- Home
- Medical news & Guidelines
- Anesthesiology
- Cardiology and CTVS
- Critical Care
- Dentistry
- Dermatology
- Diabetes and Endocrinology
- ENT
- Gastroenterology
- Medicine
- Nephrology
- Neurology
- Obstretics-Gynaecology
- Oncology
- Ophthalmology
- Orthopaedics
- Pediatrics-Neonatology
- Psychiatry
- Pulmonology
- Radiology
- Surgery
- Urology
- Laboratory Medicine
- Diet
- Nursing
- Paramedical
- Physiotherapy
- Health news
- Fact Check
- Bone Health Fact Check
- Brain Health Fact Check
- Cancer Related Fact Check
- Child Care Fact Check
- Dental and oral health fact check
- Diabetes and metabolic health fact check
- Diet and Nutrition Fact Check
- Eye and ENT Care Fact Check
- Fitness fact check
- Gut health fact check
- Heart health fact check
- Kidney health fact check
- Medical education fact check
- Men's health fact check
- Respiratory fact check
- Skin and hair care fact check
- Vaccine and Immunization fact check
- Women's health fact check
- AYUSH
- State News
- Andaman and Nicobar Islands
- Andhra Pradesh
- Arunachal Pradesh
- Assam
- Bihar
- Chandigarh
- Chattisgarh
- Dadra and Nagar Haveli
- Daman and Diu
- Delhi
- Goa
- Gujarat
- Haryana
- Himachal Pradesh
- Jammu & Kashmir
- Jharkhand
- Karnataka
- Kerala
- Ladakh
- Lakshadweep
- Madhya Pradesh
- Maharashtra
- Manipur
- Meghalaya
- Mizoram
- Nagaland
- Odisha
- Puducherry
- Punjab
- Rajasthan
- Sikkim
- Tamil Nadu
- Telangana
- Tripura
- Uttar Pradesh
- Uttrakhand
- West Bengal
- Medical Education
- Industry
Genetics help explain poor showing for GSK malaria vaccine
LONDON: Scientists have found a genetic explanation for why the world's first malaria vaccine is not very effective in protecting some African children against the deadly mosquito-borne disease.
The analysis, published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday, comes at a critical time for the experimental shot from GlaxoSmithKline, when global experts are assessing how it might be deployed.
GSK's Mosquirix, also known as RTS,S, is specifically designed for use by African babies and toddlers. While it has the potential to help prevent many cases of malaria, researchers have been disappointed by its limited efficacy.
Hopes it could wipe out malaria were dampened when trial data in 2011 and 2012 showed it reduced episodes of the disease in babies aged 6-12 weeks by only 27 percent, and by about 46 percent in children aged 5-17 months.
Now scientists have discovered that genetic variability in a protein found on the surface of malaria parasites may help explain the patchy response because, while the protein comes in different forms, GSK's vaccine incorporates only one variant.
The new study, funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, looked at blood from 5,000 youngsters and found that the vaccine gave less protection when toddlers were infected with parasites with a different protein variant to the vaccine.
GSK said the research was interesting but early-stage.
"This single study is too small to offer conclusive evidence for how RTS,S should be deployed," a spokeswoman said.
"However, the work underscores how a full and comprehensive catalogue of the genetic diversity of key pathogens could inform the design of clinical studies in the future," she said.
Experts advising the World Health Organization (WHO) have been meeting in Geneva this week to draw up recommendations on how the vaccine could be used. The U.N. agency, which normally follows such advice, will make a recommendation by November.
Even if the WHO view is positive, the vaccine is unlikely to be rolled out widely before 2017 since it still needs to win funding from international donors and be approved by governments in the African countries where it will be used.
GSK has said it will not make any profit from the vaccine, since it will be priced at the cost of manufacture plus a five percent margin, which will be reinvested in research on malaria and other neglected tropical diseases. (By Ben Hirschler, editing by David Clarke)
The analysis, published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday, comes at a critical time for the experimental shot from GlaxoSmithKline, when global experts are assessing how it might be deployed.
GSK's Mosquirix, also known as RTS,S, is specifically designed for use by African babies and toddlers. While it has the potential to help prevent many cases of malaria, researchers have been disappointed by its limited efficacy.
Hopes it could wipe out malaria were dampened when trial data in 2011 and 2012 showed it reduced episodes of the disease in babies aged 6-12 weeks by only 27 percent, and by about 46 percent in children aged 5-17 months.
Now scientists have discovered that genetic variability in a protein found on the surface of malaria parasites may help explain the patchy response because, while the protein comes in different forms, GSK's vaccine incorporates only one variant.
The new study, funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, looked at blood from 5,000 youngsters and found that the vaccine gave less protection when toddlers were infected with parasites with a different protein variant to the vaccine.
GSK said the research was interesting but early-stage.
"This single study is too small to offer conclusive evidence for how RTS,S should be deployed," a spokeswoman said.
"However, the work underscores how a full and comprehensive catalogue of the genetic diversity of key pathogens could inform the design of clinical studies in the future," she said.
Experts advising the World Health Organization (WHO) have been meeting in Geneva this week to draw up recommendations on how the vaccine could be used. The U.N. agency, which normally follows such advice, will make a recommendation by November.
Even if the WHO view is positive, the vaccine is unlikely to be rolled out widely before 2017 since it still needs to win funding from international donors and be approved by governments in the African countries where it will be used.
GSK has said it will not make any profit from the vaccine, since it will be priced at the cost of manufacture plus a five percent margin, which will be reinvested in research on malaria and other neglected tropical diseases. (By Ben Hirschler, editing by David Clarke)
Meghna A Singhania is the founder and Editor-in-Chief at Medical Dialogues. An Economics graduate from Delhi University and a post graduate from London School of Economics and Political Science, her key research interest lies in health economics, and policy making in health and medical sector in the country. She is a member of the Association of Healthcare Journalists. She can be contacted at meghna@medicaldialogues.in. Contact no. 011-43720751
Next Story