More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Tido von Schoen-Angerer

GET UPDATES FROM Tido von Schoen-Angerer
 

A Vaccine That Works Only Half the Time Is Not the Shot in the Arm Malaria Needs

Posted: 10/24/11 07:49 PM ET

Last week saw the announcement of a new weapon in the fight against malaria. GlaxoSmithKline, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the PATH Initiative together announced on Tuesday early results of a clinical trial in Africa of a malaria vaccine that cuts the rate of developing the disease by half.

The development of the world's first vaccine against malaria, and indeed any parasite, is an extraordinary scientific breakthrough. Vaccines have helped us bring down death rates from a number of diseases that threaten lives in developing countries, like measles and meningitis, and have even led to the eradication of some killer diseases like smallpox.

Close to 800,000 people die from malaria every year, and almost all are children in Africa. A malaria vaccine that works would be a major breakthrough. But while the latest advance toward the development is scientifically important, there are several reasons to be cautious about the difference this vaccine could make, on the basis of current results.

Firstly, protection is low. Only around half of children who got the malaria vaccine were protected from developing malaria, and only around a third were protected against severe malaria, the type that kills. In other words, two out of every three children are still exposed to contracting potentially fatal severe malaria, even after being vaccinated.

Secondly, the current vaccine offers only short-term protection. It doesn't give a child permanent protection from malaria; it just offers up a temporary guard that then wears off after about a year. Given that the threat of contracting malaria is ever present in some parts of the world (on average, people in some parts of Africa may get malaria up to six times a year), this raises practical problems; vaccinating children in Africa, even for the most basic diseases that do provide permanent protection, like measles, is proving difficult enough.

So while research must continue to see whether we can improve these results, the important point right now is to continue fighting malaria with all the other tools we know work -- prevention tools like bed nets and insecticides, tests to help rapidly diagnose disease and, most importantly, treatment that works to save lives.

Six months ago, in April this year, Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) released a report on severe malaria treatment, "Making the Switch." The report looked at a landmark trial that showed treating children with a newer drug, artesunate, is more effective at preventing deaths from severe malaria. Artesunate reduces deaths from severe malaria by around a quarter compared to an older drug, quinine. That means if everyone used artesunate to treat severe malaria, 200,000 young lives could be saved per year.

We called on WHO to encourage governments to translate the new guidelines into national protocols as swiftly as possible. Six months on, and it's clear that hasn't happened.

The problem stems from money. Artesunate is currently three times more expensive than quinine, although taking into account the difference in hospitalization costs with quinine, the two treatments work out roughly the same. Some African countries also produce quinine, which provides a local industry, including jobs. Plus there has been no financial incentive from donors to encourage countries to make the switch to artesunate.

The cost difference for a global switch from quinine to artesunate is just US$31 million a year. This amount is a small drop in the ocean of the billions of dollars that are donated in foreign aid every year. It's the most cost effective way of saving 200,000 lives every year. It's imperative that donors commit to helping countries fund the switch to artesunate.

As well as financial support to make the switch, countries need support from donors and international organizations in training health workers and disseminating information on the new drug. WHO also needs to work with donors on the areas of greatest need. And all this needs to happen now.

So while we continue to live in hope that a vaccine for malaria will one day be produced that could truly help us to massively reduce infection, the priority for governments today is to continue to support the prevention tools that are currently out there and, importantly, to make every effort to ensure that when children develop severe malaria, they get the treatment that gives them the best chance of not dying. If another six months goes by with no change to the treatment status quo, that would mean there were 200,000 lives that could have been saved this year.

For more information, read MSF's report "Making the Switch" or visit doctorswithoutborders.org.

 
Last week saw the announcement of a new weapon in the fight against malaria. GlaxoSmithKline, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the PATH Initiative together announced on Tuesday early results ...
Last week saw the announcement of a new weapon in the fight against malaria. GlaxoSmithKline, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the PATH Initiative together announced on Tuesday early results ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doybia
08:54 AM on 11/04/2011
We have an arithmetic problem here. If the vaccine were implemented, could it possibly be administered every single year to every child at risk? What would that cost? Would the cost mean that other stuff needed for improved health care would lose out?

Same problem with the switch from quinine to artesunate. Can it reach the children who need it? How many lives could be saved?

One advantage of the drug is that implementing the drug strategy would mean beefing up basic medical care in order to effectively distribute and implement the use of this new drug. Unfortunately, the current approach to vaccination pulls the limited supply of health care workers away from their day-to-day work to participate in vaccine drives. Each additional vaccine drive means fewer nurses, doctors and midwives available to do their everyday work on their normal schedule.

