BioMed Central, BMC Infectious Diseases, 1(23), 2023
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08699-7
Full text: Download
Abstract Background RTS,S/AS01 has been recommended by WHO for widespread implementation in medium to high malaria transmission settings. Previous analyses have noted lower vaccine efficacies in higher transmission settings, possibly due to the more rapid development of naturally acquired immunity in the control group. Methods To investigate a reduced immune response to vaccination as a potential mechanism behind lower efficacy in high transmission areas, we examine initial vaccine antibody (anti-CSP IgG) response and vaccine efficacy against the first case of malaria (to exclude the effect of naturally acquired immunity) using data from three study areas (Kintampo, Ghana; Lilongwe, Malawi; Lambaréné, Gabon) from the 2009–2014 phase III trial (NCT00866619). Our key exposures are parasitemia during the vaccination series and background malaria incidence. We calculate vaccine efficacy (one minus hazard ratio) using a cox-proportional hazards model and allowing for the time-varying effect of RTS,S/AS01. Results We find that antibody responses to the primary three-dose vaccination series were higher in Ghana than in Malawi and Gabon, but that neither antibody levels nor vaccine efficacy against the first case of malaria varied by background incidence or parasitemia during the primary vaccination series. Conclusions We find that vaccine efficacy is unrelated to infections during vaccination. Contributing to a conflicting literature, our results suggest that vaccine efficacy is also unrelated to infections before vaccination, meaning that control-group immunity is likely a major reason for lower efficacy in high transmission settings, not reduced immune responses to RTS,S/AS01. This may be reassuring for implementation in high transmission settings, though further studies are needed.