Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 421

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

Seven-Year Efficacy of RTS,S/AS01 Malaria Vaccine among Young African Children

Open access
Olotu, Ally, Fegan, Gregory, Wambua, Juliana, Nyangweso, George, Leach, Amanda, Lievens, Marc, Kaslow, David C., Njuguna, Patricia, Marsh, Kevin, Bejon, Philip·2016·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The candidate malaria vaccine RTS,S/AS01 is being evaluated in order to inform a decision regarding its inclusion in routine vaccination schedules. METHODS: We conducted 7 years of follow-up in children who had been randomly assigned, at 5 to 17 months of age, to receive three doses of either the RTS,S/AS01 vaccine or a rabies (control) vaccine. The end point was clinical malaria (temperature of ≥37.5°C and infection with Plasmodium falciparum of >2500 parasites per cubic millimeter). In an analysis that was not prespecified, the malaria exposure of each child was estimated with the use of information on the prevalence of malaria among residents within a 1-km radius of the child's home. Vaccine efficacy was defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio or the incidence-rate ratio, multiplied by 100, in the RTS,S/AS01 group versus the control group. RESULTS: Over 7 years of follow-up, we identified 1002 episodes of clinical malaria among 223 children randomly assigned to the RTS,S/AS01 group and 992 episodes among 224 children randomly assigned to the control group. The vaccine efficacy, as assessed by negative binomial regression, was 4.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], -17.0 to 21.9; P=0.66) in the intention-to-treat analysis and 7.0% (95% CI, -14.5 to 24.6; P=0.52) in the per-protocol analysis. Vaccine efficacy waned over time (P=0.006 for the interaction between vaccination and time), including negative efficacy during the fifth year among children with higher-than-average exposure to malaria parasites (intention-to-treat analysis: -43.5%; 95% CI, -100.3 to -2.8 [P=0.03]; per-protocol analysis: -56.8%; 95% CI, -118.7 to -12.3 [P=0.008]). CONCLUSIONS: A three-dose vaccination with RTS,S/AS01 was initially protective against clinical malaria, but this result was offset by rebound in later years in areas with higher-than-average exposure to malaria parasites. (Funded by the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative and others; 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/nejmoa1515257

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 421

Metadata

Authors
Olotu, A., Fegan, G., Wambua, J., Nyangweso, G., Leach, A., Lievens, M., Kaslow, D. C., Njuguna, P., Marsh, K., & Bejon, P.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2016-06-30
Volume
374
Issue
26
Pages
2519-2529
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2472994826
Cited by
421
References
1
FWCI
44.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Seven-Year Efficacy of RTS,S/AS01 Malaria Vaccine among Young African Children. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1515257
The paper
Olotu, A., Fegan, G., Wambua, J., Nyangweso, G., Leach, A., Lievens, M., Kaslow, D. C., Njuguna, P., Marsh, K., & Bejon, P. (2016). Seven-Year Efficacy of RTS,S/AS01 Malaria Vaccine among Young African Children. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1515257

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.