Table 2 Key findings of our quantitative approach guiding target product profiles of new malaria interventions
Intervention | Summary of analysis results |
|---|---|
Immunological interventions -Anti-infective monoclonal antibodies -Anti-infective vaccines -Transmission-blocking vaccines | Key determinants of impact (Fig. 4, Additional file 1: Fig. S5.1) -The main driver of intervention impact was coverage -The second determinant of intervention impact depended on intervention half-life. For interventions with short half-lives such as monoclonal antibodies, the half-life was the second driver, while for long-term interventions such as vaccines, efficacy played a key role -As opposed to long-term vaccines whose impact was mainly driven by coverage and efficacy, interventions with short half-lives (e.g., anti-infective monoclonal antibodies) relied on case management to prevent resurgence -The various biting patterns of mosquitoes did not influence the intervention determinants of impact |
Optimal intervention profiles (Fig. 5, Additional file 1: Fig. S6.1‒S6.4 and S7.1‒S7.3) -As opposed to vaccines, anti-infective monoclonal antibodies required high efficacy and deployment coverage while achieving limited reduction in PfPR0–99 with very little impact in perennial settings -Increasing the deployment frequency for anti-infective monoclonal antibodies from once to twice per year, extended the landscape of feasible health targets mainly in seasonal settings -Combination with a blood-stage drug proved more impactful compared with increasing the deployment frequency for anti-infective monoclonal antibodies, extending the achievable health goals in perennial settings as well | |
Vector control interventions -Attractive targeted sugar baits -Eave tubes | Key determinants of impact (Fig. 4, Additional file 1: Fig. S5.2) -As with short-term immunological interventions, attractive targeted sugar baits relied on case management to prevent resurgence -Limited difference between key drivers for attractive targeted sugar baits in different mosquito biting settings was observed because mosquitoes sugar feed before biting indoors or outdoors -It was observed that intervention properties of eave tubes rather than health system access were larger drivers of impact in high indoor biting settings, as mosquitoes in those settings will be more likely to contact the eave tube |
Optimal intervention profiles (Figs. 3 and 6, Additional File 1: Figs. S6.5, S6.6, S7.4, and S7.5) -Increasing deployment frequency from once to twice per year for attractive targeted sugar baits resulted in a significant increase in intervention impact and less requirements in terms of coverage and half-life -Increasing efficacy of attractive targeted sugar baits did not have a significant impact |