Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26537608›Full record

Trial reportMalaria journal2015

The time-course of protection of the RTS,S vaccine against malaria infections and clinical disease.

Melissa A Penny, Peter Pemberton-Ross, Thomas A Smith

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase III
In one paragraph

Trial report in Malaria journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

3 authors.

Melissa A PennyDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, 4051, Basel, Switzerland. melissa.penny@unibas.ch.
Peter Pemberton-RossDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, 4051, Basel, Switzerland. peter.pemberton-ross@unibas.ch.
Thomas A SmithDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, 4051, Basel, Switzerland. thomas-a.smith@unibas.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent publications have reported follow-up of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine candidate Phase III trials at 11 African sites for 32 months (or longer). This includes site- and time-specific estimates of incidence and efficacy against clinical disease with four different vaccination schedules. These data allow estimation of the time-course of protection against infection associated with two different ages of vaccination, both with and without a booster dose.

methodsUsing an ensemble of individual-based stochastic models, each trial cohort in the Phase III trial was simulated assuming many different hypothetical profiles for the vaccine efficacy against infection in time, for both the primary course and boosting dose and including the potential for either exponential or non-exponential decay. The underlying profile of protection was determined by Bayesian fitting of these model predictions to the site- and time-specific incidence of clinical malaria over 32 months (or longer) of follow-up. Using the same stochastic models, projections of clinical efficacy in each of the sites were modelled and compared to available observed trial data.

resultsThe initial protection of RTS,S immediately following three doses is estimated as providing an efficacy against infection of 65 % (when immunizing infants aged 6-12 weeks old) and 91 % (immunizing children aged 5-17 months old at first vaccination). This protection decays relatively rapidly, with an approximately exponential decay for the 6-12 weeks old cohort (with a half-life of 7.2 months); for the 5-17 months old cohort a biphasic decay with a similar half-life is predicted, with an initial rapid decay followed by a slower decay. The boosting dose was estimated to return protection to an efficacy against infection of 50-55 % for both cohorts. Estimates of clinical efficacy by trial site are consistent with those reported in the trial for all cohorts.

conclusionsThe site- and time-specific clinical observations from the RTS,S/AS01 trial data allowed a reasonably precise estimation of the underlying vaccine protection against infection which is consistent with common underlying efficacy and decay rates across the trial sites. This calibration suggests that the decay in efficacy against clinical disease is more rapid than that against infection because of age-shifts in the incidence of disease. The dynamical models predict that clinical effectiveness will continue to decay and that likely effects beyond the time-scale of the trial will be small.

Indexed as

Child, PreschoolHumansImmunization ScheduleInfantMalariaMalaria VaccinesTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeVaccines, SyntheticMalaria VaccinesRTS,S-AS01 vaccineVaccines, Synthetic

Identifiers

PMID26537608
PMCPMC4634589

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.