received three doses of rabies vaccine in year 1 and hepatitis A vaccine in years 2 and 3 together with four cycles of SMC SP+AQ each year. Children in group 3 received RTS,S/AS01 E vaccine and four courses of SMC SP+AQ. Incidence of clinical malaria is determined by case detection at health facilities. Weekly active surveillance for malaria is undertaken in a randomly selected subset of children. The prevalence of malaria is measured in surveys at the end of each transmission season. The primary endpoint is the incidence of clinical malaria confirmed by a positive blood film with a minimum parasite density of 5000 /µL. Primary analysis will be by modified intention to treat defined as children who have received the first dose of the malaria or control vaccine., Ethics and Dissemination: The protocol was approved by the national ethics committees of Mali and Burkina Faso and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The results will be presented to all stakeholders and published in open access journals., Trial Registration Number: NCT03143218; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)