Ghana is the first country to approve a new malaria vaccine that has been described as a "world-changer" by the scientists who developed it.

The vaccine - called R21 - appears to be hugely effective, in stark contrast to previous ventures in the same field.

Ghana's drug regulators have assessed the final trial data on the vaccine's safety and effectiveness, which is not yet public, and have decided to use it.

The World Health Organization is also considering approving the vaccine.

Malaria kills about 620,000 people each year, most of them young children.

It has been a massive, century-long, scientific undertaking to develop a vaccine that protects the body from the malaria parasite.

 

Trial data from preliminary studies in Burkina Faso showed the R21 vaccine was up to 80% effective when given as three initial doses, and a booster a year later.

• New malaria vaccine is world-changing, say scientists

The headline might be misleading. As the article notes:

"It is hard to give a direct comparison of the two vaccines. GSK's has gone through large real world trials whereas Oxford's data may appear more effective due to being given just ahead of the peak malaria season in Burkina Faso."

 

 

I wonder what the implications of the effectiveness of these vaccines are in respect to those people who don't develop an immune response to the vaccine once the vaccine gets into wide circulation.

Will the fact that less people will be carrying the plasmodium in their blood mean that immune deficient people are less likely to be bitten by an infected mosquito?

I'm guessing that the figures do include the effects of the vaccine on transmission. Which is why the figure of "up to 80%" effectiveness is offered, rather than just an unqualified figure.