Article

Magnitude of Potential Biases in a Simulated Case-Control Study of the Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccination

Influenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.
Clinical Infectious Diseases (Impact Factor: 9.42). 11/2011; 54(1):25-32. DOI: 10.1093/cid/cir750
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Many influenza vaccine effectiveness estimates have been made using case-control methods. Although several forms of bias may distort estimates of vaccine effectiveness derived from case-control studies, there have been few attempts to quantify the magnitude of these biases.
We estimated the magnitude of potential biases in influenza vaccine effectiveness values derived from case-control studies from several factors, including bias from differential use of diagnostic testing based on influenza vaccine status, imperfect diagnostic test characteristics, and confounding. A decision tree model was used to simulate an influenza vaccine effectiveness case-control study in children. Using probability distributions, we varied the value of factors that influence vaccine effectiveness estimates, including diagnostic test characteristics, vaccine coverage, likelihood of receiving a diagnostic test for influenza, likelihood that a child hospitalized with acute respiratory infection had influenza, and others. Bias was measured as the difference between the effectiveness observed in the simulated case-control study and a true underlying effectiveness value.
We found an average difference between observed and true vaccine effectiveness of -11.9%. Observed vaccine effectiveness underestimated the true effectiveness in 88% of model iterations. Diagnostic test specificity exhibited the strongest association with observed vaccine effectiveness, followed by the likelihood of receiving a diagnostic test based on vaccination status and the likelihood that a child hospitalized with acute respiratory infection had influenza. Our findings suggest that the potential biases in case-control studies that we examined tend to result in underestimates of true influenza vaccine effects.

Full-text

Available from: Jill M Ferdinands, May 30, 2015
2 Followers
 · 
146 Views
  • 09/2012; 22(4):26-29. DOI:10.1093/ppar/22.4.26
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: SUMMARY As influenza vaccination is now widely recommended, randomized clinical trials are no longer ethical in many populations. Therefore, observational studies on patients seeking medical care for acute respiratory illnesses (ARIs) are a popular option for estimating influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE). We developed a probability model for evaluating and comparing bias and precision of estimates of VE against symptomatic influenza from two commonly used case-control study designs: the test-negative design and the traditional case-control design. We show that when vaccination does not affect the probability of developing non-influenza ARI then VE estimates from test-negative design studies are unbiased even if vaccinees and non-vaccinees have different probabilities of seeking medical care against ARI, as long as the ratio of these probabilities is the same for illnesses resulting from influenza and non-influenza infections. Our numerical results suggest that in general, estimates from the test-negative design have smaller bias compared to estimates from the traditional case-control design as long as the probability of non-influenza ARI is similar among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. We did not find consistent differences between the standard errors of the estimates from the two study designs.
    Epidemiology and Infection 08/2014; 143(07):1-10. DOI:10.1017/S0950268814002179 · 2.49 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months. The objective of this study was to assess trends in racial/ethnic disparities in influenza vaccination coverage among adults in the United States. We analyzed data from the 2007-2012 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis to assess influenza vaccination coverage by age, presence of medical conditions, and racial/ethnic groups during the 2007-08 through 2011-12 seasons. During the 2011-12 season, influenza vaccination coverage was significantly lower among non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics compared with non-Hispanic whites among most of the adult subgroups, with smaller disparities observed for adults age 18-49 years compared with other age groups. Vaccination coverage for non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, and Hispanic adults increased significantly from the 2007-08 through the 2011-12 season for most of the adult subgroups based on the NHIS (test for trend, P < .05). Coverage gaps between racial/ethnic minorities and non-Hispanic whites persisted at similar levels from the 2007-08 through the 2011-12 seasons, with similar results from the NHIS and BRFSS. Influenza vaccination coverage among most racial/ethnic groups increased from the 2007-08 through the 2011-12 seasons, but substantial racial and ethnic disparities remained in most age groups. Targeted efforts are needed to improve coverage and reduce these disparities.
    American journal of infection control 05/2014; 42(7). DOI:10.1016/j.ajic.2014.03.021 · 2.33 Impact Factor