Search

Background: The uptake of Intermittent Preventive Treatment of malaria in pregnancy using Sulfadoxine-Pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP) remains unacceptably low, with more than two-thirds of pregnant women in sub-Saharan Africa still not accessing the three or more doses recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO). In contrast, the coverage of Seasonal Malaria Chemoprevention (SMC), a more recent strategy recommended by the WHO for malaria prevention in children under five years living in Sahelian countries with seasonal transmission, including Mali and Burkina-Faso, is high (up to 90%). We hypothesized that IPTp-SP delivery to pregnant women through SMC alongside antenatal care (ANC) will increase IPTp-SP coverage, boost ANC attendance, and increase public health impact. This protocol describes the approach to assess acceptability, feasibility, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of the integrated strategy., Methods and Analysis: This is a multicentre, cluster-randomized, implementation trial of IPTp-SP delivery through ANC + SMC vs ANC alone in 40 health facilities and their catchment populations (20 clusters per arm). The intervention will consist of monthly administration of IPTp-SP through four monthly rounds of SMC during the malaria transmission season (July to October), for two consecutive years. Effectiveness of the strategy to increase coverage of three or more doses of IPTp-SP (IPTp3 +) will be assessed using household surveys and ANC exit interviews. Statistical analysis of IPT3 + and four or more ANC uptake will use a generalized linear mixed model. Feasibility and acceptability will be assessed through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with health workers, pregnant women, and women with a child < 12 months., Discussion: This multicentre cluster randomized implementation trial powered to detect a 45% and 22% increase in IPTp-SP3 + uptake in Mali and Burkina-Faso, respectively, will generate evidence on the feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of IPTp-SP delivered through the ANC + SMC channel. The intervention is designed to facilitate scalability and translation into policy by leveraging existing resources, while strengthening local capacities in research, health, and community institutions. Findings will inform the local national malaria control policies., Trial Registration: Retrospectively registered on August 11th, 2022; registration # PACTR202208844472053. Protocol v4.0 dated September 04, 2023. Trail sponsor: University of Sciences Techniques and Technologies of Bamako (USTTB), Mali., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The WHO recommends use of the RTS,S/AS01 E (RTS,S) malaria vaccine for young children living in areas of moderate to high Plasmodium falciparum malaria transmission and suggests countries consider seasonal vaccination in areas with highly seasonal malaria. Seasonal vaccination is uncommon and may require adaptations with potential cost consequences. This study prospectively estimates cost of seasonal malaria vaccine delivery in Mali and Burkina Faso., Methods: Three scenarios for seasonal vaccine delivery are costed (1) mass campaign only, (2) routine Expanded Programme on Immunisation (EPI) and (3) mixed delivery (mass campaign and routine EPI)), from the government's perspective. Resource use data are informed by previous new vaccine introductions, supplemented with primary data from a sample of health facilities and administrative units., Findings: At an assumed vaccine price of US $5 per dose, the economic cost per dose administered ranges between $7.73 and $8.68 (mass campaign), $7.04 and $7.38 (routine EPI) and $7.26 and $7.93 (mixed delivery). Excluding commodities, the cost ranges between $1.17 and $2.12 (mass campaign), $0.48 and $0.82 (routine EPI) and $0.70 and $1.37 (mixed delivery). The financial non-commodity cost per dose administered ranges between $0.99 and $1.99 (mass campaign), $0.39 and $0.76 (routine EPI) and $0.58 and $1.28 (mixed delivery). Excluding commodity costs, service delivery is the main cost driver under the mass campaign scenario, accounting for 36% to 55% of the financial cost. Service delivery accounts for 2%-8% and 12%-23% of the total financial cost under routine EPI and mixed delivery scenarios, respectively., Conclusion: Vaccine delivery using the mass campaign approach is most costly followed by mixed delivery and routine EPI delivery approaches, in both countries. Our cost estimates provide useful insights for decisions regarding delivery approaches, as countries plan the malaria vaccine rollout., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RB, CP and CL are employed by PATH while engaged in this research., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)