COVID-19随机临床试验中疫苗疗效的估计和解释

Hege Michiels, A. Vandebosch, S. Vansteelandt
{"title":"COVID-19随机临床试验中疫苗疗效的估计和解释","authors":"Hege Michiels, A. Vandebosch, S. Vansteelandt","doi":"10.1101/2022.02.02.22270317","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives An exceptional effort by the scientific community has led to the development of multiple vaccines against COVID-19. Efficacy estimates for these vaccines have been widely communicated to the general public, but are nonetheless challenging to compare because they are based on phase 3 trials that differ in study design, definition of vaccine efficacy and the handling of cases arising shortly after vaccination. We investigate the impact of these choices on vaccine efficacy estimates, both theoretically and by re-analyzing the Janssen and Pfizer COVID-19 trial data under a uniform protocol. We moreover study the causal interpretation that can be assigned to per-protocol analyses typically performed in vaccine trials. Finally, we propose alternative estimands to measure the intrinsic vaccine efficacy in settings with delayed immune response. Methods The data of the Janssen COVID-19 trials were recreated, based on the published Kaplan-Meier curves. An estimator for the alternative causal estimand was developed using a Structural Distribution Model. Results In the data analyses, we observed rather large differences between intention-to-treat and per-protocol effect estimates. In contrast, the causal estimand and the different estimators used for per-protocol effects lead approximately to the same estimates. Conclusions In these COVID-10 vaccine trials, per-protocol effects can be interpreted as the number of cases that can be avoided by vaccination, if the vaccine would immediately induce an immune response. However, it is unclear whether this interpretation also holds in other settings.","PeriodicalId":74867,"journal":{"name":"Statistical communications in infectious diseases","volume":"537 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Estimation and interpretation of vaccine efficacy in COVID-19 randomized clinical trials\",\"authors\":\"Hege Michiels, A. Vandebosch, S. Vansteelandt\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2022.02.02.22270317\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Objectives An exceptional effort by the scientific community has led to the development of multiple vaccines against COVID-19. Efficacy estimates for these vaccines have been widely communicated to the general public, but are nonetheless challenging to compare because they are based on phase 3 trials that differ in study design, definition of vaccine efficacy and the handling of cases arising shortly after vaccination. We investigate the impact of these choices on vaccine efficacy estimates, both theoretically and by re-analyzing the Janssen and Pfizer COVID-19 trial data under a uniform protocol. We moreover study the causal interpretation that can be assigned to per-protocol analyses typically performed in vaccine trials. Finally, we propose alternative estimands to measure the intrinsic vaccine efficacy in settings with delayed immune response. Methods The data of the Janssen COVID-19 trials were recreated, based on the published Kaplan-Meier curves. An estimator for the alternative causal estimand was developed using a Structural Distribution Model. Results In the data analyses, we observed rather large differences between intention-to-treat and per-protocol effect estimates. In contrast, the causal estimand and the different estimators used for per-protocol effects lead approximately to the same estimates. Conclusions In these COVID-10 vaccine trials, per-protocol effects can be interpreted as the number of cases that can be avoided by vaccination, if the vaccine would immediately induce an immune response. However, it is unclear whether this interpretation also holds in other settings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74867,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Statistical communications in infectious diseases\",\"volume\":\"537 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Statistical communications in infectious diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.02.22270317\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statistical communications in infectious diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.02.22270317","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

在科学界的不懈努力下,多种新型冠状病毒疫苗得以开发。这些疫苗的效力估计已被广泛告知公众,但仍难以进行比较,因为它们是基于3期试验,在研究设计、疫苗效力定义和接种后不久出现的病例处理方面存在差异。我们从理论上和在统一方案下通过重新分析杨森和辉瑞COVID-19试验数据来研究这些选择对疫苗功效估计的影响。此外,我们还研究了可分配给疫苗试验中通常执行的每个方案分析的因果解释。最后,我们提出了在免疫反应延迟的情况下衡量疫苗内在功效的替代估计。方法根据已发表的Kaplan-Meier曲线重建Janssen COVID-19试验的数据。利用结构分布模型建立了替代因果估计的估计量。结果在数据分析中,我们观察到意向治疗和每个方案效果估计之间存在相当大的差异。相反,因果估计和用于每个协议效应的不同估计导致大致相同的估计。在这些COVID-10疫苗试验中,按方案效应可以解释为,如果疫苗能立即引起免疫反应,通过接种疫苗可以避免的病例数量。然而,目前尚不清楚这种解释是否也适用于其他情况。
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
Estimation and interpretation of vaccine efficacy in COVID-19 randomized clinical trials
Abstract Objectives An exceptional effort by the scientific community has led to the development of multiple vaccines against COVID-19. Efficacy estimates for these vaccines have been widely communicated to the general public, but are nonetheless challenging to compare because they are based on phase 3 trials that differ in study design, definition of vaccine efficacy and the handling of cases arising shortly after vaccination. We investigate the impact of these choices on vaccine efficacy estimates, both theoretically and by re-analyzing the Janssen and Pfizer COVID-19 trial data under a uniform protocol. We moreover study the causal interpretation that can be assigned to per-protocol analyses typically performed in vaccine trials. Finally, we propose alternative estimands to measure the intrinsic vaccine efficacy in settings with delayed immune response. Methods The data of the Janssen COVID-19 trials were recreated, based on the published Kaplan-Meier curves. An estimator for the alternative causal estimand was developed using a Structural Distribution Model. Results In the data analyses, we observed rather large differences between intention-to-treat and per-protocol effect estimates. In contrast, the causal estimand and the different estimators used for per-protocol effects lead approximately to the same estimates. Conclusions In these COVID-10 vaccine trials, per-protocol effects can be interpreted as the number of cases that can be avoided by vaccination, if the vaccine would immediately induce an immune response. However, it is unclear whether this interpretation also holds in other settings.
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
Study design approaches for future active-controlled HIV prevention trials. The role of randomization inference in unraveling individual treatment effects in early phase vaccine trials. Nonlinear mixed-effects models for HIV viral load trajectories before and after antiretroviral therapy interruption, incorporating left censoring. Estimation and interpretation of vaccine efficacy in COVID-19 randomized clinical trials Sample size calculation for active-arm trial with counterfactual incidence based on recency assay.
×
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