GSK to slash cost of malaria jab by more than half
The manufacturers of the world's first malaria vaccine are set to slash the price by more than half by 2028 to less than £4 per dose.
On Wednesday the manufacturers of the shot, known as RTS,S, said a phased reduction in cost would begin immediately, with an ultimate aim to reduce the price to less than $5 (£3.64).
The announcement could hardly come at a more critical moment. Gavi, a major vaccination initiative which funds immunisations in the world's poorest countries, is facing a major budget crunch.
In Brussels on Wednesday, Gavi's replenishment event raised $9 billion (£6.55bn) to fund immunisation programmes over the next five years. While this sounds like a huge sum, it's significantly less than the $11.9bn the group had been aiming for.
Governments around the world are cutting development spending dramatically. The UK, for instance, cut its contribution to Gavi by 40 per cent in real terms, telling The Telegraph it was prioritising defence, while the US has pledged nothing at all.
Though America previously gave Gavi roughly $300m a year, the country's new health secretary claimed without evidence that the organisation was ignoring vaccine safety.
The announcement from the British pharmaceutical giant GSK and Indian drugmaker Bharat Biotech will therefore be a relief to those trying to balance the books.
Closing the gap between supply and need
In a statement the companies said the price reduction demonstrated their 'commitment to Gavi', and was 'driven by process improvements, expanded production capacity, cost-effective manufacturing, and minimal profit margins'.
By the time the price has fallen to below $5 per dose, a technology transfer agreement means Bharat will have taken over production, though GSK will continue to supply the adjuvant piece of the shot.
'For us, this is more than a cooperation, it's a promise,' said Dr Krishna Ella, Executive Chairman of Bharat Biotech International Limited.
'By joining forces with GSK, and working closely with Gavi, and the WHO [World Health Organization], we are taking a real step toward closing the gap between vaccine supply and the urgent needs of children at risk of malaria.'
Each year, malaria still kills 500,000 people – the vast majority of them children aged five and under in sub-Saharan Africa. According to WHO estimates, cases and deaths fell significantly between 2000 and 2015, but progress has since stalled.
Some have high hopes that RTS,S, as well as another vaccine called R21 developed by Oxford University, could prove critical in efforts to turn the tide.
In clinical trials, RTS,S reduced hospitalisations for severe malaria by 30 per cent.
But critics say the shot is too expensive and not as effective as existing tools, such as bed nets and antimalarials. The reduction in price will bring it more in line with the cost of R21, which is priced at around $4 per dose (roughly £3).
Yet the cost will still add up, as both jabs require multiple shots. For RTS,S, this means four doses – the first three doses are given monthly, starting around five months of age, while the fourth dose is administered 15-18 months later.
Both jabs 'provide reasonable short term efficacy – over about a year – so are a useful addition to other measures,' said Professor Nick White, a professor at the Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit who specialises in malaria.
'In the past GSK had limited production capacity – one of the reasons the R21 was developed. So reducing the price will be good and the two comparable vaccines can fight it out in the market place.'
A spokesperson for Gavi said the alliance's goal is to 'create sustainable demand backed by predictable financing so that companies – like GSK and Bharat – can continue investing in technology transfer and other efficiencies that bring down costs, thus making critical vaccines more available and affordable.
GSK's decision to lower its prices, the spokesperson added, is 'an important step for the global malaria vaccination programme, and our ability to make this lifesaving tool more widely available to those who need it the most'.
Gavi plans to help fund RTS,S in 12 African countries by the end of this year.
