Quantification of anti-parasite and anti-disease immunity to malaria as a function of age and exposure
- San Francisco General Hospital, University of California, San Francisco, United States
- Infectious Diseases Research Collaboration, Uganda
- Stanford University, United States
- Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Uganda
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom
- University of Washington, United States
Figures
Figure 1
Incidence and prevalence of malaria as a function of age.
(a) and prevalence of asymptomatic parasitemia (b) in the three study sites as a function of age, modeled using generalized additive models (GAMS). Shaded areas represent 95% confidence bounds.
Figure 2
aEIR as a metric of individual exposure.
(a) Distribution of the average annual entomological inoculation rate (aEIR) experienced by the study households in the three study sites. (b) Correlation between the measured aEIRs and the …
Figure 3
Changes in parasite densities and objective temprature as a function of age and exposure.
Trends in parasite densities. (a) recorded during symptomatic (passive surveillance) infections and routine (active surveillance) visits as a function of age (left) and aEIR (right); and trends in …
Figure 4
Results of best fitting models quantifying immunity.
(a), anti-disease immunity (b) and overall immunity against symptomatic malaria (c). Each plot shows, for specific ages and aEIRs, the expected parasite density (/μL) (a), objective temperature …
Figure 5 with 13 supplements
Anti-parasite and Anti-disease immunity as a function of age and exposure.
(a) and anti-disease immunity (b). These results are similar to those presented in Figure 4, but for the full range of ages and aEIRs included in the data. Panel (a) shows expected parasite …
Figure 5—figure supplement 1
Confidence bounds of best fitting model quantifying anti-parasite immunity.
Left panel (a) is equivalent to Figure 5a, and shows the expected parasite densities (log 10, parasites/μL) after infection at different ages and levels of exposure (aEIR). Panel (b) shows the lower …
Figure 5—figure supplement 2
Adjusting for cumulative exposure.
To further explore the independent contribution of age on the development of anti-parasite and anti-disease immunity, we fit models where, instead of adjusting for aEIR, we explicitly adjusted for …
Figure 5—figure supplement 3
Adjusting for the number of infections in the past 3 months: Results of models.
quantifying anti-parasite (left) and anti-disease immunity (right). These results are similar to those presented in Figure 5, but adjusted for the number of P. falciparum positive visits in the last …
Figure 5—figure supplement 4
Adjusting for the probability of non-malaria fevers.
Since it is known that the probability of developing fever (not due to malaria) decreases with age, we performed sensitivity analyses where we adjusted for the probability of non-malaria fevers. …
Figure 5—figure supplement 5
Adjusting for the probability of non-malaria fevers.
Results of models quantifying anti-parasite (left) and anti-disease immunity (right). Left panel shows expected parasite densities (log 10, parasites/μL) after infection at different ages and levels …
Figure 5—figure supplement 6
Adjusting for the probability of observation.
Since the study design only included 'routine' samples collections every 3 months, it is likely that we missed several events of asymptomatic infection, particularly in the moderate and high …
Figure 5—figure supplement 7
Limiting the analysis to ‘incident’ infections.
Since we don’t have data on the genotypes of parasites, it is also possible that consecutive asymptomatic infections represent persistent, rather than new infections. To assess the potential impact …
Figure 5—figure supplement 8
Limiting the analysis to individuals without the sickle hemoglobin mutation (β globin E6V).
This analysis only included data from 618/773 individuals without the sickle hemoglobin mutation (β globin E6V). Figure shows results of models quantifying anti-parasite (left) and anti-disease …
Figure 5—figure supplement 9
Limiting the analysis to individuals from Tororo and Kanungu.
This analysis only included data from 634/773 individuals living in Tororo (Nagongera) and Kanungu (Kihihi). Figure shows results of models quantifying anti-parasite (left) and anti-disease immunity …
Figure 5—figure supplement 10
Limiting the analysis to individuals living in settings with aEIR ≥5.
This analysis only included data from 554/773 individuals living in households with aEIR >5. Figure shows results of models quantifying anti-parasite (left) and anti-disease immunity (right). Left …
Figure 5—figure supplement 11
Using a metric of aEIR that only includes prior observations.
