Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Measuring Vaccine Efficacy Against Infection and Disease in Clinical Trials: Sources and Magnitude of Bias in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine Efficacy Estimates.
Williams, Lucy R; Ferguson, Neil M; Donnelly, Christl A; Grassly, Nicholas C.
  • Williams LR; MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
  • Ferguson NM; MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
  • Donnelly CA; MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
  • Grassly NC; Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(1): e764-e773, 2022 Aug 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2017772
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Phase III trials have estimated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine efficacy (VE) against symptomatic and asymptomatic infection. We explore the direction and magnitude of potential biases in these estimates and their implications for vaccine protection against infection and against disease in breakthrough infections.

METHODS:

We developed a mathematical model that accounts for natural and vaccine-induced immunity, changes in serostatus, and imperfect sensitivity and specificity of tests for infection and antibodies. We estimated expected biases in VE against symptomatic, asymptomatic, and any severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and against disease following infection for a range of vaccine characteristics and measurement approaches, and the likely overall biases for published trial results that included asymptomatic infections.

RESULTS:

VE against asymptomatic infection measured by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or serology is expected to be low or negative for vaccines that prevent disease but not infection. VE against any infection is overestimated when asymptomatic infections are less likely to be detected than symptomatic infections and the vaccine protects against symptom development. A competing bias toward underestimation arises for estimates based on tests with imperfect specificity, especially when testing is performed frequently. Our model indicates considerable uncertainty in Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 and Janssen Ad26.COV2.S VE against any infection, with slightly higher than published, bias-adjusted values of 59.0% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 38.4-77.1) and 70.9% (95% UI 49.8-80.7), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

Multiple biases are likely to influence COVID-19 VE estimates, potentially explaining the observed difference between ChAdOx1 and Ad26.COV2.S vaccines. These biases should be considered when interpreting both efficacy and effectiveness study results.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: COVID-19 Vaccines / COVID-19 Type of study: Diagnostic study / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Topics: Vaccines Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Clin Infect Dis Journal subject: Communicable Diseases Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Cid

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: COVID-19 Vaccines / COVID-19 Type of study: Diagnostic study / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Topics: Vaccines Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Clin Infect Dis Journal subject: Communicable Diseases Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Cid