Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16871327›Full record

ArticlePLoS clinical trials2006

RTS,S/AS02A malaria vaccine does not induce parasite CSP T cell epitope selection and reduces multiplicity of infection.

Sonia Enosse, Carlota Dobaño, Diana Quelhas, John J Aponte, Marc Lievens, Amanda Leach, Jahit Sacarlal, Brian Greenwood, Jessica Milman, Filip Dubovsky and 6 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS clinical trials, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. A field trial to assess a blood-stage malaria vaccine.The New England journal of medicine · 2011
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Malaria Genomics, Vaccine Development, and Microbiome.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. RTS,S/AS01 vaccine (Mosquirix™): an overview.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2020
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Vaccines against malaria.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2015
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Sonia EnosseCentro de Investigação em Saúde da Manhiça, Ministério de Saúde, Maputo, Mozambique.
Carlota Dobaño
Diana Quelhas
John J Aponte
Marc Lievens
Amanda Leach
Jahit Sacarlal
Brian Greenwood
Jessica Milman
Filip Dubovsky
Joe Cohen
Ricardo Thompson
W Ripley Ballou
Pedro L Alonso
David J Conway
Colin J Sutherland
GlaxoSmithKline (Belgium) · BEUniversitat de Barcelona · ESInstituto Nacional de Saúde · MZLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBU.S. President's Malaria Initiative · USMRC Unit the Gambia · GM

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U190081993
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe candidate malaria vaccine RTS,S/AS02A is a recombinant protein containing part of the circumsporozoite protein (CSP) sequence of Plasmodium falciparum, linked to the hepatitis B surface antigen and formulated in the proprietary adjuvant system AS02A. In a recent trial conducted in children younger than age five in southern Mozambique, the vaccine demonstrated significant and sustained efficacy against both infection and clinical disease. In a follow-up study to the main trial, breakthrough infections identified in the trial were examined to determine whether the distribution of csp sequences was affected by the vaccine and to measure the multiplicity of infecting parasite genotypes.

designP. falciparum DNA from isolates collected during the trial was used for genotype studies.

settingThe main trial was carried out in the Manhiça district, Maputo province, Mozambique, between April 2003 and May 2004.

participantsChildren from the two cohorts of the main trial provided parasite isolates as follows: children from Cohort 1 who were admitted to hospital with clinical malaria; children from Cohort 1 who were parasite-positive in a cross-sectional survey at study month 8.5; children from Cohort 2 identified as parasite-positive during follow-up by active detection of infection. OUTCOME: Divergence of DNA sequence encoding the CSP T cell-epitope region sequence from that of the vaccine sequence was measured in 521 isolates. The number of distinct P. falciparum genotypes was also determined.

resultsWe found no evidence that parasite genotypes from children in the RTS,S/AS02A arm were more divergent than those receiving control vaccines. For Cohort 1 (survey at study month 8.5) and Cohort 2, infections in the vaccine group contained significantly fewer genotypes than those in the control group, (p = 0.035, p = 0.006), respectively, for the two cohorts. This was not the case for children in Cohort 1 who were admitted to hospital (p = 0.478).

conclusionsRTS,S/AS02A did not select for genotypes encoding divergent T cell epitopes in the C-terminal region of CSP in this trial. In both cohorts, there was a modest reduction in the mean number of parasite genotypes harboured by vaccinated children compared with controls, but only among those with asymptomatic infections.

Identifiers

PMID16871327
PMCPMC1488895
OpenAlexW2095901889

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.