Pharmaceutical company develops malaria vaccine

Is a vaccine against malaria possible?

09/10/2013

The tropical disease malaria claims more than 600,000 deaths every year worldwide. Especially children under five are affected, in Africa alone every minute a child dies of the infectious disease. So far, there is no way to vaccinate against malaria, instead, only a prevention or emergency therapy with malaria drugs can be done. However, the British pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has apparently developed a vaccine.

Tropical disease Malaria kills more than 600,000 people every year
More than 600,000 people die every year, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) on the infectious disease malaria. About half of the victims are children under the age of five, 90% of the victims live on the African continent. The infectious disease, which is mainly transmitted by the bite of a female Anopheles mosquito, usually begins at first quite harmless and reminds in the symptoms of a cold. In the further course, however, it comes to high, recurrent episodes of fever with chills, diarrhea and convulsions, which can quickly lead to coma and death, especially in children and the elderly. So far, there is still no way to vaccinate against the dangerous malaria, but instead can be prevented with malaria medicines, if necessary, and also be treated. Especially in Africa, however, there is the big problem that the pathogens in many cases are resistant to malaria drugs.

New vaccine "RTS, S" can already be used in 2015?
Now, however, there is hope in the fight against malaria, because the British pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has evidently developed a vaccine called "RTS, S". According to the company, this is specifically intended for African children, whereas in Europe it is not planned to bring the product to market. The vaccine "RTS, S" was the most advanced compared to other developments, which is why the group now claims to be pushing ahead with the use of the new product. According to this, the assessment of the vaccine by the European Medicines Agency should take place in the coming year so that, if the outcome is positive, the funds can be used in Africa as early as 2015.

Protection up to 18 months after vaccination
The company presented the latest test results from the third phase of its study at an international malaria conference in Durban, South Africa, for which more than 15,000 children had been studied. The study had been shown, „that the most advanced malaria vaccine „RTS, p“ is able to protect children and infants from malaria up to 18 months after vaccination“, so the message of the group. The test series revealed that the new vaccine had a positive effect on babies aged between 5 and 17 months after their first use in just under half of the cases (46%). Even in infants between six and twelve weeks, a success is shown - here was the effectiveness of "RTS, S" after the first vaccination in 27 percent.

„encouraging“ Results give hope for medical progress
According to investigator Lucas Otieno, these results are "encouraging" because by comparison, the second phase of the study had far less reason to hope. GlaxoSmithKline was in November „England Journal of Medicine“ It was announced that malaria protection had steadily declined with vaccinated children over time and had not existed after four years. According to Lucas Otieno, however, there had been fewer participants during the earlier phase of the investigation and the tests had been carried out in a region of Kenya in which different forms of malaria were found. In order to avoid further distortions of the test results, the researchers in the current phase had examined children in eleven places distributed across seven countries.

Great potential for public health
According to Halidou Tinto, chairman of the Clinical Trials Partnership Committee (CTPC), the current results are likely „that the RTS, S vaccine has the potential to have a significant impact on public health: „Preventing a significant number of malaria cases in one community would mean fewer hospital beds with ill children. As a result, families would have less time and money to invest in caring for these children and have more time for work or other activities. And of course, the children themselves would have all the benefits of better health“, so Halidou Tinto. (No)