BACKGROUND: Case-control studies are often performed to estimate postlicensure vaccine effectiveness (VE), but the enrollment of controls can be challenging, time-consuming, and costly. We evaluated whether children enrolled in the same hospital-based diarrheal surveillance used to identify rotavirus cases but who test negative for rotavirus (test-negative controls) can be considered a suitable alternative to nondiarrheal hospital or community-based control groups (traditional controls). METHODS: We compared calculated VE estimates as a function of varying values of true VE, attack rates of rotavirus and nonrotavirus diarrhea in the population, and sensitivity and specificity of the rotavirus enzyme immunoasssay. We also searched the literature to identify rotavirus VE studies that used traditional and test-negative control groups and compared VE estimates obtained using the different control groups. RESULTS: Assuming a 1% attack rate for severe rotavirus diarrhea, a 3% attack rate for severe nonrotavirus diarrhea in the population, a test sensitivity of 96%, and a specificity of 100%, the calculated VE estimates using both the traditional and test-negative control groups closely approximated the true VE for all values from 30% to 100%. As true VE decreased, the traditional case-control approach slightly overestimated the true VE and the test-negative case-control approach slightly underestimated this estimate, but the absolute difference was only ±0.2 percentage points. Field VE estimates from 10 evaluations that used both traditional and test-negative control groups were similar regardless of control group used. CONCLUSIONS: The use of rotavirus test-negative controls offers an efficient and cost-effective approach to estimating rotavirus VE through case-control studies. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
BACKGROUND: Case-control studies are often performed to estimate postlicensure vaccine effectiveness (VE), but the enrollment of controls can be challenging, time-consuming, and costly. We evaluated whether children enrolled in the same hospital-based diarrheal surveillance used to identify rotavirus cases but who test negative for rotavirus (test-negative controls) can be considered a suitable alternative to nondiarrheal hospital or community-based control groups (traditional controls). METHODS: We compared calculated VE estimates as a function of varying values of true VE, attack rates of rotavirus and nonrotavirus diarrhea in the population, and sensitivity and specificity of the rotavirus enzyme immunoasssay. We also searched the literature to identify rotavirus VE studies that used traditional and test-negative control groups and compared VE estimates obtained using the different control groups. RESULTS: Assuming a 1% attack rate for severe rotavirus diarrhea, a 3% attack rate for severe nonrotavirus diarrhea in the population, a test sensitivity of 96%, and a specificity of 100%, the calculated VE estimates using both the traditional and test-negative control groups closely approximated the true VE for all values from 30% to 100%. As true VE decreased, the traditional case-control approach slightly overestimated the true VE and the test-negative case-control approach slightly underestimated this estimate, but the absolute difference was only ±0.2 percentage points. Field VE estimates from 10 evaluations that used both traditional and test-negative control groups were similar regardless of control group used. CONCLUSIONS: The use of rotavirus test-negative controls offers an efficient and cost-effective approach to estimating rotavirus VE through case-control studies. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
Authors: Molly F Franke; J Gregory Jerome; Wilfredo R Matias; Ralph Ternier; Isabelle J Hilaire; Jason B Harris; Louise C Ivers Journal: Vaccine Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Maria Grazia Amoroso; Antonio Luca Langellotti; Valeria Russo; Anna Martello; Marina Monini; Ilaria Di Bartolo; Giovanni Ianiro; Denise Di Concilio; Giorgio Galiero; Giovanna Fusco Journal: Food Environ Virol Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Minesh P Shah; Jacqueline E Tate; Jason M Mwenda; A Duncan Steele; Umesh D Parashar Journal: Expert Rev Vaccines Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 5.217
Authors: Lauren M Schwartz; M Elizabeth Halloran; Ali Rowhani-Rahbar; Kathleen M Neuzil; John C Victor Journal: Vaccine Date: 2016-11-18 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Adam L Cohen; Negar Aliabadi; Fatima Serhan; Jacqueline E Tate; Patrick Zuber; Umesh D Parashar Journal: Vaccine Date: 2018-08-18 Impact factor: 4.169