先前自然感染与接种疫苗对 SARS-CoV-2 的保护作用--避免偏颇解释的统计说明

S. Weber, Pontus Hedberg, P. Nauclér, Martin Wolkewitz
{"title":"先前自然感染与接种疫苗对 SARS-CoV-2 的保护作用--避免偏颇解释的统计说明","authors":"S. Weber, Pontus Hedberg, P. Nauclér, Martin Wolkewitz","doi":"10.3389/fmed.2024.1376275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The fight against SARS-CoV-2 has been a major task worldwide since it was first identified in December 2019. An imperative preventive measure is the availability of efficacious vaccines while there is also a significant interest in the protective effect of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection on a subsequent infection (natural protection rate).In order to compare protection rates after infection and vaccination, researchers consider different effect measures such as 1 minus hazard ratio, 1 minus odds ratio, or 1 minus risk ratio. These measures differ in a setting with competing risks. Nevertheless, as there is no unique definition, these metrics are frequently used in studies examining protection rate. Comparison of protection rates via vaccination and natural infection poses several challenges. For instance many publications consider the epidemiological definition, that a reinfection after a SARS-CoV-2 infection is only possible after 90 days, whereas there is no such constraint after vaccination. Furthermore, death is more prominent as a competing event during the first 90 days after infection compared to vaccination. In this work we discuss the statistical issues that arise when investigating protection rates comparing vaccination with infection. We explore different aspects of effect measures and provide insights drawn from different analyses, distinguishing between the first and the second 90 days post-infection or vaccination.In this study, we have access to real-world data of almost two million people from Stockholm County, Sweden. For the main analysis, data of over 52.000 people is considered. The infected group is younger, includes more men, and is less morbid compared to the vaccinated group. After the first 90 days, these differences increased. Analysis of the second 90 days shows differences between analysis approaches and between age groups. There are age-related differences in mortality. Considering the outcome SARS-CoV-2 infection, the effect of vaccination versus infection varies by age, showing a disadvantage for the vaccinated in the younger population, while no significant difference was found in the elderly.To compare the effects of immunization through infection or vaccination, we emphasize consideration of several investigations. It is crucial to examine two observation periods: The first and second 90-day intervals following infection or vaccination. Additionally, methods to address imbalances are essential and need to be used. This approach supports fair comparisons, allows for more comprehensive conclusions and helps prevent biased interpretations.","PeriodicalId":502302,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Medicine","volume":"118 25","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Protection from prior natural infection vs. vaccination against SARS-CoV-2—a statistical note to avoid biased interpretation\",\"authors\":\"S. Weber, Pontus Hedberg, P. Nauclér, Martin Wolkewitz\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fmed.2024.1376275\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The fight against SARS-CoV-2 has been a major task worldwide since it was first identified in December 2019. An imperative preventive measure is the availability of efficacious vaccines while there is also a significant interest in the protective effect of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection on a subsequent infection (natural protection rate).In order to compare protection rates after infection and vaccination, researchers consider different effect measures such as 1 minus hazard ratio, 1 minus odds ratio, or 1 minus risk ratio. These measures differ in a setting with competing risks. Nevertheless, as there is no unique definition, these metrics are frequently used in studies examining protection rate. Comparison of protection rates via vaccination and natural infection poses several challenges. For instance many publications consider the epidemiological definition, that a reinfection after a SARS-CoV-2 infection is only possible after 90 days, whereas there is no such constraint after vaccination. Furthermore, death is more prominent as a competing event during the first 90 days after infection compared to vaccination. In this work we discuss the statistical issues that arise when investigating protection rates comparing vaccination with infection. We explore different aspects of effect measures and provide insights drawn from different analyses, distinguishing between the first and the second 90 days post-infection or vaccination.In this study, we have access to real-world data of almost two million people from Stockholm County, Sweden. For the main analysis, data of over 52.000 people is considered. The infected group is younger, includes more men, and is less morbid compared to the vaccinated group. After the first 90 days, these differences increased. Analysis of the second 90 days shows differences between