In our main analysis, the metric of exposure used was the mean aEIR over the whole study period, as a proxy of the mean exposure that each participant has experienced over their life-time. We …
Figure 5—figure supplement 12
Predicted individual trajectories of anti-disease and anti-parasite immunity.
Figure showing predicted individual trajectories in the development of anti-parasite (a) and anti-disease (b) for a sample of study participants from each study site. (a) shows expected parasite …
Figure 5—figure supplement 13
Model checks.
Residual plots and response vs. fitted plots for the best fitting models (Models AP4 and AD4).
Figure 6 with 2 supplements
Anti-disease immunity as a function of age and exposure.
Each panel shows how the expected objective temperature (°C) varies as a function of age and parasite density, for different transmission settings. (a) aEIR = 2; (b) aEIR = 10; (c) aEIR = 50; (d) …
Figure 6—figure supplement 1
Association between parasite density (parasites/μL) and objective temperature (in °C).
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.35832.024
Figure 6—figure supplement 2
Confidence bounds of best fitting model quantifying anti-disease immunity.
Left panel (a) is equivalent to Figure 6c, and shows how the expected objective temperature (°C) varies as a function of age and parasite density, in a setting with aEIR of 50. Panel (b) shows the …
Figure 7 with 1 supplement
Results of the best model quantifying overall immunity against symptomatic malaria (upon microscopically detectable infection), as a function of age and exposure (aEIR).
Colors represent the expected probability of developing symptomatic malaria upon infection. Confidence bounds for these plots are presented in Figure 7—figure supplement 1.
Figure 7—figure supplement 1
Confidence bounds of best fitting model quantifying overall immunity against symptomatic malaria.
Left panel (a) is equivalent to Figure 7. Colors represent the expected probability of developing symptomatic malaria upon infection, as a function of age and exposure. Panel (b) shows the lower and …
Author response image 1
Anti-parasite immunity.
Results of models quantifying anti-parasite immunity. Left panel shows result when models are fit to data from routine visits only (Active) while right panel shows result when models are fit to …
Author response image 2
Anti-disease immunity.
Results of models quantifying disease immunity when fit to data from non-routine (Passive) visits only. It is not possible to fit this model using only data from routine visits as the majority …
Author response image 3
Trends in parasite densities recorded during symptomatic (passive surveillance) infections and routine (active surveillance) visits as a function of age; and trends in the objective temperature recorded during visits in which participants were found to have a parasite density between 50,000 parasites/μL and 200,000 parasites/μL, as a function of age Each point represents a measurement obtained during a study visit.
Dark squares represent the mean of the observations from each site.
Author response image 4
Figure summarizing evidence for anti-parasite immunity (left) and anti-disease immunity (right) in the raw data.
Each plot shows, for specific ages and aEIRs, the mean parasite density (/μL) (left), and the mean objective temperature given a parasite density between 10,000 to 80,000 parasites/μL (right). Means …
Author response image 5
Results of models quantifying anti-parasite and anti-disease immunity.
This figure is similar to figure 5 in the manuscript, but with the analysis limited to 2238/5640 observations from Walukuba and Kihihi (thus the limited aEIR range).
