Journal Article

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

Tapily, Amadou, Barry, Amadou, Diarra, Modibo, Issiaka, Djibrilla, Diarra, Kalifa, Kaya, Mahamadou, Dicko, Alassane, Haro, Alassane, Greenwood, Brian, Cairns, Matthew, Grant, Jane, Milligan, Paul, Sanogo, Koualy, Traore, Seydou, Zongo, Issaka, Tinto, Halidou, Sagara, Issaka, Thera, Ismaila, Chandramohan, Daniel, Yalcouye, Hama, Ouedraogo, Jean Bosco, Snell, Paul, Sidibe, Youssoufa, Yerbanga, Serge R., Zoungrana, Charles, Sienou, Abdoul Aziz

2022

Overview

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

• Publisher: BioMed Central,BioMed Central Ltd,Springer Nature B.V,BMC
• Subject: Antimalarials / Biomedicine / Children & youth / Clustering / Communicable diseases in children / Comparative analysis / Control / Disease transmission / Drug dosages / Dry season / Effectiveness / Epidemiology / Health facilities / Immunization / Intervention / Malaria / Malaria vaccination / Malaria vaccine / Medicine / Medicine & Public Health / Patient outcomes / Pediatric research / Plasmodium falciparum / Regression analysis / Research Article / Robust control / RTS,S/AS01E / Seasonal malaria chemoprevention / Seasonal variations (Diseases) / Statistics / Survival / Tropical diseases / Vaccination / Vaccines / Vector-borne diseases