Development of a transmission-blocking malaria vaccine: progress, challenges, and the path forward.

New interventions are needed to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with malaria, as well as to accelerate elimination and eventual eradication. Interventions that can break the cycle of parasite transmission, and prevent its reintroduction, will be of particular importance in achieving the eradication goal. In this regard, vaccines that interrupt malaria transmission (VIMT) have been highlighted as an important intervention, including transmission-blocking vaccines that prevent human-to-mosquito transmission by targeting the sexual, sporogonic, or mosquito stages of the parasite (SSM-VIMT). While the significant potential of this vaccine approach has been appreciated for decades, the development and licensure pathways for vaccines that target transmission and the incidence of infection, as opposed to prevention of clinical malaria disease, remain ill-defined. This article describes the progress made in critical areas since 2010, highlights key challenges that remain, and outlines important next steps to maximize the potential for SSM-VIMTs to contribute to the broader malaria elimination and eradication objectives.

Modeling the public health impact of malaria vaccines for developers and policymakers.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to develop malaria vaccines show promise. Mathematical model-based estimates of the potential demand, public health impact, and cost and financing requirements can be used to inform investment and adoption decisions by vaccine developers and policymakers on the use of malaria vaccines as complements to existing interventions. However, the complexity of such models may make their outputs inaccessible to non-modeling specialists. This paper describes a Malaria Vaccine Model (MVM) developed to address the specific needs of developers and policymakers, who need to access sophisticated modeling results and to test various scenarios in a user-friendly interface. The model's functionality is demonstrated through a hypothetical vaccine. METHODS: The MVM has three modules: supply and demand forecast; public health impact; and implementation cost and financing requirements. These modules include pre-entered reference data and also allow for user-defined inputs. The model includes an integrated sensitivity analysis function. Model functionality was demonstrated by estimating the public health impact of a hypothetical pre-erythrocytic malaria vaccine with 85% efficacy against uncomplicated disease and a vaccine efficacy decay rate of four years, based on internationally-established targets. Demand for this hypothetical vaccine was estimated based on historical vaccine implementation rates for routine infant immunization in 40 African countries over a 10-year period. Assumed purchase price was $5 per dose and injection equipment and delivery costs were $0.40 per dose. RESULTS: The model projects the number of doses needed, uncomplicated and severe cases averted, deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, and cost to avert each. In the demonstration scenario, based on a projected demand of 532 million doses, the MVM estimated that 150 million uncomplicated cases of malaria and 1.1 million deaths would be averted over 10 years. This is equivalent to 943 uncomplicated cases and 7 deaths averted per 1,000 vaccinees. In discounted 2011 US dollars, this represents $11 per uncomplicated case averted and $1,482 per death averted. If vaccine efficacy were reduced to 75%, the estimated uncomplicated cases and deaths averted over 10 years would decrease by 14% and 19%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The MVM can provide valuable information to assist decision-making by vaccine developers and policymakers, information which will be refined and strengthened as field studies progress allowing further validation of modeling assumptions.

Roadmap for the international collaborative epidemiologic monitoring of safety and effectiveness of new high priority vaccines.

With the advent of new vaccines targeted to highly endemic diseases in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and with the expansion of vaccine manufacturing globally, there is an urgent need to establish an infrastructure to evaluate the benefit-risk profiles of vaccines in LMIC. Fortunately the usual decade(s)-long time gap between introduction of new vaccines in high and low income countries is being significantly reduced or eliminated due to initiatives such as the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI) and the Decade of Vaccines for the implementation of the Global Vaccine Action Plan. While hoping for more rapid disease control, this time shift may potentially add risk, unless appropriate capacity for reliable and timely evaluation of vaccine benefit-risk profiles in some LMIC's are developed with external assistance from regional or global level. An ideal vaccine safety and effectiveness monitoring system should be flexible and sustainable, able to quickly detect possible vaccine-associated events, distinguish them from programmatic errors, reliably and quickly evaluate the suspected event and its association with vaccination and, if associated, determine the benefit-risk of vaccines to inform appropriate action. Based upon the demonstrated feasibility of active surveillance in LMIC as shown by the Burkina Faso assessment of meningococcal A conjugate vaccine or that of rotavirus vaccine in Mexico and Brazil, and upon the proof of concept international GBS study, we suggest a sustainable, flexible, affordable and timely international collaborative vaccine safety monitoring approach for vaccines being newly introduced. While this paper discusses only the vaccine component, the same system could also be eventually used for monitoring drug effectiveness (including the use of substandard drugs) and drug safety.

Vaccines today, vaccines tomorrow: a perspective.

