Anne M Butler1,2, J Bradley Layton3,4, Whitney S Krueger4, Abhijit V Kshirsagar5, Leah J McGrath6. 1. Departments of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases. 2. Surgery, Division of Public Health Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. 3. Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 4. RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park. 5. Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 6. NoviSci Durham, NC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Estimating influenza vaccine effectiveness using an unvaccinated comparison group may result in biased effect estimates. OBJECTIVES: To explore the reduction of confounding bias in an active comparison of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines, as compared with vaccinated versus unvaccinated comparisons. METHODS: Using Medicare data from the United States end-stage renal disease program (2009-2013), we compared the risk of all-cause mortality among recipients of high-dose vaccine (HDV) versus standard-dose vaccine (SDV), HDV versus no vaccine, and SDV versus no vaccine. To quantify confounding bias, analyses were restricted to the preinfluenza season, when the protective effect of vaccination should not yet be observed. We estimated the standardized mortality ratio-weighted cumulative incidence functions using Kaplan-Meier methods and calculated risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences between groups. RESULTS: Among 350,921 eligible patients contributing 825,642 unique patient preinfluenza seasons, 0.8% received HDV, 70.5% received SDV, and 28.7% remained unvaccinated. Comparisons with unvaccinated patients yielded spurious decreases in mortality risk during the preinfluenza period, for HDV versus none [RR, 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.51-0.70)] and SDV versus none (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.70-0.75). The effect estimate was attenuated in the HDV versus SDV comparison (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.77-1.03). Estimates on the absolute scale followed a similar pattern. CONCLUSIONS: The HDV versus SDV comparison yielded less-biased estimates of the all-cause mortality before influenza season compared to those with nonuser comparison groups. Vaccine effectiveness and safety researchers should consider the active comparator design to reduce bias due to differences in underlying health status between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.
BACKGROUND: Estimating influenza vaccine effectiveness using an unvaccinated comparison group may result in biased effect estimates. OBJECTIVES: To explore the reduction of confounding bias in an active comparison of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines, as compared with vaccinated versus unvaccinated comparisons. METHODS: Using Medicare data from the United States end-stage renal disease program (2009-2013), we compared the risk of all-cause mortality among recipients of high-dose vaccine (HDV) versus standard-dose vaccine (SDV), HDV versus no vaccine, and SDV versus no vaccine. To quantify confounding bias, analyses were restricted to the preinfluenza season, when the protective effect of vaccination should not yet be observed. We estimated the standardized mortality ratio-weighted cumulative incidence functions using Kaplan-Meier methods and calculated risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences between groups. RESULTS: Among 350,921 eligible patients contributing 825,642 unique patient preinfluenza seasons, 0.8% received HDV, 70.5% received SDV, and 28.7% remained unvaccinated. Comparisons with unvaccinated patients yielded spurious decreases in mortality risk during the preinfluenza period, for HDV versus none [RR, 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.51-0.70)] and SDV versus none (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.70-0.75). The effect estimate was attenuated in the HDV versus SDV comparison (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.77-1.03). Estimates on the absolute scale followed a similar pattern. CONCLUSIONS: The HDV versus SDV comparison yielded less-biased estimates of the all-cause mortality before influenza season compared to those with nonuser comparison groups. Vaccine effectiveness and safety researchers should consider the active comparator design to reduce bias due to differences in underlying health status between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.
Authors: J Nordin; J Mullooly; S Poblete; R Strikas; R Petrucci; F Wei; B Rush; B Safirstein; D Wheeler; K L Nichol Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2001-08-09 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Lisa A Jackson; Michael L Jackson; Jennifer C Nelson; Kathleen M Neuzil; Noel S Weiss Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2005-12-20 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Tobias Kurth; Alexander M Walker; Robert J Glynn; K Arnold Chan; J Michael Gaziano; Klaus Berger; James M Robins Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2005-12-21 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Leah J McGrath; Abhijit V Kshirsagar; Stephen R Cole; Lily Wang; David J Weber; Til Stürmer; M Alan Brookhart Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-04-09
Authors: J Bradley Layton; Leah J McGrath; John M Sahrmann; Yinjiao Ma; Vikas R Dharnidharka; Caroline O'Neil; David J Weber; Anne M Butler Journal: Vaccine Date: 2020-06-19 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Anne M Butler; J Bradley Layton; Vikas R Dharnidharka; John M Sahrmann; Marissa J Seamans; David J Weber; Leah J McGrath Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Ainara Mira-Iglesias; F Xavier López-Labrador; Víctor Baselga-Moreno; Miguel Tortajada-Girbés; Juan Mollar-Maseres; Mario Carballido-Fernández; Germán Schwarz-Chavarri; Joan Puig-Barberà; Javier Díez-Domingo Journal: Euro Surveill Date: 2019-08
Authors: Dong Dong; Richard Huan Xu; Eliza Lai-Yi Wong; Chi-Tim Hung; Da Feng; Zhanchun Feng; Eng-Kiong Yeoh; Samuel Yeung-Shan Wong Journal: Health Expect Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 3.377