Comparison of Two Strategies for Administering the R21-Matrix M Vaccine in a Context of Seasonal Malaria Transmission in Chad

Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phasePhase 4
Trial typeInterventional
Biological sexAll
Age6-59
SponsorEpicentre

About this trial

This is a two-arm, cluster-randomised, phase IV trial conducted in Chad to assess the protective efficacy and impact in real-life conditions of a new strategy for administering the R21/MM malaria vaccine, synchronized within a seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) campaign, among children living in areas of high seasonal malaria transmission.

In this study, a cluster is defined as the catchment area of a primary care health centre. In Chad, each catchment area is known as a 'zone of responsibility' (French: Zone de Responsibilité' \[ZR\]).

Twenty-six (26) of the total 27 ZRs in the districts of Moïssala and Dembo will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive a 4-dose (3 primary doses + 1 booster) R21/MM schedule either (1) integrated into the routine EPI vaccination program (the "Routine" control arm), or (2) synchronized with an annual seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) campaign (the "Synchronized" intervention arm).

Malaria incidence: R21/MM effectiveness will be assessed using the incidence of biologically confirmed clinical malaria (trial primary endpoint). The incidence of clinical malaria will be determined through enhanced surveillance of malaria cases in health centres and hospitals over a 17-month period (August 2025 - December 2026).

Coverage surveys: Cross-sectional surveys (cluster sampling) will be carried out to measure R21/MM vaccine coverage, SMC coverage, coverage of other malaria prevention measures, and coverage of other EPI vaccines.

Nested case-control study: A sub-sample of children admitted to Moïssala District Hospital with severe clinical malaria will be offered the opportunity to participate in a nested case-control study designed to estimate the individual protective efficacy of R21/MM against severe malaria.

Aditionnaly, the INTEGREVAC ancillary study's objective is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, acceptability and feasibility of the synchronised vaccination strategy in the context of the ongoing COSAV-R21 trial, to inform policy decisions for the effective deployment of malaria vaccines in SMC implementation areas.

Methodology and planned work:

(i) A qualitative study using in-depth interviews (IDIs) and group discussions with key stakeholders at the national, health facility, and community levels, including caregivers of children eligible for vaccination, in Chad, at several points during the trial. We will explore stakeholders' and beneficiaries' perceptions and experiences of the synchronised SMC vaccination strategy (trial intervention arm) compared to age-based vaccine administration under the routine immunisation programme (trial control arm), as well as considerations for implementing these strategies. Interviews with healthcare providers, including those administering R21 and SMC, and community members will assess the feasibility of implementing the integrated vaccination strategy via SMC.

(ii) An economic evaluation including a cost-effectiveness analysis and a nested equity analysis will be conducted. The economic evaluation will include a cost analysis to carefully identify and measure the additional costs associated with adding malaria vaccination to the EPI delivery platform and, separately, to the SMC delivery channel. Analysis of key cost drivers will enable us to identify potential efficiency savings, provide evidence for country funding requests (e.g., to GAVI and the Global Fund) and for the malaria vaccine strategy budgeting/planning process. Cost-effectiveness and equity analyses of each vaccine delivery strategy will provide evidence to help national programmes plan future malaria vaccine delivery and inform global guidance and on methods of delivering these vaccines, while providing valuable evidence on the real-world cost-effectiveness of malaria vaccination.

(iii) Impact modelling will estimate the costs, impact, and cost-effectiveness of scaling up the intervention approach to the whole of Chad, under different temporal and spatial scenarios.

Eligibility criteria

This trial accepts healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

• Routine arm

Aged 6 to 11 months at the time of the first R21/MM vaccination (dose 1).

Residing in a village participating in the study and randomized to the routine arm.

Oral consent provided by the child's parent/guardian.

Disqualifiers

Exclusion criteria for both arms according to Chad national EPI guidelines

To a previous dose of a malaria vaccine

To a previous dose of hepatitis B vaccine

One of the components of the R21/MM vaccine

Trial design

Design model

Parallel

Treatments tested in this trial

  • "Synchronised" arm (intervention)

    Other intervention

    Vaccines received together with CPS

Treatment groups

70,000 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groups
Group A: "Routine" arm (control)No intervention 0 interventions
Group B: "Synchronised" arm (intervention)Experimental treatment 1 intervention

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

Malaria incidence in children who were aged 6-11 months when receiving their first dose R21/MM

To assess whether the R21/MM vaccine synchronized with SMC is non-inferior in preventing malaria (based on malaria incidence) compared to R21/MM administered as part of routine EPI in children who were aged 6-11 months when receiving their first dose R21

Time frame
From enrollment to Month 17 (Aug 2025- december 2026)

Secondary outcomes

1

Malaria incidence

Incidence of clinical malaria (biologically confirmed by RDT) in each study arm among children aged 6-59 months, irrespective of R21/MM vaccination status

Time frame
from enrolment to Month 17 (Aug 2025- Dec 2026)
2

R21/MM vaccination coverage

Proportion of children having received the appropriate number of doses for their age

Time frame
from enrolment to Month 17 (Aug 2025- Dec 2026)
3

Coverage of other malaria prevention measures

SMC coverage: average number of doses received per child and proportion of children receiving 0 and 5 doses

Time frame
From enrolment to month 17 (Aug 2025- Dec 2026)
4

Coverage of other malaria prevention measures

Proportion of children possessing, and proportion of children using, a long-lasting insecticidal net (LLIN) on the day before completing the coverage survey questionnaire

Time frame
from enrolment to Month 17 (Aug 2025- Dec 2026)

Other outcomes

1

Acceptability of the synchronized strategy

Acceptability of R21 vaccination synchronized with SMC together with factors that promote or hinder the completeness of the R21 schedule. Views of policy makers, healthcare providers and caregivers collected through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions.

Time frame
from month 6 to month 24
2

Feasibility of the synchronized strategy

Feasibility of administering 4 doses of R21 via SMC vs. the EPI platform assessed through qualitative interviews and focus group discussions

Time frame
from Month 6 to Month 24
3

Cost-effectiveness

Costs to beneficiaries : Unit costs borne by beneficiaries (children and their guardians/parents) for R21 vacicnation, SMC, treatment of malaria episodes if the child has suffered one, per study arm (total cost of malaria prevention and treatment). Provider-related costs (including the health system, the research project and implementation partners) incurred in R21 vaccination by study arm. Differential cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per malaria case prevented by the intervention (malaria vaccination via SMC) compared to the control (R21 vaccination via EPI. The ratio of these total costs per unit of effectiveness (malaria case averted, Disavility-adjusted life year) defines cost-effectiveness.

Time frame
From first enrolment to 24 months
4

Fidelity of implementation of R21 vaccine delivery

We will document how the R21 vaccine administration was implemented in practice. Factors considered will include vaccine availability, accessibility of vaccination sites, staff training, community engagement efforts, adherence to vaccination schedules, quality and satisfaction with services, and any adaptations made. Data will be collected through desk review of programmatic documents, quantitative questionnaires and qualitative interviews.

Time frame
From 6 months to 24 months

Sponsors and contacts

Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.

Epicentre

Lead sponsor

Epicentre, Paris, France.

Collaborator

Chad Ministry of Public Health Expanded Programme on Immunisation (EPI)

Collaborator

National Malaria Control Program

Collaborator

Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine

Collaborator

Expertise France

Collaborator

MSF Médecins Sans Frontières France

Collaborator