6 ms·

Malaria vaccine gets 'green light'

78 points by sjcsjc 11y ago

steve19 11y ago
I was excited then read this: "A bed net is more effective than this vaccine, but nonetheless it is a very significant scientific achievement... " Seems like like I will still be taking that damned medicine when I visit materia regions.
- murbard2 11y ago
  Twist: you are actually visiting the region and you're currently dreaming vividly.
  - murbard2 11y ago
    (for those who do not get it, a side effect of many Malaria medications are extremely vivid and realistic dreams)
VeejayRampay 11y ago
Sounds awesome. Malaria seems like it has the capacity to really ruin someone's life.
- bencollier49 11y ago
  Do you reckon? http://www.who.int/gho/malaria/epidemic/deaths/en/ http://www.who.int/gho/malaria/epidemic/deaths/en/
- zamalek 11y ago
  > Malaria seems like it has the capacity to really ruin someone's life. I contracted a unknown variant of malaria when I was a kid. It really wasn't a pleasant experience. There's sickness; then on a completely different level there's malaria. It won't ruin your life - if you survive you'll be left as healthy as you were before. However, that's IF you survive.
  - berekuk 11y ago
    It can leave you slightly more stupid, though: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0124005 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...., http://www.malariajournal.com/content/9/1/366 http://www.malariajournal.com/content/9/1/366, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629612000896 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629612...
    - zamalek 11y ago
      > It can leave you slightly more stupid, though That explains a lot ;)
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    > as healthy as you were before. Except that anytime you are otherwise sick or generally run down in the future it could return and make you very ill again (or kill you). I hope that this does not happen to you. Good luck!
    - noselasd 11y ago
      While it's widely believed that once contracted you can't get rid of malaria, you actually can(though not in all cases, and it might be hard to prove you are malaria free). http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/faqs.html#treatment http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/faqs.html#treatment
      - JupiterMoon 11y ago
        Good knowledge! I wouldn't bet my life on it though.
mkingston 11y ago
Progress, perhaps. I really, really hope this doesn't end up having the unintended consequence of people coming to believe (consciously or unconsciously) that bed nets are no longer required. Maybe we should wait until we have something more effective. Does anyone know: are malaria vaccines not interesting for drug companies because there's no money in them?
- Shivetya 11y ago
  I don't understand your question, it was developed by a drug company. I would think that if their promise to not to make profit off its sale would put a damper on similar development. Over thirty years to reach this point, that too would be a barrier to others trying to solve the same issue. So that is at least two easily identifiable issues. Simply put, if government is not going to develop or contract the development of a drug why should a company bend to pressure to produce and sell it at cost? However in this case this drug had support of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation so not looking to profit off of it makes sense and may also be part of an agreement for funding.
  - mkingston 11y ago
    I didn't mean to imply that drug companies have an obligation to produce products that aren't commercially viable. I understand that's just not the way the world works at the moment. I was just curious whether anyone knew whether lack of commercial viability was the reason we haven't seen a malaria vaccine yet. Thirty years to reach this point isn't necessarily representative of the actual effort expended on finding a malaria vaccine. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the same number of working hours goes towards treatments for male pattern baldness each year as has gone into a malaria vaccine over thirty years.
- stingraycharles 11y ago
  In most areas that malaria is a risk, there are also other diseases being carried by mosqitoes: Dengue and Chikungunya come to mind. I live in a country where malaria is a risk, and most people from the countryside don't know any specifics, other than "mosquitoes make you sick". When you go to a poor village and ask the elders what they need, they almost always say "mosquito nets" since there are always some poor families that cannot afford them. I wouldn't consider it a risk, unless doctors and government officials would explicitly start teaching that the nets are no longer required, which I don't expect happening any time soon.
pmontra 11y ago
Why not sales to travelers? Is there no extra productive capacity or is it because the not for profit statement?
- dominicgs 11y ago
  I can't say any of this for certain, and I have no qualifications to back it up, but I would assume that any or all of the following may apply: 1) Cost - if a you only visit an area with a risk of malaria for two weeks every year (which is far more often than most holiday makers), then taking a short course of pills that cost pennies a dose will be cheaper than receiving a vaccine that requires three doses and a booster. 2) Malaria strains - if you've been to multiple places in the world with malaria risk, you may have been given different medication. The first time I went to Cambodia/Vietnam I was given Larium, but the most recent time I took Doxycycline because the NHS no longer recommends Larium for the region. For Iran they recommended Cloroquine, which was significantly cheaper. This vaccine may only fight one strain, leaving you to have to take pills for other destinations anyway. 3) Effectiveness in adults - The article suggests that the vaccine was most effective in children within a given age range, so it may be the case that it simple doesn't work on adults. I have no idea if this is likely or even possible, but it certainly seems plausible to me. I don't know anything about fighting malaria, but it looks to me like they are giving these vaccines to children to get them through the time when they are most vulnerable, rather than giving them lifelong protection.
  - jessriedel 11y ago
    I don't think (1) really applies. It sounds like the vaccine is very cheap ($20) and you simply don't take the boosters if you're not returning. At that price, the significant side-effects of most antimalarials are more important considerations.
    - dominicgs 11y ago
      I think you make a valid point, although I was able to acquire a course of Chloroquine to cover me for a couple of months at one week's notice, for <£10, whereas the vaccine would need two months for the three initial doses. So maybe it's a practicality argument that I'm making, rather than a financial one.
wdr1 11y ago
"Malaria kills around 584,000 people a year worldwide..." Consider that's more per year than the number of people the United States lost during all of World War II. "...most of them children under five in sub-Saharan Africa." Ugh, that's a gut punch. I have this image of young children storming the beaches of Normandy and how we celebrate as a country when the madness was finally over & our children were no longer being slaughtered. Science is truly awesome.