Previously, GSK has said it will supply up to 18 million vaccine doses between 2023 and the end of this year. The company plans to supply 15 million doses annually from 2026-2028, a spokesperson told Reuters.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
20 minutes ago
- Telegraph
With this surrender to Leftist rebels, Starmer's days as PM are numbered
It is now clear that Keir Starmer is making major concessions to his belligerent MPs to save his political career. A series of compromises have drastically diluted his landmark welfare Bill. This is not just a personal defeat. Starmerism, the final line of defence between the far-Left and the levers of power, is on the brink of collapse. Rachel Reeves and her Treasury colleagues will conclude Britain has little choice but to continue pursuing mass migration and increasing taxation. Spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence will become hopelessly unrealistic; even 3 per cent will be out of reach. All this is aside from the moral gravity of the failure to break the cycle of benefits dependency, or the impact it will have on those who study, strive and work hard to provide a better life for their families. Spending on welfare has ballooned in recent years. One in 10 people of working age are now claiming a sickness or disability benefit. By the end of the decade the country could be spending as much on disability benefits as it currently does on transport, policing and social care put together. The pool of workers is shrinking, whilst spending rises inexorably. In the end, this country will go to the wall. Starmer's reforms didn't go far enough; the IFS estimates that the benefits bill would still rise by £8 billion by 2030. Yes, this row – the row that could derail Starmer's premiership – would not even come close to cutting the overall cost. A benefits surrender risks destroying the trust of the markets, triggering a Truss-style meltdown, not immediately but inevitably. Labour came into power on the promise of 'change'. When Reeves hiked taxes by £40 billion in a single fiscal event, she insisted she was 'fixing the foundations'. The Government has sought to distance itself from the 'fantasy' economics now being advanced by Reform UK. How can it reconcile this with a benefits climbdown, coming in the wake of all the other about-turns on other cuts? How can it claim to be taking 'tough' decisions for the 'greater good'? Labour's far-Left, fresh from derailing Starmer's reforms, will surely make the case for a shift towards socialist populism. If Labour cannot see off Nigel Farage through the successful pursuit of deep reform, then, according to some Labour MPs, the next best thing is to try and match his immigration populism with economic populism. Wealth taxes, pensions tax raids, second home levies – all will be on the table. A failure to push through benefit cuts will above all be a moral calamity. Britain is becoming a country that mollycoddles 'takers' whilst clobbering the 'makers'. Citizens who attempt to improve their lives are being dragged down, through excessive taxation, the neutering of private enterprise or the destruction of the private school system. We learnt this week that more than seven million people are now estimated to be higher rate taxpayers, a jump of more than two-fifths since just 2022-23. The permanently inactive are exalted as 'vulnerable' and 'deserving', a status that renders them untouchable. Serial welfare recipients are relentlessly given the benefit of the doubt, yet the self-employed and those with assets are treated by the system as potential tax dodgers. We should of course cushion the most vulnerable in our society. We should also make the distinction between the respectable working class and the dysfunctional underclass. On a recent trip to the North East, residents from one rough estate told me of the local children who aspire to become drug dealers and believe that their future is not determined by their own decisions but rather merely by 'luck'. Their parents are too proud to visit the estate's work support charity but are at ease tapping benefits from an impersonal bureaucracy. Those like Diane Abbott who preach that 'there is nothing moral about cutting benefits' should be made to conduct an in-depth tour of these places. They would see the destructive impact of uncontrolled welfarism on the integrity of families, the self-respect of adults, and the dreams of children. Starmer's failure was not inevitable. Labour could have made a solid centre-Left case for reform. It should be possible to cut benefits while also treating genuinely disabled people with greater humanity, not least by bringing back rigorous in-person assessments. It could have glanced at this week's British Social Attitudes Survey, which found that less than half (45 per cent) of people support more spending on benefits for disabled people who cannot work. Nearly a third now agree it is too easy to claim disability benefits. And there is rising evidence that benefits cuts can actually be a vote winner. After a brief softening of public opinion during the Covid lockdown, polling expert James Frayne has recently picked up on a hardening of attitudes to welfare and a growing perception that benefits do not reach the working class. Rather than hiding behind Old Left platitudes about the 'dignity of work', Starmer could have spoken bluntly about the phenomenon of people claiming benefits based on false beliefs and statements about their mental health. The Prime Minister's failure to articulate these truths only serves to embolden his opponents. As one told me: 'I've heard no minister explain why the budget of the United Kingdom should be balanced on the backs of disabled people. And if you can't make the argument maybe you're doing the wrong thing.'
