Early promising results in malaria vaccine trial in Mali

Jan 23, 2008

A small clinical trial conducted by an international team of researchers in Mali has found that a candidate malaria vaccine was safe and elicited strong immune responses in the 40 Malian adults who received it.

The trial was the first to test this vaccine candidate, which is designed to block the malaria parasite from entering human blood cells, in a malaria-endemic country. Based on these promising results, the research team is now conducting trials of this vaccine in 400 Malian children aged 1 to 6 years. Malaria is a leading killer in Africa and other developing countries, claiming more than 1 million lives each year, most of them children.

Lead investigator Mahamadou A. Thera M.D., MPH, and 16 other co-authors of the newly published study are based at the Malaria Research and Training Center at the University of Bamako, Mali. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, supported the trial and helps fund the Center. University of Maryland School of Medicine researcher Christopher Plowe, M.D., MPH, was the co-leader of the study.

The trial enrolled volunteers living in Bandiagara, a rural town in northeast Mali with a heavy burden of malaria. In this relatively dry region, almost no new infections occur during the driest month of the year, March, but people typically get up to 60 malaria-transmitting mosquito bites per month in August and September, when the rainy season peaks.

A total of 60 participants were assigned at random to receive either a full or half-dose of the candidate malaria vaccine or a licensed rabies vaccine, which served as a control. Each volunteer received three injections, spaced one month apart. Injections began in late December 2004, at the end of the malaria transmission season. As expected, all volunteers had significant levels of antibodies against malaria parasites detectable in their blood at the beginning of the trial, signaling that they had prior exposure to malaria parasites.

Those who received the candidate vaccine tolerated it very well and experienced a significant boost (up to a sixfold rise) in levels of vaccine-specific antibodies, while those who received the rabies vaccine had declining levels of antibodies as the rainy season receded.

Source: NIH/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Explore further: Lilly psoriasis drug fares well in late-stage test

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Malaria vaccine trials begin using 'chimpanzee virus'

Feb 01, 2008

Trials are underway, funded by the Wellcome Trust, for a new vaccine to combat the most deadly form of malaria. For the first time ever, researchers will use a virus found in chimpanzees to boost the efficacy of the vaccine. ...

Can science eliminate extreme poverty?

Apr 16, 2014

Science has often come to the rescue when it comes to the world's big problems, be it the Green Revolution that helped avoid mass starvation or the small pox vaccine that eradicated the disease. There is ...

Recommended for you

Using computers to design drugs

5 hours ago

Designing a new medicine is an expensive and time consuming business. Typically it takes around $2 billion and ten years for a new drug to move from its initial design in the lab, to the clinic. All the ...

Lilly psoriasis drug fares well in late-stage test

10 hours ago

Drugmaker Eli Lilly and Co. said its potential psoriasis treatment fared better than both a fake drug and a competitor's product during late-stage testing on patients with the most common form of the skin disease.

New US restrictions on painkiller to take effect

23 hours ago

The federal government is finalizing new restrictions on hundreds of medicines containing hydrocodone, the highly addictive painkiller that has grown into the most widely prescribed drug in the U.S.

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Sepp
not rated yet Jan 23, 2008
Question is: did they contract malaria or not? Citing only the "vaccine specific antibodies" it is really impossible to see whether the vaccine was effective. The real data we'd need to say it is a worthwhile intervention is differences in actual cases of malaria. Should that not be part of the article?