Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Terrell Carter is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Terrell Carter.


The New England Journal of Medicine | 2008

Efficacy of RTS,S/AS01E Vaccine against Malaria in Children 5 to 17 Months of Age

Philip Bejon; John Lusingu; Ally Olotu; Amanda Leach; Marc Lievens; Johan Vekemans; Salum Mshamu; Trudie Lang; Jayne Gould; Marie-Claude Dubois; Marie-Ange Demoitié; Jean-Francois Stallaert; Preeti Vansadia; Terrell Carter; Patricia Njuguna; Ken Awuondo; Anangisye Malabeja; Omar Abdul; Samwel Gesase; Neema Mturi; Chris Drakeley; Barbara Savarese; Tonya Villafana; W. Ripley Ballou; Joe Cohen; Eleanor M. Riley; Martha M. Lemnge; Kevin Marsh; Lorenz von Seidlein

BACKGROUND Plasmodium falciparum malaria is a pressing global health problem. A previous study of the malaria vaccine RTS,S (which targets the circumsporozoite protein), given with an adjuvant system (AS02A), showed a 30% rate of protection against clinical malaria in children 1 to 4 years of age. We evaluated the efficacy of RTS,S given with a more immunogenic adjuvant system (AS01E) in children 5 to 17 months of age, a target population for vaccine licensure. METHODS We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial of RTS,S/AS01E vaccine as compared with rabies vaccine in children in Kilifi, Kenya, and Korogwe, Tanzania. The primary end point was fever with a falciparum parasitemia density of more than 2500 parasites per microliter, and the mean duration of follow-up was 7.9 months (range, 4.5 to 10.5). RESULTS A total of 894 children were randomly assigned to receive the RTS,S/AS01E vaccine or the control (rabies) vaccine. Among the 809 children who completed the study procedures according to the protocol, the cumulative number in whom clinical malaria developed was 32 of 402 assigned to receive RTS,S/AS01E and 66 of 407 assigned to receive the rabies vaccine; the adjusted efficacy rate for RTS,S/AS01E was 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 28 to 69; P<0.001) on the basis of Cox regression. Overall, there were 38 episodes of clinical malaria among recipients of RTS,S/AS01E, as compared with 86 episodes among recipients of the rabies vaccine, with an adjusted rate of efficacy against all malarial episodes of 56% (95% CI, 31 to 72; P<0.001). All 894 children were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, which showed an unadjusted efficacy rate of 49% (95% CI, 26 to 65; P<0.001). There were fewer serious adverse events among recipients of RTS,S/AS01E, and this reduction was not only due to a difference in the number of admissions directly attributable to malaria. CONCLUSIONS RTS,S/AS01E shows promise as a candidate malaria vaccine. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00380393.)


The New England Journal of Medicine | 2008

Safety and Immunogenicity of RTS,S/AS02D Malaria Vaccine in Infants

Salim Abdulla; Rolf Oberholzer; Omar Juma; Sulende Kubhoja; Francisca Machera; Hassan Mshinda; Ajuza Jumanne; Nahya Salim; Mwanjaa Shomari; Thomas Aebi; David Schellenberg; Terrell Carter; Tonya Villafana; Marie-Ange Demoitié; Marie-Claude Dubois; Amanda Leach; Marc Lievens; Johan Vekemans; Joe Cohen; W. Ripley Ballou; Marcel Tanner

