DESIGN OF VACCINE TRIALS DURING OUTBREAKS WITH AND WITHOUT A DELAYED VACCINATION COMPARATOR.

IF 1.3 4区 数学 Q2 STATISTICS & PROBABILITY Annals of Applied Statistics Pub Date : 2018-03-01 Epub Date: 2018-03-09 DOI:10.1214/17-AOAS1095
Natalie E Dean, M Elizabeth Halloran, Ira M Longini
{"title":"DESIGN OF VACCINE TRIALS DURING OUTBREAKS WITH AND WITHOUT A DELAYED VACCINATION COMPARATOR.","authors":"Natalie E Dean, M Elizabeth Halloran, Ira M Longini","doi":"10.1214/17-AOAS1095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Conducting vaccine efficacy trials during outbreaks of emerging pathogens poses particular challenges. The \"Ebola ça suffit\" trial in Guinea used a novel ring vaccination cluster randomized design to target populations at highest risk of infection. Another key feature of the trial was the use of a delayed vaccination arm as a comparator, in which clusters were randomized to immediate vaccination or vaccination 21 days later. This approach, chosen to improve ethical acceptability of the trial, complicates the statistical analysis as participants in the comparison arm are eventually protected by vaccine. Furthermore, for infectious diseases, we observe time of illness onset and not time of infection, and we may not know the time required for the vaccinee to develop a protective immune response. As a result, including events observed shortly after vaccination may bias the per protocol estimate of vaccine efficacy. We provide a framework for approximating the bias and power of any given analysis period as functions of the background infection hazard rate, disease incubation period, and vaccine immune response. We use this framework to provide recommendations for designing standard vaccine efficacy trials and trials with a delayed vaccination comparator. Briefly, narrower analysis periods within the correct window can minimize or eliminate bias but may suffer from reduced power. Designs should be reasonably robust to misspecification of the incubation period and time to develop a vaccine immune response.</p>","PeriodicalId":50772,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Applied Statistics","volume":"12 1","pages":"330-347"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5878056/pdf/nihms949833.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Applied Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1214/17-AOAS1095","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/3/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"STATISTICS & PROBABILITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Conducting vaccine efficacy trials during outbreaks of emerging pathogens poses particular challenges. The "Ebola ça suffit" trial in Guinea used a novel ring vaccination cluster randomized design to target populations at highest risk of infection. Another key feature of the trial was the use of a delayed vaccination arm as a comparator, in which clusters were randomized to immediate vaccination or vaccination 21 days later. This approach, chosen to improve ethical acceptability of the trial, complicates the statistical analysis as participants in the comparison arm are eventually protected by vaccine. Furthermore, for infectious diseases, we observe time of illness onset and not time of infection, and we may not know the time required for the vaccinee to develop a protective immune response. As a result, including events observed shortly after vaccination may bias the per protocol estimate of vaccine efficacy. We provide a framework for approximating the bias and power of any given analysis period as functions of the background infection hazard rate, disease incubation period, and vaccine immune response. We use this framework to provide recommendations for designing standard vaccine efficacy trials and trials with a delayed vaccination comparator. Briefly, narrower analysis periods within the correct window can minimize or eliminate bias but may suffer from reduced power. Designs should be reasonably robust to misspecification of the incubation period and time to develop a vaccine immune response.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在有和没有延迟接种比较对象的疫情爆发期间设计疫苗试验。
在新病原体爆发期间进行疫苗疗效试验具有特殊的挑战性。在几内亚进行的 "埃博拉够了 "试验采用了新颖的环形疫苗群随机设计,以感染风险最高的人群为目标。该试验的另一个主要特点是使用延迟接种组作为比较组,其中各群组被随机分配为立即接种或 21 天后接种。选择这种方法是为了提高试验的道德可接受性,但却使统计分析变得复杂,因为对比组的参与者最终会受到疫苗的保护。此外,对于传染病,我们观察的是发病时间而非感染时间,我们可能不知道接种者产生保护性免疫反应所需的时间。因此,将疫苗接种后不久观察到的事件包括在内可能会使按方案估算的疫苗效价出现偏差。我们提供了一个框架,将任何给定分析期的偏差和效力近似地看成是背景感染危险率、疾病潜伏期和疫苗免疫反应的函数。我们利用这一框架为设计标准疫苗疗效试验和延迟接种对比试验提供了建议。简而言之,在正确的窗口期内缩小分析时间段可以最大限度地减少或消除偏差,但可能会导致功率下降。设计应该对潜伏期和产生疫苗免疫反应的时间的错误规范具有合理的稳健性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Applied Statistics
Annals of Applied Statistics 社会科学-统计学与概率论
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
131
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Statistical research spans an enormous range from direct subject-matter collaborations to pure mathematical theory. The Annals of Applied Statistics, the newest journal from the IMS, is aimed at papers in the applied half of this range. Published quarterly in both print and electronic form, our goal is to provide a timely and unified forum for all areas of applied statistics.
期刊最新文献
PATIENT RECRUITMENT USING ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS UNDER SELECTION BIAS: A TWO-PHASE SAMPLING FRAMEWORK. A NONPARAMETRIC MIXED-EFFECTS MIXTURE MODEL FOR PATTERNS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH COVID-19. A bootstrap model comparison test for identifying genes with context-specific patterns of genetic regulation. BIVARIATE FUNCTIONAL PATTERNS OF LIFETIME MEDICARE COSTS AMONG ESRD PATIENTS. EXPOSURE EFFECTS ON COUNT OUTCOMES WITH OBSERVATIONAL DATA, WITH APPLICATION TO INCARCERATED WOMEN.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1