Abstract
New malaria vaccine development builds on groundbreaking recommendations and roll-out of two approved pre-erythrocytic vaccines (PEVs); RTS,S/AS01 and R21/MM. Whilst these vaccines are effective in reducing childhood malaria within yearly routine immunization programs or seasonal vaccination, there is little evidence on how different PEV efficacies, durations of protection, and spacing between doses influence the potential to avert uncomplicated and severe childhood malaria. Mainly, lacking understanding of the required vaccine properties and delivery strategies that lead to an effective childhood vaccine with multi-year protection. We used an individual-based model of malaria transmission informed by trial data to quantify trade-offs between PEV performance properties and impact across different endemicities, deployment schedules, and coverage levels.
We found that deploying a vaccine with 90% initial efficacy, with a six to 12-month half-life duration of protection, co-administered with a blood-stage drug, followed by yearly boosters, results in 60-80% yearly incidence reduction, consistent with seasonal RTS,S and R21 trials. Halting vaccination after five years, leads to sustained protection of at least a 35% incidence reduction in children <six years in the 12 months following cessation in settings where PfPR2-10 <30%. Increasing the half-life duration to 12 -18 months or reaching more children provides the same health impact with lower vaccine efficacy. Without a booster (fourth dose), high efficacy (>90%) and longer half-life duration (>12 months) are required to sustain impact beyond primary vaccination, averting up to half the preceding year’s burden. The contribution of each property to the overall impact varies by setting and clinical endpoint, indicating that public health goals should dictate key vaccine performance criteria.
Overall, our findings support the need for well-defined target product profiles for long duration vaccines linking priority use cases of where, how, and to whom to deploy new malaria vaccines, to maximize public health impact.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-002562 to MAP). MAP and TM acknowledge support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF Professorship PP00P3_170702 and PP00P3_203450 to MAP).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
WHO. Malaria: The malaria vaccine implementation programme (MVIP). 2021 [cited 2021 May 18]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/malaria-vaccine-implementation-programme
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The datasets, code, and plot scripts used and analyzed in our study are all open access and available via the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14012674.