78 points by sjcsjc 11y ago

I was excited then read this: "A bed net is more effective than this vaccine, but nonetheless it is a very significant scientific achievement... " Seems like like I will still be taking that damned medicine when I visit materia regions.

murbard2 11y ago
Twist: you are actually visiting the region and you're currently dreaming vividly.
- murbard2 11y ago
  (for those who do not get it, a side effect of many Malaria medications are extremely vivid and realistic dreams)

VeejayRampay 11y ago

Sounds awesome. Malaria seems like it has the capacity to really ruin someone's life.

bencollier49 11y ago
Do you reckon? http://www.who.int/gho/malaria/epidemic/deaths/en/ http://www.who.int/gho/malaria/epidemic/deaths/en/
zamalek 11y ago
> Malaria seems like it has the capacity to really ruin someone's life. I contracted a unknown variant of malaria when I was a kid. It really wasn't a pleasant experience. There's sickness; then on a completely different level there's malaria. It won't ruin your life - if you survive you'll be left as healthy as you were before. However, that's IF you survive.
- berekuk 11y ago
  It can leave you slightly more stupid, though: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0124005 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...., http://www.malariajournal.com/content/9/1/366 http://www.malariajournal.com/content/9/1/366, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629612000896 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629612...
  - zamalek 11y ago
    > It can leave you slightly more stupid, though That explains a lot ;)
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  > as healthy as you were before. Except that anytime you are otherwise sick or generally run down in the future it could return and make you very ill again (or kill you). I hope that this does not happen to you. Good luck!
  - noselasd 11y ago
    While it's widely believed that once contracted you can't get rid of malaria, you actually can(though not in all cases, and it might be hard to prove you are malaria free). http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/faqs.html#treatment http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/faqs.html#treatment
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      Good knowledge! I wouldn't bet my life on it though.

mkingston 11y ago

Progress, perhaps. I really, really hope this doesn't end up having the unintended consequence of people coming to believe (consciously or unconsciously) that bed nets are no longer required. Maybe we should wait until we have something more effective. Does anyone know: are malaria vaccines not interesting for drug companies because there's no money in them?

Shivetya 11y ago
I don't understand your question, it was developed by a drug company. I would think that if their promise to not to make profit off its sale would put a damper on similar development. Over thirty years to reach this point, that too would be a barrier to others trying to solve the same issue. So that is at least two easily identifiable issues. Simply put, if government is not going to develop or contract the development of a drug why should a company bend to pressure to produce and sell it at cost? However in this case this drug had support of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation so not looking to profit off of it makes sense and may also be part of an agreement for funding.
- mkingston 11y ago
  I didn't mean to imply that drug companies have an obligation to produce products that aren't commercially viable. I understand that's just not the way the world works at the moment. I was just curious whether anyone knew whether lack of commercial viability was the reason we haven't seen a malaria vaccine yet. Thirty years to reach this point isn't necessarily representative of the actual effort expended on finding a malaria vaccine. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the same number of working hours goes towards treatments for male pattern baldness each year as has gone into a malaria vaccine over thirty years.
stingraycharles 11y ago
In most areas that malaria is a risk, there are also other diseases being carried by mosqitoes: Dengue and Chikungunya come to mind. I live in a country where malaria is a risk, and most people from the countryside don't know any specifics, other than "mosquitoes make you sick". When you go to a poor village and ask the elders what they need, they almost always say "mosquito nets" since there are always some poor families that cannot afford them. I wouldn't consider it a risk, unless doctors and government officials would explicitly start teaching that the nets are no longer required, which I don't expect happening any time soon.

pmontra 11y ago

Why not sales to travelers? Is there no extra productive capacity or is it because the not for profit statement?

dominicgs 11y ago
I can't say any of this for certain, and I have no qualifications to back it up, but I would assume that any or all of the following may apply: 1) Cost - if a you only visit an area with a risk of malaria for two weeks every year (which is far more often than most holiday makers), then taking a short course of pills that cost pennies a dose will be cheaper than receiving a vaccine that requires three doses and a booster. 2) Malaria strains - if you've been to multiple places in the world with malaria risk, you may have been given different medication. The first time I went to Cambodia/Vietnam I was given Larium, but the most recent time I took Doxycycline because the NHS no longer recommends Larium for the region. For Iran they recommended Cloroquine, which was significantly cheaper. This vaccine may only fight one strain, leaving you to have to take pills for other destinations anyway. 3) Effectiveness in adults - The article suggests that the vaccine was most effective in children within a given age range, so it may be the case that it simple doesn't work on adults. I have no idea if this is likely or even possible, but it certainly seems plausible to me. I don't know anything about fighting malaria, but it looks to me like they are giving these vaccines to children to get them through the time when they are most vulnerable, rather than giving them lifelong protection.
- jessriedel 11y ago
  I don't think (1) really applies. It sounds like the vaccine is very cheap ($20) and you simply don't take the boosters if you're not returning. At that price, the significant side-effects of most antimalarials are more important considerations.
  - dominicgs 11y ago
    I think you make a valid point, although I was able to acquire a course of Chloroquine to cover me for a couple of months at one week's notice, for <£10, whereas the vaccine would need two months for the three initial doses. So maybe it's a practicality argument that I'm making, rather than a financial one.

wdr1 11y ago

"Malaria kills around 584,000 people a year worldwide..." Consider that's more per year than the number of people the United States lost during all of World War II. "...most of them children under five in sub-Saharan Africa." Ugh, that's a gut punch. I have this image of young children storming the beaches of Normandy and how we celebrate as a country when the madness was finally over & our children were no longer being slaughtered. Science is truly awesome.