Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

How Important Are Study Designs? A Simulation Assessment of Vaccine Effectiveness Estimation Bias with Time-Varying Vaccine Coverage, and Heterogeneous Testing and Baseline Attack Rates

View ORCID ProfileJing Lian Suah, Naor Bar-Zeev, Maria Deloria Knoll
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.25.22279235
Jing Lian Suah
aResearch and Modelling Unit, Central Bank of Malaysia, Malaysia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jing Lian Suah
  • For correspondence: suahjinglian@bnm.gov.my
Naor Bar-Zeev
bBloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maria Deloria Knoll
bBloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Objective We studied how commonly used vaccine effectiveness (VE) study designs (variations of cohorts, and test-negative designs) perform under epidemiological nuances more prominent in the COVID-19 era, specifically time-varying vaccine coverage, and heterogeneous testing behaviour and baseline attack rates with selection on willingness to vaccinate.

Methodology We simulated data from a multi-parameter conceptual model of the epidemiological environment using 888125 parameter sets. Four configurations of cohorts, and two test-negative designs, were conducted on the simulated data, from which estimation bias is computed. Finally, stratified and fixed effects linear regressions were estimated to quantify the sensitivity of estimation bias to model parameters.

Findings Irrespective of study designs, dynamic vaccine coverage, and heterogeneous testing behaviour and baseline attack rates are important determinants of bias. Study design choices have non-trivial effects on VE estimation bias even if these factors are absent. The importance of these sources of bias differ across study designs.

Conclusion A re-benchmarking of methodology, especially for studying COVID-19 VE, and implementation of vaccine-preventable disease surveillance systems that minimise these sources of bias, are warranted.

Highlights

  • This paper simulated a theoretical model with frictions in vaccination, testing, baseline disease risks, and heterogeneous vaccine effectiveness to evaluate estimation bias across four cohort and two test-negative designs.

  • In theory, bias depends on behavioural asymmetries (in testing, and baseline risk) between the vax-willing and vax-unwilling, and the speed of vaccination rollout.

  • There is intrinsic estimation bias across all study designs, with the direction and magnitude contingent on specific conditions.

  • In scenarios that may be reflective of past SARS-CoV-2 waves, the degree of bias can be substantial, attributable to variation in assumed testing and baseline risk frictions.

  • A regression-based decomposition indicates that study designs have visibly different primary sources of estimation bias, and degree of robustness in general.

  • This study warrants a re-benchmarking of methodology and reporting checklists for VE research, and informs the design of cost-effective surveillance by quantifying part of the bias-implementation cost trade-off.

Competing Interest Statement

JLS received support for attending academic meetings from AstraZeneca for work outside the submitted work. NB-Z received research grants from Merck, personal fees from Merck, and a research grant from Johnson & Johnson, all for unrelated work outside the scope of this paper. MDK received reports grants from Merck, personal fees from Merck, and grants from Pfizer, outside the submitted work.

Funding Statement

This study did not receive any funding

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Footnotes

  • ↵† This research was conducted while on secondment at the Institute for Clinical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, Malaysia

Data Availability

All scripts required for replication are available at github.com/suahjl/vemethod-simulation-frictions.

http://github.com/suahjl/vemethod-simulation-frictions

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted August 30, 2022.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
How Important Are Study Designs? A Simulation Assessment of Vaccine Effectiveness Estimation Bias with Time-Varying Vaccine Coverage, and Heterogeneous Testing and Baseline Attack Rates
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
How Important Are Study Designs? A Simulation Assessment of Vaccine Effectiveness Estimation Bias with Time-Varying Vaccine Coverage, and Heterogeneous Testing and Baseline Attack Rates
Jing Lian Suah, Naor Bar-Zeev, Maria Deloria Knoll
medRxiv 2022.08.25.22279235; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.25.22279235
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
How Important Are Study Designs? A Simulation Assessment of Vaccine Effectiveness Estimation Bias with Time-Varying Vaccine Coverage, and Heterogeneous Testing and Baseline Attack Rates
Jing Lian Suah, Naor Bar-Zeev, Maria Deloria Knoll
medRxiv 2022.08.25.22279235; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.25.22279235

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Epidemiology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (228)
  • Allergy and Immunology (504)
  • Anesthesia (110)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1238)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (206)
  • Dermatology (147)
  • Emergency Medicine (282)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (531)
  • Epidemiology (10021)
  • Forensic Medicine (5)
  • Gastroenterology (499)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2453)
  • Geriatric Medicine (238)
  • Health Economics (479)
  • Health Informatics (1643)
  • Health Policy (752)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (636)
  • Hematology (248)
  • HIV/AIDS (533)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (11864)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (626)
  • Medical Education (252)
  • Medical Ethics (74)
  • Nephrology (268)
  • Neurology (2280)
  • Nursing (139)
  • Nutrition (352)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (454)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (536)
  • Oncology (1245)
  • Ophthalmology (377)
  • Orthopedics (134)
  • Otolaryngology (226)
  • Pain Medicine (157)
  • Palliative Medicine (50)
  • Pathology (324)
  • Pediatrics (730)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (313)
  • Primary Care Research (282)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2280)
  • Public and Global Health (4833)
  • Radiology and Imaging (837)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (491)
  • Respiratory Medicine (651)
  • Rheumatology (285)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (238)
  • Sports Medicine (227)
  • Surgery (267)
  • Toxicology (44)
  • Transplantation (125)
  • Urology (99)