BBC News
22 minutes ago
- BBC News
PM 'agrees' benefit changes deal with Labour rebels
The government is expected to announce a deal shortly with Labour rebels on its planned benefits changes. Multiple sources tell the BBC existing claimants of the Personal Independence Payment (Pip) will continue to receive what they currently get, as will recipients of the health element of Universal Credit. It is also expected that the support to help people into employment will be fast forwarded so it happens concessions amount to a massive climbdown from the government, which was staring at the prospect of defeat if it failed to accommodate the demands of over 100 of its backbenchers. Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Opposing reforms that are a step in the right direction is bad politics
What do you do as a parliamentary opposition when the Government is doing something you know you should support? The Conservative Party has faced this issue twice this week. The first is on Labour's feeble attempt to slow the increase (not make a cut) in health-related welfare spending. How that will play out is unresolved as I write. Kemi Badenoch recognises the reputational risks of voting against, so she has made an offer to back Sir Keir Starmer – but on conditions: further spending cuts and no tax increases this autumn. It's clever tactically. Starmer clearly can't accept the conditions. And his refusal allows a vote against the Government and, potentially, the death of a flagship Bill. That's the job of an opposition, isn't it? Well maybe. Yes, it certainly makes things awkward for Starmer. But it makes things awkward for the Tories too. For a political party, principles are as important as tactics, especially perhaps if you are trying to reinvent yourselves in the public mind after the political mush of the last 14 years. Sometimes it's possible to be too tactical, too clever. The fact is the welfare bill has to come down. Maybe Labour is not going about it exactly as we would. But it is still the right thing to do. Fiscal responsibility is supposed to be a Conservative thing. So when Labour is taking a Conservative approach to something, maybe the party should back them? A similar problem is presented by the Planning Bill, which had its Second Reading in the Lords this week. Less is at stake in the short run, for the Bill will certainly go through. But the underlying politics are if anything more significant. Labour's Bill is certainly imperfect. It is best characterised as driving the current system to work better: more meaningful plans, less power for local councillors to block, less scope for legal challenge. It has a novel approach to nature protection: essentially making developers pay to restore nature somewhere, but not necessarily on the exact spot where development is taking place. My suspicion is that this is not going to deliver the boost Labour wants. The current system hasn't delivered the target of 300,000 homes a year since the late 1970s. Indeed, since the financial crash, it's only once delivered more than 200,000. Our restrictive controls-based system, with its presumption against building, very likely just can't do it, however streamlined it is. Moreover, although Labour hates it when you mention it, any house building is to a very large extent building for migration. Net immigration is going to be, best case, towards two million under this Government, so at least 125,000 homes every year will be needed simply to accommodate future arrivals. While that's the case, it's going to be very difficult to get political consent to build more – and rightly so. So what is the right political response to this situation? Do Conservatives resist Labour's Bill, arguing that it undermines local democracy and risks the countryside, or support, recognising their approach is imperfect? At the moment the party is doing neither. Instead it is trying to side-step the choice by saying it wants 'more homes, but the right homes, in the right places'. That allows it to sound sympathetic to the policy aims while raising all sorts of difficulties in practice, and (not by chance) to accommodate very different perspectives within the party. But there are risks here: not just that Conservatives get on the wrong side of the argument, but that voters can't see the guiding principle that's being applied, perhaps can't even tell whether we are actually supportive or hostile at all. Once again: when trying to establish a clear profile, maybe this is less than ideal. I know where I stand. Like it or not, and unless you are prepared to engage in what is euphemistically called compulsory 'remigration', which I am not, the population is what it is, and we need to build more houses. That requires both reducing immigration right down to zero for a prolonged period and a serious reform to the current planning system, more like the radical Robert Jenrick proposals from 2021, sadly junked as the Conservative Party entered the early stages of its nervous breakdown. Indeed we might need to be even more radical than that in places like London within the M25. That's obviously not going to happen under Labour, but it is what a post-2029 government on the Right should aim to do. So we shouldn't do things which are inconsistent with it now. Labour's Bill is an imperfect half measure, but it still goes in the right direction. There is no future for the Right in echoing the voice of nimby councillors and the green and Lib Dem blob, determined as they are to stop development or hamstring it with green regulation. The appeal of the Right must instead be to aspiration, to those who want to own a home (and dare I say it more than one?) and get on in life. The Conservative Party at least can't get back in the game without this. Now would be a good time to start.
