Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26219380›Full record

Trial reportBMC medicine2015

The public health impact of malaria vaccine RTS,S in malaria endemic Africa: country-specific predictions using 18 month follow-up Phase III data and simulation models.

Melissa A Penny, Katya Galactionova, Michael Tarantino, Marcel Tanner, Thomas A Smith

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Malaria Modeling in the Era of Eradication.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2017
    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

5 authors.

Melissa A PennyDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland. melissa.penny@unibas.ch.
Katya GalactionovaDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland. e.galactionova@unibas.ch.
Michael TarantinoDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland. tarantino.michael@gmail.com.
Marcel TannerDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland. marcel.tanner@unibas.ch.
Thomas A SmithDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland. Thomas-A.Smith@unibas.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine candidate recently completed Phase III trials in 11 African sites. Recommendations for its deployment will partly depend on predictions of public health impact in endemic countries. Previous predictions of these used only limited information on underlying vaccine properties and have not considered country-specific contextual data.

methodsEach Phase III trial cohort was simulated explicitly using an ensemble of individual-based stochastic models, and many hypothetical vaccine profiles. The true profile was estimated by Bayesian fitting of these models to the site- and time-specific incidence of clinical malaria in both trial arms over 18 months of follow-up. Health impacts of implementation via two vaccine schedules in 43 endemic sub-Saharan African countries, using country-specific prevalence, access to care, immunisation coverage and demography data, were predicted via weighted averaging over many simulations.

resultsThe efficacy against infection of three doses of vaccine was initially approximately 65 % (when immunising 6-12 week old infants) and 80 % (children 5-17 months old), with a 1 year half-life (exponential decay). Either schedule will avert substantial disease, but predicted impact strongly depends on the decay rate of vaccine effects and average transmission intensity.

conclusionsFor the first time Phase III site- and time-specific data were available to estimate both the underlying profile of RTS,S/AS01 and likely country-specific health impacts. Initial efficacy will probably be high, but decay rapidly. Adding RTS,S to existing control programs, assuming continuation of current levels of malaria exposure and of health system performance, will potentially avert 100-580 malaria deaths and 45,000 to 80,000 clinical episodes per 100,000 fully vaccinated children over an initial 10-year phase.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAfrica South of the SaharaChildFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceInfantMalariaMalaria, FalciparumMalaria VaccinesMiddle AgedPrevalencePublic HealthTreatment OutcomeVaccinationMalaria Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID26219380
PMCPMC4518512

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.