Tables
Table 1
Characteristics of the study participants.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.35832.003| Characteristic | Nagongera | Kihihi | Walukuba |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of households | 106 | 100 | 76 |
| Number of children | 329 | 305 | 139 |
| Female, n (%) | 151(46) | 150 (49) | 66 (47) |
| Mean age at enrollment, years (sd) | 4.4 (2.7) | 4.6 (2.6) | 4.3 (2.6) |
| Mean follow up time, months (range) | 23.5 (0, 38.8) | 24.4 (0.8, 38.8) | 22.1 (2.3, 3.9) |
| Symptomatic malaria | |||
| Symptomatic Malaria episodes, n | 2447 | 1555 | 207 |
| Median number of symptomatic malaria episodes/child, n (range) | 6 (0, 29) | 4 (0, 30) | 1 (0. 12) |
| Median incidence of symptomatic malaria episodes ppy (range) | 2.6 (0, 10) | 1.6 (0, 15.2) | 0.6 (0, 5.1) |
| Asymptomatic parasitemia | |||
| Asymptomatic parasitemia episodes, n | 955 | 331 | 145 |
| Median number of asymptomatic parasitemia episode/child, n (range) | 2 (0, 12) | 0 (0, 11) | 1 (0, 10) |
| Median prevalence of asymptomatic parasitemia (range) | 0.12 (0.07–0.17) | 0.05 (0.02–0.10) | 0.07 (0.03–0.11) |
| Household malaria exposure | |||
| Household aEIR, median (range) | 51 (10–582) | 7.7 (3.6–47) | 2.1 (1.5–8.1) |
Table 2
Results of linear models quantifying the association between age, aEIR and immunity outcomes.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.35832.007| All data | aEIR ≥ 5 (n = 5047) | aEIR < 5 (n = 593) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anti-parasite immunity | Fold change in parasite density (95% CI) | ||
| Age (years) | 0.78 (0.77, 0.79) | 0.76 (0.75, 0.77) | 0.87 (0.83, 0.90) |
| Log2 aEIR | 0.82 (0.79, 0.84) | 0.73 (0.69, 0.77) | 1.92 (1.69, 2.15) |
| Anti-disease immunity* | Change in objective temperature C (95% CI) | ||
| Age (years) | −0.07 (–0.06, –0.08) | −0.08 (–0.07, –0.1) | −0.04 (–0.07, –0.01) |
| Log2 aEIR | −0.02 (–0.04, 0.0) | −0.07 (–0.05, –0.1) | 0.27 (0.11, 0.44) |
| Overall immunity against symptomatic malaria | Odds ratio of symptomatic disease (95% CI) | ||
| Age (years) | 0.78 (0.75, 0.82) | 0.77 (0.74, 0.80) | 0.90 (0.83, 0.99) |
| Log2 aEIR | 0.91 (0.74, 1.13) | 0.62 (0.48, 0.80) | 3.83 (1.39, 10.6) |
-
*Model adjusted as well for Log parasite density.
Appendix 1—table 1
Anti-parasite immunity Model fit.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.35832.030| Model | DF | % Deviance Explained | AIC |
|---|---|---|---|
| AP1 | 418.7 | 33.2 | 14052 |
| AP2 | 414.2 | 33.1 | 14048 |
| AP3 | 408 | 33 | 14046 |
| AP4 | 404 | 33 | 14032 |
Appendix 1—table 2
Anti-disease immunity Model fit.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.35832.031| Model | DF | % Deviance Explained | AIC |
|---|---|---|---|
| AD1 | 315 | 37.7 | 14946 |
| AD2 | 285 | 39.0 | 14774 |
| AD3 | 314 | 38.3 | 14894 |
| AD4 | 296 | 39.4 | 14758 |
Appendix 1—table 3
Overall immunity against symptomatic malaria Model fit.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.35832.032| Model | DF | % Deviance Explained | AIC |
|---|---|---|---|
| SM1 | 399.8 | 28 | 5382 |
| SM2 | 385.3 | 28 | 5373 |
| SM3 | 385.5 | 27.8 | 5380 |
| SM4 | 362.6 | 27.3 | 5369 |
Appendix 2—table 1
Anti-parasite immunity.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.35832.034| Time window | Functional form | Coefficient (95% CI) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 months | Linear | −0.003 (−0.03–0.03) | 0.83 |
| 6 months | Linear | 0.003 (−0.02–0.02) | 0.75 |
| 6 months | Smooth | - | 0.77 |
Appendix 2—table 2
Anti-disease immunity.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.35832.035| Time window | Functional form | Coefficient (95% CI) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 months | Linear | −0.01 (−0.04–0.02) | 0.38 |
| 6 months | Linear | −0.01 (−0.03–0.01) | 0.15 |
| 6 months | Smooth | - | 0.15 |
Additional files
-
Transparent reporting form
- https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.35832.028