BACKGROUND The RTS,S/AS malaria vaccine is being developed for delivery through the World Health Organizations Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI). We assessed the feasibility of integrating RTS,S/AS02D into a standard EPI schedule for infants. METHODS In this phase 2B, single-center, double-blind, controlled trial involving 340 infants in Bagamoyo, Tanzania, we randomly assigned 340 infants to receive three doses of either the RTS,S/AS02D vaccine or the hepatitis B vaccine at 8, 12, and 16 weeks of age. All infants also received a vaccine containing diphtheria and tetanus toxoids, whole-cell pertussis vaccine, and conjugated Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine (DTPw/Hib). The primary objectives were the occurrence of serious adverse events during a 9-month surveillance period and a demonstration of noninferiority of the responses to the EPI vaccines (DTPw/Hib and hepatitis B surface antigen) with coadministration of the RTS,S/AS02D vaccine, as compared with the hepatitis B vaccine. The detection of antibodies against Plasmodium falciparum circumsporozoite and efficacy against malaria infection were secondary objectives. RESULTS At least one serious adverse event was reported in 31 of 170 infants who received the RTS,S/AS02D vaccine (18.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.7 to 24.9) and in 42 of 170 infants who received the hepatitis B vaccine (24.7%; 95% CI, 18.4 to 31.9). The results showed the noninferiority of the RTS,S/AS02D vaccine in terms of antibody responses to EPI antigens. One month after vaccination, 98.6% of infants receiving the RTS,S/AS02D vaccine had seropositive titers for anticircumsporozoite antibodies on enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). During the 6-month period after the third dose of vaccine, the efficacy of the RTS,S/AS02D vaccine against first infection with P. falciparum malaria was 65.2% (95% CI, 20.7 to 84.7; P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS The use of the RTS,S/AS02D vaccine in infants had a promising safety profile, did not interfere with the immunologic responses to coadministered EPI antigens, and reduced the incidence of malaria infection. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00289185.)


Lancet Infectious Diseases | 2011

Efficacy of RTS,S/AS01E malaria vaccine and exploratory analysis on anti-circumsporozoite antibody titres and protection in children aged 5–17 months in Kenya and Tanzania: a randomised controlled trial

Ally Olotu; John Lusingu; Amanda Leach; Marc Lievens; Johan Vekemans; Salum Msham; Trudie Lang; Jayne Gould; Marie-Claude Dubois; Erik Jongert; Preeti Vansadia; Terrell Carter; Patricia Njuguna; Ken Awuondo; Anangisye Malabeja; Omar Abdul; Samwel Gesase; Neema Mturi; Chris Drakeley; Barbara Savarese; Tonya Villafana; Didier Lapierre; W. Ripley Ballou; Joe Cohen; Martha M. Lemnge; Norbert Peshu; Kevin Marsh; Eleanor M. Riley; Lorenz von Seidlein; Philip Bejon

Summary Background RTS,S/AS01E is the lead candidate malaria vaccine. We recently showed efficacy against clinical falciparum malaria in 5–17 month old children, during an average of 8 months follow-up. We aimed to assess the efficacy of RTS,S/AS01E during 15 months of follow-up. Methods Between March, 2007, and October, 2008, we enrolled healthy children aged 5–17 months in Kilifi, Kenya, and Korogwe, Tanzania. Computer-generated block randomisation was used to randomly assign participants (1:1) to receive three doses (at month 0, 1, and 2) of either RTS,S/AS01E or human diploid-cell rabies vaccine. The primary endpoint was time to first clinical malaria episode, defined as the presence of fever (temperature ≥37·5°C) and a Plasmodium falciparum density of 2500/μL or more. Follow-up was 12 months for children from Korogwe and 15 months for children from Kilifi. Primary analysis was per protocol. In a post-hoc modelling analysis we characterised the associations between anti-circumsporozoite antibodies and protection against clinical malaria episodes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00380393. Findings 894 children were assigned, 447 in each treatment group. In the per-protocol analysis, 82 of 415 children in the RTS,S/AS01E group and 125 of 420 in the rabies vaccine group had first or only clinical malaria episode by 12 months, vaccine efficacy 39·2% (95% CI 19·5–54·1, p=0·0005). At 15 months follow-up, 58 of 209 children in the RTS,S/AS01E group and 85 of 206 in the rabies vaccine group had first or only clinical malaria episode, vaccine efficacy 45·8% (24·1–61·3, p=0·0004). At 12 months after the third dose, anti-circumsporozoite antibody titre data were available for 390 children in the RTS,S/AS01E group and 391 in the rabies group. A mean of 15 months (range 12–18 months) data were available for 172 children in the RTS,S/AS01E group and 155 in the rabies group. These titres at 1 month after the third dose were not associated with protection, but titres at 6·5 months were. The level of protection increased abruptly over a narrow range of antibody concentrations. The most common adverse events were pneumonia, febrile convulsion, gastroenteritis, and P falciparum malaria. Interpretation RTS,S/AS01E confers sustained efficacy for at least 15 months and shows promise as a potential public health intervention against childhood malaria in malaria endemic countries. Funding PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative (MVI), GlaxoSmithKline.