analysis approaches and between age groups. There are age-related differences in mortality. Considering the outcome SARS-CoV-2 infection, the effect of vaccination versus infection varies by age, showing a disadvantage for the vaccinated in the younger population, while no significant difference was found in the elderly.To compare the effects of immunization through infection or vaccination, we emphasize consideration of several investigations. It is crucial to examine two observation periods: The first and second 90-day intervals following infection or vaccination. Additionally, methods to address imbalances are essential and need to be used. This approach supports fair comparisons, allows for more comprehensive conclusions and helps prevent biased interpretations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":502302,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Medicine\",\"volume\":\"118 25\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1376275\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1376275","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自 2019 年 12 月首次发现 SARS-CoV-2 以来,抗击 SARS-CoV-2 一直是全世界的一项重要任务。一项必要的预防措施是提供有效的疫苗,同时,人们也非常关注之前感染过 SARS-CoV-2 对之后感染的保护作用(自然保护率)。为了比较感染后和接种疫苗后的保护率,研究人员考虑了不同的效果衡量标准,如 1 减危险比、1 减几率比或 1 减风险比。在存在竞争风险的情况下,这些衡量标准有所不同。不过,由于没有唯一的定义,这些指标经常被用于研究保护率。比较疫苗接种和自然感染的保护率会带来一些挑战。例如,许多出版物考虑了流行病学的定义,即感染 SARS-CoV-2 后只能在 90 天后再次感染,而接种疫苗后则没有这种限制。此外,与接种疫苗相比,在感染后的前 90 天内,死亡作为一种竞争事件更为突出。在这项工作中,我们讨论了在调查疫苗接种与感染相比的保护率时出现的统计问题。在这项研究中,我们获得了瑞典斯德哥尔摩县近 200 万人的真实数据。在主要分析中,我们考虑了 52000 多人的数据。与接种疫苗的人群相比,感染人群更年轻,男性更多,发病率更低。在最初的 90 天后,这些差异有所扩大。对后 90 天的分析显示了不同分析方法和不同年龄组之间的差异。死亡率的差异与年龄有关。考虑到 SARS-CoV-2 感染的结果,接种疫苗与感染的效果因年龄而异,在年轻人群中接种疫苗者处于劣势,而在老年人群中则没有发现明显差异。对两个观察期进行研究至关重要:感染或接种后的第一个和第二个 90 天间隔期。此外,解决不平衡问题的方法也至关重要,必须加以使用。这种方法有助于进行公平的比较,得出更全面的结论,并有助于防止有偏见的解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Protection from prior natural infection vs. vaccination against SARS-CoV-2—a statistical note to avoid biased interpretation
The fight against SARS-CoV-2 has been a major task worldwide since it was first identified in December 2019. An imperative preventive measure is the availability of efficacious vaccines while there is also a significant interest in the protective effect of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection on a subsequent infection (natural protection rate).In order to compare protection rates after infection and vaccination, researchers consider different effect measures such as 1 minus hazard ratio, 1 minus odds ratio, or 1 minus risk ratio. These measures differ in a setting with competing risks. Nevertheless, as there is no unique definition, these metrics are frequently used in studies examining protection rate. Comparison of protection rates via vaccination and natural infection poses several challenges. For instance many publications consider the epidemiological definition, that a reinfection after a SARS-CoV-2 infection is only possible after 90 days, whereas there is no such constraint after vaccination. Furthermore, death is more prominent as a competing event during the first 90 days after infection compared to vaccination. In this work we discuss the statistical issues that arise when investigating protection rates comparing vaccination with infection. We explore different aspects of effect measures and provide insights drawn from different analyses, distinguishing between the first and the second 90 days post-infection or vaccination.In this study, we have access to real-world data of almost two million people from Stockholm County, Sweden. For the main analysis, data of over 52.000 people is considered. The infected group is younger, includes more men, and is less morbid compared to the vaccinated group. After the first 90 days, these differences increased. Analysis of the second 90 days shows differences between analysis approaches and between age groups. There are age-related differences in mortality. Considering the outcome SARS-CoV-2 infection, the effect of vaccination versus infection varies by age, showing a disadvantage for the vaccinated in the younger population, while no significant difference was found in the elderly.To compare the effects of immunization through infection or vaccination, we emphasize consideration of several investigations. It is crucial to examine two observation periods: The first and second 90-day intervals following infection or vaccination. Additionally, methods to address imbalances are essential and need to be used. This approach supports fair comparisons, allows for more comprehensive conclusions and helps prevent biased interpretations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mycobacterium marinum hand infection: a case report and literature review Strengthening surgical healthcare research capacity in sub-Saharan Africa: impact of a research training programme in Nigeria Association between serum vitamin D and the risk of diabetic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes Maternal puerperal infection caused by Parabacteroides goldsteinii: a case report Xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis in a patient with polycystic kidney disease without underlying risk factors: a case report
×
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