News

Malaria vaccine disappoints in phase II trial

View on the News

Need for more data shouldn’t delay implementation

The findings of this extended follow-up of a 2008 phase II trial suggest that the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine should be further investigated, but shouldn’t impede studies to prepare for large-scale vaccine deployment by the World Health Organization, according to John Clemens, MD, and Vasee Moorthy, PhD, in an editorial accompanying the study (N Engl J Med. 2016;374:2596-7. doi:10.1056/NEJMe1606007).

The three-dose regimen examined in the study is not the one that WHO agreed upon based on the vaccine’s most recent phase III trial, conducted in 15,500 children. That study looked at a three- and four-dose regimen in two different age groups. While efficacy waned in both groups over the 32-month study period, the four-dose regimen declined more slowly. WHO has thus given its support only to the four-dose regimen in the 5- to 17-month age group, and recommended pilot implementation studies in several sub-Saharan countries with moderate to high levels of malaria transmission.

The new data from the phase II trial cast even more negative light on the complex interplay of this vaccine and the malaria risk in areas in which it is to be deployed. But, the authors said, it should not be cause for abandoning the vaccine protocol.

“The interpretation of these findings requires caution, in view of the high attrition of the original cohort over time and the emergence of these findings in the context of many analyses, with the attendant risk of increased type I error,” the authors of the editorial wrote. “Fortunately, three other sites participating in the phase III trial are extending surveillance beyond the 4th year and include cohorts receiving either a three-dose or four-dose regimen; these sites will provide an important resource to test and better understand the findings of this trial. To maximize the usefulness and ensure the validity of these additional trials, it will be critical that the analyses be done conjointly, with the use of common a priori analytic plans and definitions. In the meantime, it would be unwise to postpone the planning of the WHO-recommended pilot implementation studies, which will be designed to yield data of importance to decisions regarding the deployment of this vaccine.”

Dr. Clemens is professor and vice chairman in the department of epidemiology, as well as the founding director of the center for global infectious diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles. He has received grant support from GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Moorthy is an infectious disease specialist with the World Health Organization. He had no financial conflicts to disclose.


 

FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE

References

The efficacy of an investigational malaria vaccine waned from 36% to 2.5% over a period of 7 years in Kenya, at which time it was even associated with an excess of cases in areas of high malaria transmission.

The overall vaccine efficacy during the entire follow-up period was 4.4%, Ally Olotu, PhD, and colleagues wrote in the June 29 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (2016;374:2519-29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1515257). But after 7 years, in areas of high malaria risk, the vaccine was associated with 141 excess cases per 1,000 vaccinated children.

©jarun011/Thinkstock

“We found that RTS,S/AS01 provided protective efficacy in the first year after vaccination but that the efficacy subsequently waned,” wrote Dr. Olotu of the Kenya Medical Research Institute in Africa and associates. “Efficacy was close to zero in the fourth year and may have been negative in the fifth year. This result eroded the benefits that were seen in early years.”

The rebound in cases probably occurred because the vaccine targets only a particular early-stage form of Plasmodium falciparum, they noted. “[It] protects against malaria sporozoites but does not induce clinical immunity against blood-stage parasites. We and others have previously found lower levels of antibodies against blood-stage parasites in children who have been immunized with the RTS,S/AS01 vaccine than in those given the control vaccine. The reduced exposure to blood-stage parasites among persons who have received the vaccine may lead to a slower acquisition of immunity to blood-stage parasites, leading to an increase in episodes of clinical malaria in later life.”

The phase II study comprised 447 children aged 5-17 months who were randomized to three doses of RTS,S/AS01 or a control rabies vaccine, administered at baseline and at 1 and 2 months. Children were followed for 7 years. The study had a large attrition rate, with 312 children completing all the follow-up visits.

In an intent-to-treat analysis, 150 incident cases of malaria developed among 223 children in the active group, and 157 cases among 224 in the control group. This equated to a vaccine efficacy of 27% against a first episode of malaria.

Overall, there were 1,002 episodes of malaria in the vaccine group and 992 in the control group. When the investigators grouped the children according to the endemic potential of their environment (high- vs. low-risk exposure), they observed that efficacy was consistently better in the low-risk group than the high-risk group (16.6% vs. –2.4%)

They then examined this finding year by year. Vaccine efficacy declined from 36% in year 1 to 3.6% in year 7. At year 5, there was significant negative efficacy in the high-risk exposure cohort (–56.8%, P = .008).

Overall, the vaccine averted 317 cases of clinical malaria per 1,000 children vaccinated, but the investigators noted that this finding was nonsignificant. In the low-exposure cohort, the vaccine did better, averting 718 cases per 1,000 vaccinated children. “However, in the high-exposure cohort … there were more cumulative cases among participants in the RTS,S/AS01 group than among those in the control group … which more than offset the cases that were averted in earlier years,” leading to an excess of 141 cases per 1,000 vaccinated children over baseline levels.

The rate of serious adverse events was similar between the vaccine and control groups (17.9% vs. 25.4%). No cases of meningitis occurred.

The investigators said a larger, phase III trial is being conducted in several areas with varying levels of transmission, and with different dosing schedules. “It will be essential to monitor efficacy in longer-term follow-up for year 5 and beyond to accurately measure the benefit and potential risk of vaccination with the RTS,S/AS01 vaccine,” they wrote.

The study was funded by grants from the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Wellcome Trust. Two of the investigators, Amanda Leach and Marc Lievens, reported receiving personal fees and other support from GlaxoSmithKline Vaccines.

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @Alz_Gal

Recommended Reading

Norovirus costs $60 billion worldwide, making inroads in U.S.
MDedge Infectious Disease
Ebola research update: April 2016
MDedge Infectious Disease
Malaria vaccine provides long-term protection in phase I trial
MDedge Infectious Disease
Study shows significant progress toward elimination of polio
MDedge Infectious Disease
Ebola research update: May 2016
MDedge Infectious Disease
TB still a risk in psoriasis patients taking TNF blockers
MDedge Infectious Disease
Cholera vaccine dosing schedule may be suboptimal
MDedge Infectious Disease
FDA approves first cholera vaccine for travelers
MDedge Infectious Disease
Abortion requests surged in Latin American countries after Zika warnings
MDedge Infectious Disease
Zika vaccine development to get underway
MDedge Infectious Disease