Lancet Infectious Diseases | 2011

Safety and efficacy of the RTS,S/AS01E candidate malaria vaccine given with expanded-programme-on-immunisation vaccines: 19 month follow-up of a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial

Kwaku Poku Asante; Salim Abdulla; Selidji Todagbe Agnandji; John Lyimo; Johan Vekemans; Solange Soulanoudjingar; Ruth Owusu; Mwanajaa Shomari; Amanda Leach; Erik Jongert; Nahya Salim; José Francisco Fernandes; David Dosoo; Maria Chikawe; Saadou Issifou; Kingsley Osei-Kwakye; Marc Lievens; Tina Möller; Stephen Apanga; Grace Mwangoka; Marie-Claude Dubois; Tigani Madi; Evans Kwara; Rose Minja; Aurore B. Hounkpatin; Owusu Boahen; Kingsley Kayan; George Adjei; Daniel Chandramohan; Terrell Carter

BACKGROUND The RTS,S/AS01(E) candidate malaria vaccine is being developed for immunisation of infants in Africa through the expanded programme on immunisation (EPI). 8 month follow-up data have been reported for safety and immunogenicity of RTS,S/AS01(E) when integrated into the EPI. We report extended follow-up to 19 months, including efficacy results. METHODS We did a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial of safety and efficacy of the RTS,S/AS01(E) candidate malaria vaccine given with EPI vaccines between April 30, 2007, and Oct 7, 2009, in Ghana, Tanzania, and Gabon. Eligible children were 6-10 weeks of age at first vaccination, without serious acute or chronic illness. All children received the EPI diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (inactivated whole-cell), and hepatitis-B vaccines, Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine, and oral polio vaccine at study months 0, 1, and 2, and measles vaccine and yellow fever vaccines at study month 7. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive three doses of RTS,S/AS01(E) at 6, 10, and 14 weeks (0, 1, 2 month schedule) or at 6 weeks, 10 weeks, and 9 months (0, 2, 7 month schedule) or placebo. Randomisation was according to a predefined block list with a computer-generated randomisation code. Detection of serious adverse events and malaria was by passive case detection. Antibodies against Plasmodium falciparum circumsporozoite protein and HBsAg were monitored for 19 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00436007. FINDINGS 511 children were enrolled. Serious adverse events occurred in 57 participants in the RTS,S/AS01(E) 0, 1, 2 month group (34%, 95% CI 27-41), 47 in the 0, 1, 7 month group (28%, 21-35), and 49 (29%, 22-36) in the control group; none were judged to be related to study vaccination. At month 19, anticircumsporozoite immune responses were significantly higher in the RTS,S/AS01(E) groups than in the control group. Vaccine efficacy for the 0, 1, 2 month schedule (2 weeks after dose three to month 19, site-adjusted according-to-protocol analysis) was 53% (95% CI 26-70; p=0·0012) against first malaria episodes and 59% (36-74; p=0·0001) against all malaria episodes. For the entire study period, (total vaccinated cohort) vaccine efficacy against all malaria episodes was higher with the 0, 1, 2 month schedule (57%, 95% CI 33-73; p=0·0002) than with the 0, 1, 7 month schedule (32% CI 16-45; p=0·0003). 1 year after dose three, vaccine efficacy against first malaria episodes was similar for both schedules (0, 1, 2 month group, 61·6% [95% CI 35·6-77·1], p<0·001; 0, 1, 7 month group, 63·8% [40·4-78·0], p<0·001, according-to-protocol cohort). INTERPRETATION Vaccine efficacy was consistent with the target put forward by the WHO-sponsored malaria vaccine technology roadmap for a first-generation malaria vaccine. The 0, 1, 2 month vaccine schedule has been selected for phase 3 candidate vaccine assessment. FUNDING Program for Appropriate Technology in Health Malaria Vaccine Initiative; GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.


