Michael Haber1, Benjamin A Lopman2, Jacqueline E Tate3, Meng Shi4, Umesh D Parashar3. 1. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. Electronic address: mhaber@emory.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rotavirus is the leading cause of severe diarrhea among children worldwide, and vaccines can reduce morbidity and mortality by 50-98%. The test-negative control (TNC) study design is increasingly used for evaluating the effectiveness of vaccines against rotavirus and other vaccine-preventable diseases. In this study design, symptomatic patients who seek medical care are tested for the pathogen of interest. Those who test positive (negative) are classified as cases (controls). METHODS: We use a probability model to evaluate the bias of estimates of rotavirus vaccine effectiveness (VE) against rotavirus diarrhea resulting in hospitalization in the presence of possible confounding and selection biases due to differences in the propensity of seeking medical care (PSMC) between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. RESULTS: The TNC-based VE estimate corrects for confounding bias when the confounder's effects on the probabilities of rotavirus and non-rotavirus related hospitalizations are equal. If this condition is not met, then the estimated VE may be substantially biased. The bias is more severe in low-income countries, where VE is known to be lower. Under our model, differences in PSMC between vaccinated and unvaccinated children do not result in selection bias when the TNC study design is used. CONCLUSIONS: In practice, one can expect the association of PSMC (or other potential confounders) with the probabilities of rotavirus and non-rotavirus related hospitalization to be similar, in which case the confounding effects will only result in small bias in the VE estimate from TNC studies. The results of this work, along with those of our previous paper, confirm the TNC design can be expected to provide reliable estimates of rotavirus VE in both high- and low-income countries.
BACKGROUND: Rotavirus is the leading cause of severe diarrhea among children worldwide, and vaccines can reduce morbidity and mortality by 50-98%. The test-negative control (TNC) study design is increasingly used for evaluating the effectiveness of vaccines against rotavirus and other vaccine-preventable diseases. In this study design, symptomatic patients who seek medical care are tested for the pathogen of interest. Those who test positive (negative) are classified as cases (controls). METHODS: We use a probability model to evaluate the bias of estimates of rotavirus vaccine effectiveness (VE) against rotavirus diarrhea resulting in hospitalization in the presence of possible confounding and selection biases due to differences in the propensity of seeking medical care (PSMC) between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. RESULTS: The TNC-based VE estimate corrects for confounding bias when the confounder's effects on the probabilities of rotavirus and non-rotavirus related hospitalizations are equal. If this condition is not met, then the estimated VE may be substantially biased. The bias is more severe in low-income countries, where VE is known to be lower. Under our model, differences in PSMC between vaccinated and unvaccinated children do not result in selection bias when the TNC study design is used. CONCLUSIONS: In practice, one can expect the association of PSMC (or other potential confounders) with the probabilities of rotavirus and non-rotavirus related hospitalization to be similar, in which case the confounding effects will only result in small bias in the VE estimate from TNC studies. The results of this work, along with those of our previous paper, confirm the TNC design can be expected to provide reliable estimates of rotavirus VE in both high- and low-income countries.
Authors: Jacqueline E Tate; Manish M Patel; Margaret M Cortese; Daniel C Payne; Benjamin A Lopman; Catherine Yen; Umesh D Parashar Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2016-05-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Edward A Belongia; Melissa D Simpson; Jennifer P King; Maria E Sundaram; Nicholas S Kelley; Michael T Osterholm; Huong Q McLean Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Michael L Jackson; C Hallie Phillips; Joyce Benoit; Erika Kiniry; Lawrence Madziwa; Jennifer C Nelson; Lisa A Jackson Journal: Vaccine Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: D M Skowronski; C Masaro; T L Kwindt; A Mak; M Petric; Y Li; R Sebastian; M Chong; T Tam; G De Serres Journal: Vaccine Date: 2006-10-16 Impact factor: 3.641
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: Jason M Mwenda; Rachel M Burke; Keith Shaba; Richard Mihigo; Mable Carole Tevi-Benissan; Mutale Mumba; Joseph Nsiari-Muzeyi Biey; Dah Cheikh; Alain Poy MSc; Felicitas R Zawaira; Negar Aliabadi; Jacqueline E Tate; Terri Hyde; Adam L Cohen; Umesh D Parashar Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 17.586