↓ 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

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 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 81 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 24%
Researcher 15 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 18%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 17 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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
#1,486,314
of 6,535,212 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#693
of 2,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,370
of 209,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#46
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,535,212 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,293 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
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 209,581 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.