PLOS ONE | 2009

A randomized trial assessing the safety and immunogenicity of AS01 and AS02 adjuvanted RTS,S malaria vaccine candidates in children in Gabon.

Bertrand Lell; Selidji Todagbe Agnandji; Isabelle von Glasenapp; Sonja Haertle; Sunny Oyakhiromen; Saadou Issifou; Johan Vekemans; Amanda Leach; Marc Lievens; Marie-Claude Dubois; Marie-Ange Demoitié; Terrell Carter; Tonya Villafana; W. Ripley Ballou; Joe Cohen; Peter G. Kremsner

Background The malaria vaccine candidate antigen RTS,S includes parts of the pre-erythrocytic stage circumsporozoite protein fused to the Hepatitis B surface antigen. Two Adjuvant Systems are in development for this vaccine, an oil-in water emulsion – based formulation (AS02) and a formulation based on liposomes (AS01). Methods & Principal Findings In this Phase II, double-blind study (NCT00307021), 180 healthy Gabonese children aged 18 months to 4 years were randomized to receive either RTS,S/AS01E or RTS,S/AS02D, on a 0–1–2 month vaccination schedule. The children were followed-up daily for six days after each vaccination and monthly for 14 months. Blood samples were collected at 4 time-points. Both vaccines were well tolerated. Safety parameters were distributed similarly between the two groups. Both vaccines elicited a strong specific immune response after Doses 2 and 3 with a ratio of anti-CS GMT titers (AS02D/AS01E) of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.68–1.15) post-Dose 3. After Doses 2 and 3 of experimental vaccines, anti-CS and anti-HBs antibody GMTs were higher in children who had been previously vaccinated with at least one dose of hepatitis B vaccine compared to those not previously vaccinated. Conclusions RTS,S/AS01E proved similarly as well tolerated and immunogenic as RTS,S/AS02D, completing an essential step in the age de-escalation process within the RTS,S clinical development plan. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT00307021


Vaccine | 2014

Development of a transmission-blocking malaria vaccine: Progress, challenges, and the path forward

Julia K. Nunes; Colleen Woods; Terrell Carter; Theresa Raphael; Merribeth J. Morin; Diadier Diallo; Didier Leboulleux; Sanjay Jain; Christian Loucq; David C. Kaslow; Ashley Birkett

New interventions are needed to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with malaria, as well as to accelerate elimination and eventual eradication. Interventions that can break the cycle of parasite transmission, and prevent its reintroduction, will be of particular importance in achieving the eradication goal. In this regard, vaccines that interrupt malaria transmission (VIMT) have been highlighted as an important intervention, including transmission-blocking vaccines that prevent human-to-mosquito transmission by targeting the sexual, sporogonic, or mosquito stages of the parasite (SSM-VIMT). While the significant potential of this vaccine approach has been appreciated for decades, the development and licensure pathways for vaccines that target transmission and the incidence of infection, as opposed to prevention of clinical malaria disease, remain ill-defined. This article describes the progress made in critical areas since 2010, highlights key challenges that remain, and outlines important next steps to maximize the potential for SSM-VIMTs to contribute to the broader malaria elimination and eradication objectives.


