↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The time-course of protection of the RTS,S vaccine against malaria infections and clinical disease
Published in
Malaria Journal, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0969-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

Recent 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. Using 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. The 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. The 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
Burkina Faso 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 100 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 18%
Researcher 17 17%
Other 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 16 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 22 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 November 2015.
All research outputs
#16,159,916
of 24,580,204 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#4,341
of 5,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,491
of 290,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#100
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,580,204 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,786 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 290,845 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.