Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 270

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Four-Year Efficacy of RTS,S/AS01E and Its Interaction with Malaria Exposure

Open access
Olotu, Ally, Fegan, Gregory, Wambua, Juliana, Nyangweso, George, Awuondo, Ken O., Leach, Amanda, Lievens, Marc, Leboulleux, Didier, Njuguna, Patricia, Peshu, Norbert, Marsh, Kevin, Bejon, Philip·2013·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The candidate malaria vaccine RTS,S/AS01E has entered phase 3 trials, but data on long-term outcomes are limited. METHODS: For 4 years, we followed children who had been randomly assigned, at 5 to 17 months of age, to receive three doses of RTS,S/AS01E vaccine (223 children) or rabies vaccine (224 controls). The end point was clinical malaria (temperature of ≥37.5°C and Plasmodium falciparum parasitemia density of >2500 parasites per cubic millimeter). Each child's exposure to malaria was estimated with the use of the distance-weighted local prevalence of malaria. RESULTS: Over a period of 4 years, 118 of 223 children who received the RTS,S/AS01E vaccine and 138 of 224 of the controls had at least 1 episode of clinical malaria. Vaccine efficacies in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were 29.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.3 to 45.3; P=0.005) and 32.1% (95% CI, 11.6 to 47.8; P=0.004), respectively, calculated by Cox regression. Multiple episodes were common, with 551 and 618 malarial episodes in the RTS,S/AS01E and control groups, respectively; vaccine efficacies in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were 16.8% (95% CI, -8.6 to 36.3; P=0.18) and 24.3% (95% CI, 1.9 to 41.6; P=0.04), respectively, calculated by the Andersen-Gill extension of the Cox model. For every 100 vaccinated children, 65 cases of clinical malaria were averted. Vaccine efficacy declined over time (P=0.004) and with increasing exposure to malaria (P=0.001) in the per-protocol analysis. Vaccine efficacy was 43.6% (95% CI, 15.5 to 62.3) in the first year but was -0.4% (95% CI, -32.1 to 45.3) in the fourth year. Among children with a malaria-exposure index that was average or lower than average, the vaccine efficacy was 45.1% (95% CI, 11.3 to 66.0), but among children with a malaria-exposure index that was higher than average it was 15.9% (95% CI, -11.0 to 36.4). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of RTS,S/AS01E vaccine over the 4-year period was 16.8%. Efficacy declined over time and with increasing malaria exposure. (Funded by the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative and Wellcome Trust; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00872963.).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa1207564

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 270

Metadata

Authors
Olotu, A., Fegan, G., Wambua, J., Nyangweso, G., Awuondo, K. O., Leach, A., Lievens, M., Leboulleux, D., Njuguna, P., Peshu, N., Marsh, K., & Bejon, P.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2013-03-21
Volume
368
Issue
12
Pages
1111-1120
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2094431581
Cited by
270
References
1
FWCI
42.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Four-Year Efficacy of RTS,S/AS01E and Its Interaction with Malaria Exposure. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1207564
The paper
Olotu, A., Fegan, G., Wambua, J., Nyangweso, G., Awuondo, K. O., Leach, A., Lievens, M., Leboulleux, D., Njuguna, P., Peshu, N., Marsh, K., & Bejon, P. (2013). Four-Year Efficacy of RTS,S/AS01E and Its Interaction with Malaria Exposure. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1207564

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.