Human Vaccines | 2008

Vaccine knowledge and practices of primary care providers of exempt vs. vaccinated children

Daniel A. Salmon; William Pan; Saad B. Omer; Ann Marie Navar; Walter A. Orenstein; Edgar K. Marcuse; James A. Taylor; M. Patricia deHart; Shannon Stokley; Terrell Carter; Neal A. Halsey

Objectives: Compare vaccine knowledge, attitudes, and practices of primary care providers for fully vaccinated children and children who are exempt from school immunization requirements. Methods: We conducted a mailed survey of parent-identified primary care providers from four states to measure perceived risks and benefits of vaccination and other key immunization beliefs. Frequencies of responses were stratified by type of provider, identified by exempt versus vaccinated children. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios for responses by provider type. Results: 551 surveys were completed (84.3% response rate). Providers for exempt children had similar attitudes to providers for non-exempt children. However, there were statistically significant increased concerns among providers for exempt children regarding vaccine safety and lack of perceived individual and community benefits for vaccines compared to other providers. Conclusions: The great majority of providers for exempt children had similar attitudes about vaccine safety, effectiveness, and benefits as providers of non-exempt children. Although providers for exempt children were more likely to believe that multiple vaccines weaken a child’s immune system and were concerned about vaccine safety and less likely to consider vaccines were beneficial, a substantial proportion of providers of both exempt and vaccinated children have concerns about vaccine safety and believe that CDC underestimates the frequency of vaccine side effects. Effective continuing education of providers about the risks and benefits of immunization and including in vaccine recommendations more information on pre and post licensing vaccine safety evaluations may overcome some of these perceptions.


Malaria Journal | 2011

Development of standardized laboratory methods and quality processes for a phase III study of the RTS, S/AS01 candidate malaria vaccine.

Christine Swysen; Johan Vekemans; Myriam Bruls; Sunny Oyakhirome; Chris Drakeley; Peter G. Kremsner; Brian Greenwood; Opokua Ofori-Anyinam; Brenda Okech; Tonya Villafana; Terrell Carter; Barbara Savarese; Adriano Duse; Andrea Reijman; Charlotte Ingram; John Frean; Bernhards Ogutu

BackgroundA pivotal phase III study of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria candidate vaccine is ongoing in several research centres across Africa. The development and establishment of quality systems was a requirement for trial conduct to meet international regulatory standards, as well as providing an important capacity strengthening opportunity for study centres.MethodsStandardized laboratory methods and quality assurance processes were implemented at each of the study centres, facilitated by funding partners.ResultsA robust protocol for determination of parasite density based on actual blood cell counts was set up in accordance with World Health Organization recommendations. Automated equipment including haematology and biochemistry analyzers were put in place with standard methods for bedside testing of glycaemia, base excess and lactacidaemia. Facilities for X-rays and basic microbiology testing were also provided or upgraded alongside health care infrastructure in some centres. External quality assurance assessment of all major laboratory methods was established and method qualification by each laboratory demonstrated. The resulting capacity strengthening has ensured laboratory evaluations are conducted locally to the high standards required in clinical trials.ConclusionMajor efforts by study centres, together with support from collaborating parties, have allowed standardized methods and robust quality assurance processes to be put in place for the phase III evaluation of the RTS, S/AS01 malaria candidate vaccine. Extensive training programmes, coupled with continuous commitment from research centre staff, have been the key elements behind the successful implementation of quality processes. It is expected these activities will culminate in healthcare benefits for the subjects and communities participating in these trials.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00866619


Vaccine | 2013

Association of vaccine-related attitudes and beliefs between parents and health care providers.

Michelle J. Mergler; Saad B. Omer; William Pan; Ann Marie Navar-Boggan; Walter A. Orenstein; Edgar K. Marcuse; James A. Taylor; M. Patricia deHart; Terrell Carter; Anthony Damico; Neal A. Halsey; Daniel A. Salmon