Vaccines are considered as one of the major contributions of the 20th century and one of the most cost effective public health interventions. The International Vaccine Institute has as a mission to discover, develop and deliver new and improved vaccines against infectious diseases that affects developing nations. If Louis Pasteur is known across the globe, vaccinologists like Maurice Hilleman, Jonas Salk and Charles Mérieux are known among experts only despite their contribution to global health. Thanks to a vaccine, smallpox has been eradicated, polio has nearly disappeared, Haemophilus influenzae B, measles and more recently meningitis A are controlled in many countries. While a malaria vaccine is undergoing phase 3, International Vaccine Institute, in collaboration with an Indian manufacturer has brought an oral inactivated cholera vaccine to pre-qualification. The field of vaccinology has undergone major changes thanks to philanthropists such as Bill and Melinda Gates, initiatives like the Decade of Vaccines and public private partnerships. Current researches on vaccines have more challenging targets like the dengue viruses, malaria, human immunodeficiency virus, the respiratory syncytial virus and nosocomial diseases. Exciting research is taking place on new adjuvants, nanoparticles, virus like particles and new route of administration. An overcrowded infant immunization program, anti-vaccine groups, immunizing a growing number of elderlies and delivering vaccines to difficult places are among challenges faced by vaccinologists and global health experts.

Malaria vaccine R&D in the Decade of Vaccines: breakthroughs, challenges and opportunities.

While recent progress has been made in reducing malaria mortality with other interventions, vaccines are still urgently needed to further reduce the incidence of clinical disease, including during pregnancy, and to provide "herd protection" by blocking parasite transmission. The most clinically advanced candidate, RTS,S, is presently undergoing Phase 3 evaluation in young African children across 13 clinical sites in eight African countries. In the 12-month period following vaccination, RTS,S conferred approximately 50% protection from clinical Plasmodium falciparum disease in children aged 5-17 months, and approximately 30% protection in children aged 6-12 weeks when administered in conjunction with Expanded Program for Immunization (EPI) vaccines. The development of more highly efficacious vaccines to prevent clinical disease caused by both P. falciparum and Plasmodium vivax, as well as vaccines to support elimination efforts by inducing immunity that blocks malaria parasite transmission, are priorities. Some key barriers to malaria vaccine development include: a paucity of well-characterized target immunogens and an absence of clear correlates of protection to enable vaccine development targeting all stages of the P. falciparum and P. vivax lifecycles; a limited number of safe and effective delivery systems, including adjuvants, that induce potent, long-lived protective immunity, be it by antibody, CD4+, and/or CD8+ T cell responses; and, for vaccines designed to provide "herd protection" by targeting sexual stage and/or mosquito antigens, the lack of a clear clinical and regulatory pathway to licensure using non-traditional endpoints. Recommendations to overcome these, and other key challenges, are suggested in this document.

Aligning new interventions with developing country health systems: target product profiles, presentation, and clinical trial design.

Many new interventions are being created to address health problems of the developing world. However, many developing countries have fragile health systems and find it difficult to accommodate change. Consequently, it is essential that new interventions are well aligned with health systems and their users. Establishing target product profiles (TPPs) is a critical, early step towards tailoring interventions to suit both of these constituencies. Specific analyses can help identify and establish relevant TPP criteria such as optimal formulation, presentation and packaging. Clinical trials for a new intervention should be designed to address both TPP-specific questions and anticipated use of the intervention in target countries. Examples are provided from research on malaria vaccines that are also applicable to other new public health interventions.

Design of a phase III multicenter trial to evaluate the efficacy of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine in children across diverse transmission settings in Africa.

BACKGROUND: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals and the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative are working in partnership to develop a malaria vaccine to protect infants and children living in malaria endemic regions of sub-Saharan Africa, which can be delivered through the Expanded Programme on Immunization. The RTS,S/AS candidate vaccine has been evaluated in multiple phase I/II studies and shown to have a favourable safety profile and to be well-tolerated in both adults and children. This paper details the design of the phase III multicentre efficacy trial of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine candidate, which is pivotal for licensure and policy decision-making. METHODS: The phase III trial is a randomized, controlled, multicentre, participant- and observer-blind study on-going in 11 centres associated with different malaria transmission settings in seven countries in sub-Saharan Africa. A minimum of 6,000 children in each of two age categories (6-12 weeks, 5-17 months) have been enrolled. Children were randomized 1:1:1 to one of three study groups: (1) primary vaccination with RTS,S/AS01 and booster dose of RTS,S/AS01; (2) primary vaccination with RTS,S/AS01 and a control vaccine at time of booster; (3) primary vaccination with control vaccine and a control vaccine at time of booster. Primary vaccination comprises three doses at monthly intervals; the booster dose is administered at 18 months post-primary course. Subjects will be followed to study month 32. The co-primary objectives are the evaluation of efficacy over one year post-dose 3 against clinical malaria when primary immunization is delivered at: (1) 6-12 weeks of age, with co-administration of DTPwHepB/Hib antigens and OPV; (2) 5-17 months of age. Secondary objectives include evaluation of vaccine efficacy against severe malaria, anaemia, malaria hospitalization, fatal malaria, all-cause mortality and other serious illnesses including sepsis and pneumonia. Efficacy of the vaccine against clinical malaria under different transmission settings, the evolution of efficacy over time and the potential benefit of a booster will be evaluated. In addition, the effect of RTS,S/AS01 vaccination on growth, and the safety and immunogenicity in HIV-infected and malnourished children will be assessed. Safety of the primary course of immunization and the booster dose will be documented in both age categories. CONCLUSIONS: This pivotal phase III study of the RTS,S/AS01 candidate malaria vaccine in African children was designed and implemented by the Clinical Trials Partnership Committee. The study will provide efficacy and safety data to fulfil regulatory requirements, together with data on a broad range of endpoints that will facilitate the evaluation of the public health impact of the vaccine and will aid policy and implementation decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00866619.

Safety and efficacy of the RTS,S/AS01E candidate malaria vaccine given with expanded-programme-on-immunisation vaccines: 19 month follow-up of a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The RTS,S/AS01(E) candidate malaria vaccine is being developed for immunisation of infants in Africa through the expanded programme on immunisation (EPI). 8 month follow-up data have been reported for safety and immunogenicity of RTS,S/AS01(E) when integrated into the EPI. We report extended follow-up to 19 months, including efficacy results. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial of safety and efficacy of the RTS,S/AS01(E) candidate malaria vaccine given with EPI vaccines between April 30, 2007, and Oct 7, 2009, in Ghana, Tanzania, and Gabon. Eligible children were 6-10 weeks of age at first vaccination, without serious acute or chronic illness. All children received the EPI diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (inactivated whole-cell), and hepatitis-B vaccines, Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine, and oral polio vaccine at study months 0, 1, and 2, and measles vaccine and yellow fever vaccines at study month 7. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive three doses of RTS,S/AS01(E) at 6, 10, and 14 weeks (0, 1, 2 month schedule) or at 6 weeks, 10 weeks, and 9 months (0, 2, 7 month schedule) or placebo. Randomisation was according to a predefined block list with a computer-generated randomisation code. Detection of serious adverse events and malaria was by passive case detection. Antibodies against Plasmodium falciparum circumsporozoite protein and HBsAg were monitored for 19 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00436007. FINDINGS: 511 children were enrolled. Serious adverse events occurred in 57 participants in the RTS,S/AS01(E) 0, 1, 2 month group (34%, 95% CI 27-41), 47 in the 0, 1, 7 month group (28%, 21-35), and 49 (29%, 22-36) in the control group; none were judged to be related to study vaccination. At month 19, anticircumsporozoite immune responses were significantly higher in the RTS,S/AS01(E) groups than in the control group. Vaccine efficacy for the 0, 1, 2 month schedule (2 weeks after dose three to month 19, site-adjusted according-to-protocol analysis) was 53% (95% CI 26-70; p=0·0012) against first malaria episodes and 59% (36-74; p=0·0001) against all malaria episodes. For the entire study period, (total vaccinated cohort) vaccine efficacy against all malaria episodes was higher with the 0, 1, 2 month schedule (57%, 95% CI 33-73; p=0·0002) than with the 0, 1, 7 month schedule (32% CI 16-45; p=0·0003). 1 year after dose three, vaccine efficacy against first malaria episodes was similar for both schedules (0, 1, 2 month group, 61·6% [95% CI 35·6-77·1], p<0·001; 0, 1, 7 month group, 63·8% [40·4-78·0], p<0·001, according-to-protocol cohort). INTERPRETATION: Vaccine efficacy was consistent with the target put forward by the WHO-sponsored malaria vaccine technology roadmap for a first-generation malaria vaccine. The 0, 1, 2 month vaccine schedule has been selected for phase 3 candidate vaccine assessment. FUNDING: Program for Appropriate Technology in Health Malaria Vaccine Initiative; GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.

Producing a successful malaria vaccine: innovation in the lab and beyond.

With approximately 225 million new cases and 800,000 deaths annually, malaria exacts a tremendous toll--mostly on African children under the age of five. Late-stage trials of an advanced malaria vaccine candidate--which, if approved, would become the world's first malaria vaccine--are under way, and it may be ready for use by 2015. This article recounts the pivotal roles in that achievement played by collaborations of nonprofit organizations, pharmaceutical companies, private and public donors, and countries whose citizens would benefit most directly from a vaccine. Just as it takes a village to raise a child, it has taken a huge number of stakeholders around the world to reach this point. Developing even more effective vaccines for malaria and other diseases will require continued hard work and creative thinking from scientists, regulators, and policy makers.

Four year immunogenicity of the RTS,S/AS02(A) malaria vaccine in Mozambican children during a phase IIb trial.

Previous studies with the malaria vaccine RTS,S/AS02(A) in young children in a malaria endemic area of Mozambique have shown it to have a promising safety profile and to reduce the risk of Plasmodium falciparum infection and disease. In this study, we assessed the antibody responses to the P. falciparum and hepatitis B components of the RTS,S/AS02(A) vaccine over a 45 months surveillance period in a large phase IIb trial which included 2022 children aged 1-4 years at recruitment. The RTS,S/AS02(A) vaccine induced high anti-circumsporozoite antibody levels with at least 96% of children remaining seropositive during the entire follow-up period. IgG titers decayed over the first 6 months of follow-up to about 25% of the initial level, but still remained 30-fold higher until month 45 compared to controls. Children with higher levels of naturally acquired immunity at baseline, assessed by blood stage indirect fluorescent antibody test, had slightly higher anti-circumsporozoite levels, after adjusting for the effect of age. The RTS,S/AS02(A) vaccine also induced high levels of anti-hepatitis B surface antigen antibodies (seroprotection >97%). RTS,S/AS02(A) vaccine is immunogenic and induces long-lasting anti-circumsporozoite antibodies, persisting at least 42 months after immunization. These antibodies may play a role in protection against malaria.

Safety, immunogenicity and duration of protection of the RTS,S/AS02(D) malaria vaccine: one year follow-up of a randomized controlled phase I/IIb trial.

BACKGROUND: The RTS,S/AS02(D) vaccine has been shown to have a promising safety profile, to be immunogenic and to confer protection against malaria in children and infants. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We did a randomized, controlled, phase I/IIb trial of RTS,S/AS02(D) given at 10, 14 and 18 weeks of age staggered with routine immunization vaccines in 214 Mozambican infants. The study was double-blind until the young child completed 6 months of follow-up over which period vaccine efficacy against new Plasmodium falciparum infections was estimated at 65.9% (95% CI 42.6-79.8, p<0.0001). We now report safety, immunogenicity and estimated efficacy against clinical malaria up to 14 months after study start. Vaccine efficacy was assessed using Cox regression models. The frequency of serious adverse events was 32.7% in the RTS,S/AS02(D) and 31.8% in the control group. The geometric mean titers of anti-circumsporozoite antibodies declined from 199.9 to 7.3 EU/mL from one to 12 months post dose three of RTS,S/AS02(D), remaining 15-fold higher than in the control group. Vaccine efficacy against clinical malaria was 33% (95% CI: -4.3-56.9, p = 0.076) over 14 months of follow-up. The hazard rate of disease per 2-fold increase in anti-CS titters was reduced by 84% (95% CI 35.1-88.2, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The RTS,S/AS02(D) malaria vaccine administered to young infants has a good safety profile and remains efficacious over 14 months. A strong association between anti-CS antibodies and risk of clinical malaria has been described for the first time. The results also suggest a decrease of both anti-CS antibodies and vaccine efficacy over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00197028.

Insights into long-lasting protection induced by RTS,S/AS02A malaria vaccine: further results from a phase IIb trial in Mozambican children.

BACKGROUND: The pre-erythrocytic malaria vaccine RTS,S/AS02A has shown to confer protection against clinical malaria for at least 21 months in a trial in Mozambican children. Efficacy varied between different endpoints, such as parasitaemia or clinical malaria; however the underlying mechanisms that determine efficacy and its duration remain unknown. We performed a new, exploratory analysis to explore differences in the duration of protection among participants to better understand the protection afforded by RTS,S. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The study was a Phase IIb double-blind, randomized controlled trial in 2022 children aged 1 to 4 years. The trial was designed with two cohorts to estimate vaccine efficacy against two different endpoints: clinical malaria (cohort 1) and infection (cohort 2). Participants were randomly allocated to receive three doses of RTS,S/AS02A or control vaccines. We did a retrospective, unplanned sub-analysis of cohort 2 data using information collected for safety through the health facility-based passive case detection system. Vaccine efficacy against clinical malaria was estimated over the first six-month surveillance period (double-blind phase) and over the following 12 months (single-blind phase), and analysis was per-protocol. Adjusted vaccine efficacy against first clinical malaria episodes in cohort 2 was of 35.4% (95% CI 4.5-56.3; p = 0.029) over the double-blind phase and of 9.0% (-30.6-36.6; p = 0.609) during the single-blind phase. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Contrary to observations in cohort 1, where efficacy against clinical malaria did not wane over time, in cohort 2 the efficacy decreases with time. We hypothesize that this reduced duration of protection is a result of the early diagnosis and treatment of infections in cohort 2 participants, preventing sufficient exposure to asexual-stage antigens. On the other hand, the long-term protection against clinical disease observed in cohort 1 may be a consequence of a prolonged exposure to low-dose blood-stage asexual parasitaemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00197041.