Efficacy and Response of R21/Matrix-M in Malaria Vaccine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 IMMUNOLOGY
Vaccines Pub Date : 2026-09-19 DOI:10.3390/vaccines14090824
Aneeq Ur Rehman, Victory Nnaemeka, Muhammad Hassan Nasir, Nurul Alia Azizan, Ahmed M Salman, Ahmad Syibli Othman
{"title":"Efficacy and Response of R21/Matrix-M in Malaria Vaccine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.","authors":"Aneeq Ur Rehman, Victory Nnaemeka, Muhammad Hassan Nasir, Nurul Alia Azizan, Ahmed M Salman, Ahmad Syibli Othman","doi":"10.3390/vaccines14090824","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>R21/Matrix-M is a pre-erythrocytic malaria vaccine supported by a growing body of field-efficacy, immunogenicity, safety, controlled-challenge, and implementation evidence. We synthesized the contemporary human evidence and quantified protection against naturally acquired clinical malaria.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted and reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020. PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for studies published from January 2021 to February 2026. The review was not prospectively registered, and no separate protocol was prepared. Eleven studies were retained for the systematic review. The primary quantitative synthesis pooled 12-month Cox proportional-hazards estimates for the first episode of clinical malaria from two independent randomized field trials using generic inverse variance methods. Robustness was examined using a fixed-effect model, a sensitivity analysis that disaggregated the phase III seasonal and standard/perennial transmission strata, and a phase III-only analysis. Booster follow-up and controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) studies were summarized descriptively to avoid double counting and mixing of incompatible endpoints.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary trial-level meta-analysis yielded a pooled hazard ratio (HR) of 0.265 (95% CI 0.235-0.299), equivalent to vaccine efficacy (VE) of 73.5% (95% CI 70.1-76.5%), with no detected heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; Q = 0.67, <i>p</i> = 0.41; tau<sup>2</sup> = 0). Disaggregating the phase III transmission strata produced a similar random-effects estimate (HR 0.270, 95% CI 0.223-0.326; VE 73.0%, 95% CI 67.4-77.7%; I<sup>2</sup> = 53.8%). The fixed-effect estimate was HR 0.270 (95% CI 0.240-0.304), and the phase III-only sensitivity analysis remained strongly protective (HR 0.281, 95% CI 0.220-0.357; VE 71.9%). Booster follow-up supported maintained protection, including approximately 80% efficacy during the 12 months after boosting with the 50-microgram Matrix-M regimen. Across the broader evidence base, the vaccine was generally well tolerated and elicited strong anti-CSP/anti-NANP antibody responses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>R21/Matrix-M provides substantial protection against naturally acquired clinical malaria, and the central efficacy estimate is robust to alternative analytic specifications. The quantitative evidence base remains small, however, and longer-term effectiveness, severe-malaria protection, booster timing, and post-deployment safety require continued evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":23634,"journal":{"name":"Vaccines","volume":"14 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13611381/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vaccines","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines14090824","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: R21/Matrix-M is a pre-erythrocytic malaria vaccine supported by a growing body of field-efficacy, immunogenicity, safety, controlled-challenge, and implementation evidence. We synthesized the contemporary human evidence and quantified protection against naturally acquired clinical malaria.

Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted and reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020. PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for studies published from January 2021 to February 2026. The review was not prospectively registered, and no separate protocol was prepared. Eleven studies were retained for the systematic review. The primary quantitative synthesis pooled 12-month Cox proportional-hazards estimates for the first episode of clinical malaria from two independent randomized field trials using generic inverse variance methods. Robustness was examined using a fixed-effect model, a sensitivity analysis that disaggregated the phase III seasonal and standard/perennial transmission strata, and a phase III-only analysis. Booster follow-up and controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) studies were summarized descriptively to avoid double counting and mixing of incompatible endpoints.

Results: The primary trial-level meta-analysis yielded a pooled hazard ratio (HR) of 0.265 (95% CI 0.235-0.299), equivalent to vaccine efficacy (VE) of 73.5% (95% CI 70.1-76.5%), with no detected heterogeneity (I2 = 0%; Q = 0.67, p = 0.41; tau2 = 0). Disaggregating the phase III transmission strata produced a similar random-effects estimate (HR 0.270, 95% CI 0.223-0.326; VE 73.0%, 95% CI 67.4-77.7%; I2 = 53.8%). The fixed-effect estimate was HR 0.270 (95% CI 0.240-0.304), and the phase III-only sensitivity analysis remained strongly protective (HR 0.281, 95% CI 0.220-0.357; VE 71.9%). Booster follow-up supported maintained protection, including approximately 80% efficacy during the 12 months after boosting with the 50-microgram Matrix-M regimen. Across the broader evidence base, the vaccine was generally well tolerated and elicited strong anti-CSP/anti-NANP antibody responses.

Conclusions: R21/Matrix-M provides substantial protection against naturally acquired clinical malaria, and the central efficacy estimate is robust to alternative analytic specifications. The quantitative evidence base remains small, however, and longer-term effectiveness, severe-malaria protection, booster timing, and post-deployment safety require continued evaluation.

R21/Matrix-M在疟疾疫苗中的疗效和反应:临床试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Vaccines
Vaccines Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
16.70%
发文量
1853
审稿时长
18.06 days
期刊介绍: Vaccines (ISSN 2076-393X) is an international, peer-reviewed open access journal focused on laboratory and clinical vaccine research, utilization and immunization. Vaccines publishes high quality reviews, regular research papers, communications and case reports.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书