OBJECTIVES Health care providers influence parental vaccination decisions. Over 90% of parents report receiving vaccine information from their childs health care provider. The majority of parents of vaccinated children and children exempt from school immunization requirements report their childs primary provider is a good source for vaccine information. The role of health care providers in influencing parents who refuse vaccines has not been fully explored. The objective of the study was to determine the association between vaccine-related attitudes and beliefs of health care providers and parents. METHODS We surveyed parents and primary care providers of vaccinated and unvaccinated school age children in four states in 2002-2003 and 2005. We measured key immunization beliefs including perceived risks and benefits of vaccination. Odds ratios for associations between parental and provider responses were calculated using logistic regression. RESULTS Surveys were completed by 1367 parents (56.1% response rate) and 551 providers (84.3% response rate). Parents with high confidence in vaccine safety were more likely to have providers with similar beliefs, however viewpoints regarding disease susceptibility and severity and vaccine efficacy were not associated. Parents whose providers believed that children get more immunizations than are good for them had 4.6 higher odds of holding that same belief compared to parents whose providers did not have that belief. CONCLUSIONS The beliefs of childrens health care providers and parents, including those regarding vaccine safety, are similar. Provider beliefs may contribute to parental decisions to accept, delay or forgo vaccinations. Parents may selectively choose providers who have similar beliefs to their own.


Malaria Journal | 2013

Randomized, controlled trial of the long term safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of RTS,S/AS02D malaria vaccine in infants living in a malaria-endemic region

Salim Abdulla; Nahya Salim; Francisca Machera; Richard Kamata; Omar Juma; Mwanajaa Shomari; Sulende Kubhoja; Ali Mohammed; Grace Mwangoka; Thomas Aebi; Hassan Mshinda; David Schellenberg; Terrell Carter; Tonya Villafana; Marie-Claude Dubois; Amanda Leach; Marc Lievens; Johan Vekemans; Joe Cohen; W. Ripley Ballou; Marcel Tanner

BackgroundThe RTS,S/AS malaria candidate vaccine is being developed with the intent to be delivered, if approved, through the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) of the World Health Organization. Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of the RTS,S/AS02D vaccine candidate when integrated into a standard EPI schedule for infants have been reported over a nine-month surveillance period. This paper describes results following 20 months of follow up.MethodsThis Phase IIb, single-centre, randomized controlled trial enrolled 340 infants in Tanzania to receive three doses of RTS,S/AS02D or hepatitis B vaccine at 8, 12, and 16 weeks of age. All infants also received DTPw/Hib (diphtheria and tetanus toxoids, whole-cell pertussis vaccine, conjugated Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine) at the same timepoints. The study was double-blinded to month 9 and single-blinded from months 9 to 20.ResultsFrom month 0 to 20, at least one SAE was reported in 57/170 infants who received RTS,S/AS02D (33.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.5, 41.2) and 62/170 infants who received hepatitis B vaccine (36.5%; 95% CI: 29.2, 44.2). The SAE profile was similar in both vaccine groups; none were considered to be related to vaccination. At month 20, 18 months after completion of vaccination, 71.8% of recipients of RTS,S/AS02D and 3.8% of recipients of hepatitis B vaccine had seropositive titres for anti-CS antibodies; seroprotective levels of anti-HBs antibodies remained in 100% of recipients of RTS,S/AS02D and 97.7% recipients of hepatitis B vaccine. Anti-HBs antibody GMTs were higher in the RTS,S/AS02D group at all post-vaccination time points compared to control. According to protocol population, vaccine efficacy against multiple episodes of malaria disease was 50.7% (95% CI: -6.5 to 77.1, p = 0.072) and 26.7% (95% CI: -33.1 to 59.6, p = 0.307) over 12 and 18 months post vaccination, respectively. In the Intention to Treat population, over the 20-month follow up, vaccine efficacy against multiple episodes of malaria disease was 14.4% (95% CI: -41.9 to 48.4, p = 0.545).ConclusionsThe acceptable safety profile and good tolerability of RTS,S/AS02D in combination with EPI vaccines previously reported from month 0 to 9 was confirmed over a 20 month surveillance period in this infant population. Antibodies against both CS and HBsAg in the RTS,S/AS02D group remained significantly higher compared to control for the study duration. Over 18 months follow up, RTS,S/AS02D prevented approximately a quarter of malaria cases in the study population.Clinical trialsGov identifier: NCT00289185

Collaboration


Dive into the Terrell Carter's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Neal A. Halsey

Johns Hopkins University

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge