Friday, May 29, 2020

BMC Tropical Medicine and Health

The durability of long-lasting insecticidal nets distributed to the households between 2009 and 2013 in Nepal

Prakash Ghimire1,2, Komal Raj Rijal1* , Nabaraj Adhikari1, Garib Das Thakur3, Baburam Marasini3,Upendra Thapa Shrestha1, Megha Raj Banjara1, Shishir Kumar Pant4, Bipin Adhikari5, Shyam Prakash Dumre6, Nihal Singh2, Olivier Pigeon7, Theeraphap Chareonviriyaphap8, Irwin Chavez9, Leonard Ortega10,11 and Jeffrey Hii12,13

Abstract 

Background: Understanding and improving the durability of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) in the field are critical for planning future implementation strategies including behavioral change for care and maintenance. LLIN distribution at high coverage is considered to be one of the adjunctive transmission reduction strategies in Nepal’s Malaria Strategic Plan 2014–2025. The main objective of this study was to assess the durability through assessment of community usage, physical integrity, residual bio-efficacy, and chemical retention in LLINs: Interceptor®, Yorkool®, and PermaNet ®2.0 which were used in Nepal during 2009 through 2013. 

Methods: Assessments were conducted on random samples (n = 440) of LLINs from the eleven districts representing four ecological zones: Terai plain region (Kailali and Kanchanpur districts), outer Terai fluvial ecosystem (Surkhet, Dang, and Rupandhei districts), inner Terai forest ecosystem (Mahhothari, Dhanusa, and Illam districts), and Hills and river valley (Kavrepalanchock and Sindhupalchok districts). For each LLIN, fabric integrity in terms of proportionate hole index (pHI) and residual bio-efficacy were assessed. However, for chemical retention, a representative sample of 44 nets (15 Yorkool®, 10 Permanet®2.0, and 19 Interceptor®) was evaluated. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics stratified by LLINs brand, districts, and duration of exposure. 

Results: On average, duration of use of LLINs was shortest for the Yorkool® samples, followed by PermaNet® 2.0 and Interceptor® with median ages of 8.9 (IQR = 0.4), 23.8 (IQR = 3.2), and 50.1 (IQR = 3.2) months, respectively. Over 80% of field distributed Yorkool® and PermaNet® 2.0 nets were in good condition (pHI< 25) compared to Interceptor® (66%). Bio-efficacy analysis showed that average mortality rates of Interceptor and Yorkool were below World Health Organization (WHO) optimal effectiveness of ≥ 80% compared to 2-year-old PermaNet 2.0 which attained 80%. Chemical retention analysis was consistent with bio-efficacy results. 

Conclusion: This study shows that distribution of LLINs is effective for malaria control; however, serviceable life of LLINs should be considered in terms of waning residual bio-efficacy that warrants replacement. As an adjunctive malaria control tool, National Malaria Control Program of Nepal can benefit by renewing the distribution of LLINs in an appropriate time frame in addition to utilizing durable and effective LLINs.

Keywords: Long-lasting insecticide treated nets, Durability, Malaria, Bio-efficacy, Chemical retention, Proportionate hole index, Nepal 

https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-020-00223-w

Wednesday, May 20, 2020

Guide to Comparing Safety Gloves

Friday, May 15, 2020

Malaria Vaccines Updates


Table 1: List of malaria vaccines

Type of Vaccines
Name:
Compositions
Beneficial / Limitations
Pre-erythrocytic vaccines
1.       RTS,S/AS01E
·         Adenovirus (Ad35) vectored circumsporozoite (CS) protein in prime boost with RTS,S/AS01E
·         Multiple epitope constructs (ME-TRAP); a pre-erythrocytic fusion antigen consisting of 17 B-cell, CD4+, CD8+ T cell epitopes of 6 Pf antigens fused to the T9/96 allele of TRAP (Thrombospondin related adhesion protein)

·         Only the vaccine in Phase 3 clinical trial
·         Low efficacy but decreases mortality
2.       AdCh63/MVA ME-TRAP
·         Simian Adenovirus (Ad35) encoding ME-TRAP boosted with modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA)

·         Long lasting CD8+ T cell responses
3.       Polyepitope DNA EP1300
·         DNA vaccine includes multiple epitopes with linker sequences from four pre-erythrocytic antigens CS, SSP2/TRAP, liver stage antigen-1 (LSA-1) and Exported protein-1 (EP-1)

·         Immunogenicity is not enhanced in human as compared to animals  

4.       PfSPZ
·         Metabolically active non-replicating malaria sporozoite vaccine (Pf sporozoites prepared by thawing from liquid nitrogen)

·         Not protective but need to revised in terms of dose and route of administration

5.       Genetically Attenuated sporozoites-GAS

·         Safe and immunogenic
6.       FP9 CS/MVA CS
·         Attenuated fowl pox strain (FP9) expressing CS protein boosted with MVA coding CS protein

·         Didn’t boost the T-cell response

7.       DNA CS/MVA CS
·         Plasmid DNA encoding CS protein replace fowl pox strain (FP9) boosted with MVA coding CS protein

·         Modest T-cell response

8.       RTS,S/AS02 + MVA CS
·         Boosting RTS,S/AS02 with MVA encoding CS

·         Greater CMI response
·          
9.       CS DNA Immunization or VCL-2510
·         Gene for full length CS protein in Plasmid DNA

·         No anti-CS antibodies

10.   MUST DO5
·         Multi-Stage DNA vaccine operation 5 antigens
·         5 antigens; CS, SSP2/TRAP, LSA-1, LSA-3 and EP-1 adjuvanted with GM-CSF (Granulocyte Macrophage colony stimulating factor)

·         No efficacy

11.   DNA CS / RTS,S/AS02
·         DNA vaccine VCL-2510 containing full length CS gene and adjuvanted with RTS,S/AS02
·         No significant improvement than using alone

12.   RTS,S/AS02 TRAP
·         Combination of CS with TRAP

·         Improve efficacy

13.   HepB Core Ag CS VLP
·         Also called ICC-1132 or Malariavax
·         Hepatis B core antigen modified to include B-cell and 2 CD4+ epitopes of CS protein

·         No efficacy to sporozoites

14.   PfCS102
·         Chemically synthesized Pf CS protein with C-terminus (Amino acids 282-383)

·         Don’t reduce parasitemia

15.   FP9/MVA polyprotein
·         Prime Boosting with FP9 and MVA viruses with six antigens polyprotein (STARP, TRAP, LSA-1, LSA-3, Pfs16 and EP-1)

·         Low efficacy with sporozoite challenge

16.   FMP011/AS01B
·         LAS-1 E. coli expressed evaluated with AS01B and AS02A

·         Associated with acute coronary syndrome



Blood Stage (Erythrocytic) vaccines
1.       AdCh63/MVA MSP-1
·         Pf Merozoite Surface Protein-1 (MSP-1) expressed and boosted with AdCh63 and MVA vectors

·         Low IgG response

2.       FMP010/AS01B
·         E. coli expressing FVO allele 42kD C terminus of MSP-1 and adjuvants AS01B

·         Good immunogenicity but inadequate clinical efficacy

3.       FMP2.1/AS02A
·         FMP2.1, in which E. coli expressed Apical membrane antigen (AMA-1) and adjuvant AS02A

·         Strong Th-2 biased response

4.       FMP2.1/AS01B
·         FMP2.1, in which E. coli expressed Apical membrane antigen (AMA-1) and adjuvant AS01B

·         Adverse effect (rashes after 18 days of vaccination)

5.       AMA-C1/Alhydrogel + CPG 7909
·         Pichia pastoris expressed Apical membrane antigen (AMA-1) with both FVO and 3D7 strains and adjuvants Alhydrogel + CPG 7909

·         Reduction of hemoglobin
·          
6.       AdCh63 AMA-1/MVA AMA-1
·         Apical membrane antigen-1 (AMA-1) expressed and boosted with AdCh63 and MVA vectors

·         CD4+ responses are higher than CD8+ response

7.       EBA175RII
·         Erythrocyte binding antigen (EBA) in merozoites and highly conserved region of Pf

·         Safe and immunogenic

8.       SERA5
·         Blood stage antigen in trophozoites and schizonts (SE36 expressed in E. coli acts as fragment of SERA5 antigen)

·         Safe and 100% seroconversion

9.       BSAM-2/Alhydrogel +CPG
·         combination vaccine including MSP1 and AMA1 components. It contains a mixture of recombinant proteins with equal parts P. pastoris expressing FVO and 3D7 strains of AMA1 and E. coli expressing the FVO and 3D7 strains of MSP1.

·         Under evaluation
10.   JAIVAC
·         This combination vaccine consists of MSP1 and EBA175, each of which is an E. coli expressed recombinant protein adjuvanted with Montanide ISA 720

·         Synergistic effects
11.   GMZ2
·         L. lactis expressed recombinant fusion protein of glutamate rich protein (GLURP) and MSP-3 adjuvanted with Al(OH)3

·         Acceptable safety
·         Both IgG and memory B cell response
12.   Combination B (RESA, MSP-1, MSP-2)
13.   FMP1/AS02A
14.   MSP-1-C1/AlOH/AlOH + CPG
15.   MSP2-C1/ISA720
16.   AMA1-C1/ISA720
17.   AMA-FVO
18.   PfCP2.9

·         Already terminated (No succeed)




Gametocyte (Transmission Blocking) Vaccines
1.       Pfs25
·         Ookinete surface protein Pfs25
·         The antigen preparations including ookinete surface protein Pfs25, and the gametocyte antigens Pfs48/45 and Pfs230 are used in the TBV vaccines. Pfs25 was the first antigen to progress clinically but the reactogenicity was found to be very low.

·         Low reactogenicity
2.       Pfs48/45 and Pfs230
·         Contain the gametocyte antigens Pfs48/45 and Pfs230

·         Low reactogenicity




Combined Vaccines
1.       NMRC-M3V-D/Ad-PfCA Prime/Boost and NMRC-M3V-Ad-PfCA
·         DNA based vaccine containing CS antigen with AMA-1 antigen boosted with Adenovirus-5-vectors

·         Increase CD8+ T cell response but no sterile protection
2.       CS AMA1 Virosomes
·         Synthetic peptide vaccines
·         Phosphatidylethanolamine (PE) conjugates on the surface of immunopotentiating reconstituted influenza virosomes (PEV301 and PEV302)

·         No sterile protection
3.       SPf66
·         Synthetic polypeptide vaccine consisting of CS and merozoites protein1 (MSP1) epitopes adjuvanted with alum

·         Low vaccine efficacy
4.       RTS,S/AS02 (CS) and FMP-1/AS02 (MSP1)
·         Mixing RTS,S/AS02 (CS) and FMP-1/AS02 (MSP1) with both CS and MSP1 antigens

·         FMP1 gave no protection in the challenge model




P. vivax Vaccines
1.       PvCSP
·         Circumsporozoite protein from P. vivax

·         Under clinical trails
2.       ChAd63-MVA PvDBP RII and PvDBP RII/GLA-SE
·         Extracellular, cysteine-rich region II (P. vivax Duffy-binding protein; PvDBP_RII)

·         Under clinical trails


References:

Artaud C, Kara L, and Launay O. Vaccine Development: From Preclinical Studies to Phase 1/2 Clinical Trial (Chapter 12). Frederic Ariey et al. (eds.), Malaria Control and Elimination, Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 2013, © Springer Science + Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
Bejon P, Lusingu J, Olotu A, et al. Efficacy of RTS,S/AS01E Vaccine against Malaria in Children 5 to 17 Months of Age. N Engl J Med. 2008 December 11; 359(24): 2521–2532.
Carvalho LJM, Daniel-Ribeiro CT and Goto H. Malaria Vaccine: Candidate antigens, Mechanisms, Constraints and Prospects. Acand. J. Immunol. 56, 337-343, 2002.
Draper SJ, Sack BK, King CR, Nielsen CM, Rayner JC, Higgins MK, Long CA and Seder RAMalaria Vaccines: Recent Advances and New Horizons. Cell Host & Microbe 24, July 11, 2018. 2018: 43-56.
Frimpong A, Kusi KA, Ofori MF and Ndifon W. (2018). Novel Strategies for Malaria Vaccine Design. Front. Immunol. 9:2769. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02769
Gardner MJ, Hall N, Fung E, White O, Berriman M, Hyman RW, et al. Genome sequence of the human malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum. Nature (2002) 419:498.
Karunamoorthi K. Malaria vaccine: A future hope to curtail the global malaria burden. Int J Prev Med 2014; 5: 529-38.
Longley RJ, Hill AVS and Spencer AJ (2015) Malaria vaccines: identifying Plasmodium falciparum liver-stage targets. Front. Microbiol.6:965. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2015.00965
Moreno A and Joyner C. Malaria vaccine clinical trials: what’s on the horizon. Curr Opin Immunol. 2015 August; 35: 98–106.
Ockenhouse CF, Regules J, Tosh D, Cowden J, Kathcart A, Cummings J, et al. (2015). Ad35.CS.01 - RTS,S/AS01 Heterologous Prime Boost Vaccine Efficacy against Sporozoite Challenge in Healthy Malaria-Naïve Adults. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0131571. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131571
RTS,S Clinical Trials Partnership. Efficacy and safety of RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine with or without a booster dose in infants and children in Africa: final results of a phase 3, individually randomized, controlled trial. Lancet. 2015 July 04; 386(9988): 31–45.
Salamanca DR, Gómez M, Camargo A, Cuy-Chaparro L, Molina-Franky J, Reyes C, Patarroyo MA and Patarroyo ME (2019). Plasmodium falciparum Blood Stage Antimalarial Vaccines: An Analysis of Ongoing Clinical Trials and New Perspectives Related to Synthetic Vaccines. Front. Microbiol. 10: 2712.
Schwartz L, Brown GV, Genton B and Moorthy VS. A review of malaria vaccine clinical projects based on the WHO rainbow table. Malaria Journal 2012, 11:11
Stewart VA, McGrath SM, Dubois PM, Pau MG, Pascal M, Shott J, Cobb M, Burge R, Larson D, Ware LA, Demoitie M, Weverling GJ, Bayt B, Custes JHHV, Dubois M, Cohen J, Goudsmit J, and Heppner DG. Priming with an Adenovirus 35-Circumsporozoite Protein (CS) Vaccine followed by RTS, S/AS01B Boosting Significantly Improves Immunogenicity to Plasmodium falciparum CS Compared to That with Either Malaria Vaccine Alone. American Society for Microbiology May 2007; 75 (5): 2283–2290.
Stewart VA, McGrath SM, Walsh DS, Davis S, Hess AS, Ware LA, Kester KE, Cummings JF, Burge JR, Voss G, Delchambre M, Garcon N, Tang DB, Cohen JD, Heppner DG. Pre-clinical evaluation of new adjuvant formulations to improve the immunogenicity of the malaria vaccine RTS, S/AS02A.  Vaccine 24: (2006): 6483–6492.
WHO, Background paper on the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine-2015. 

Bacteria in Photos

Bacteria in Photos