Despite the huge donations to support vaccination, developing countries are being pushed into contracts where their very limited healthcare funds are committed to vaccines over other necessary needs.

It is a complex problem, but putting vaccination over everything else is not always the best solution and this article is perfectly correct in making that point.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
John Richard Smith
Social Justice Advocacy
08:41 PM on 10/29/2011
GAVI Funds Available

"Donors committed US$ 4.3 billion at the first pledging conference held by the GAVI Alliance. This exceeded an initial target of US$ 3.7 billion, enabling GAVI to reach more children faster than planned and to accelerate the introduction of new vaccines.

A portion of the pledges are conditional upon additional funds being raised in the future. The pledges bring GAVI’s total available resources for the period 2011 to 2015 to US$ 7.6 billion."

*GAVI estimate they will save 4 million lives for $4.3 billion to 7.6 billion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Medicins sans Frontiers change to Artesunate 200,000 over 5 years means an additional 1 million lives saved mainly children.

Total cost - $155 million

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clean Fresh Water delivered through filtered systems.

A budget of some $25.5 million could possibly save 5 million lives.

______________________________________________________

Those TWO additional programmes at a total cost of $180.5 million represents just 2.37 % of pledged and existing funds available to GAVI

______________________________________________________

One really does have to ask why these types of mulitlayered programmes are not being implemented ?

Actions often speak louder than words ... or should we say Lack of Action speaks louder than words.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
John Richard Smith
Social Justice Advocacy
06:34 AM on 10/26/2011
Vaccines are good but multilayered is better - Far Better

Certainly appreciate real commentary from Medicins Sans Frontieres in this debate. Real medical professionals working pragmatically in the field to save lives today.

As always they appreciate cost effective multilayered approaches to addressing health problems in the developing world - 220,000 lives saved by a simple switch to another medication total cost - $31 million

Clean Fresh Water delivered through filtered systems can be implemented for around $3500 to $5000 a unit depending on tax and supply discounts.

A budget of some $25.5 million could possibly save 5 million lives.

http://www­­.disaster­a­id.ca/in­de­x.php?p­=2_­8_SkyJ­uice­-Wate­r-Pur­ific­ation-­Sys­tem

Low pressure, high-flow, ultra-filt­­ration technology meeting World Health Organisati­­on requiremen­­ts for safe drinking water.

The water purificati­­on unit is a lightweigh­­t, sustainabl­­e and affordable water purificati­­on unit for humanitari­­an projects and emergency and disaster relief:

* Produces up to 1000 litres of clean drinking water per hour
* No power or chemicals required for the purificati­­on process
* No replacemen­­t filters required
* Effectivel­­y purifies most non-saline surface and ground waters
* Quick and easy setup produces clean water instantly
* Is lightweigh­­t - easily stored, transporte­­d and redeployed
* Can be wall mounted or freestandi­­ng
* No technical skills needed for setup, operation, maintenanc­­e
* Gravity fed with low or high water pressure set up options
* Can be used for short term or long term applicatio­­ns
* Can be used alone or configured into multi-unit banks
* Totally sustainabl­­e
* Long service life

*Essential for Oral Rehydratio­­n
06:54 AM on 10/25/2011
any vaccine created is going to pushed no matter what success rate. It could be 2% effective and someone would still write: "Well 2% is better than nothing!"
02:47 AM on 10/25/2011
I greatly appreciate the work MSF does, however it is very sad to see this commentary. It pans a great advance in order to promote the commenator's agenda. The commentator happily rounds down every statistic of efficacy the vaccine study. At the same time he fails to note the main statistic for the MSF study, that for "every 41 children treated for severe malaria with artesunate instead of quinine, one life would be saved." One. The artesunate study also assumes access to health care which isn't a reality for many in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Every life counts, but this does not sound like a game changer. Without the vacine there are 0.83 cases of clinical malaria per person year. With the vaccine there are 0.44 cases. This is a real difference.
The story isn't not all roses though. As long as there are any cases of malaria, the parasite will continue to spread. The bed net campaign has been hugely successful in decreasing the infection rate and spread of the disease. More needs to be done to alleviate the suffering. We need a fully coordinated effort to eradicate the disease not splinters of work and certainly not self promotion.
07:35 PM on 10/24/2011
Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dyson
debunking pseudoscience, one fallacy at a time.
06:51 PM on 10/25/2011
The thread will probably become infested with the vaccine nay-sayers and doom-mongers with their Nirvana fallacy ideas - "If the vaccine isn't 100% successful it is useless"