Assessing Durability of Vaccine Effect Following Blinded Crossover in COVID-19 Vaccine Efficacy Trials

Background: Several candidate vaccines to prevent COVID-19 disease have entered large-scale phase 3 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials and some have demonstrated substantial short-term efficacy. Efficacious vaccines should, at some point, be offered to placebo participants, which will occur before long-term efficacy and safety are known. Methods: Following vaccination of the placebo group, we show that placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy can be derived by assuming the benefit of vaccination over time has the same profile for the original vaccine recipients and the placebo crossovers. This reconstruction allows estimation of both vaccine durability and potential vaccine-associated enhanced disease. Results: Post-crossover estimates of vaccine efficacy can provide insights about durability, identify waning efficacy, and identify late enhancement of disease, but are less reliable estimates than those obtained by a standard trial where the placebo cohort is maintained. As vaccine efficacy estimates for post-crossover periods depend on prior vaccine efficacy estimates, longer pre-crossover periods with higher case counts provide better estimates of late vaccine efficacy. Further, open-label crossover may lead to riskier behavior in the immediate crossover period for the unblinded vaccine arm, confounding vaccine efficacy estimates for all post-crossover periods. Conclusions: We advocate blinded crossover and continued follow-up of trial participants to best assess vaccine durability and potential delayed enhancement of disease. This approach allows placebo recipients timely access to the vaccine when it would no longer be proper to maintain participants on placebo, yet still allows important insights about immunological and clinical effectiveness over time.


Recovery of VE in period 2 under crossover
We begin by demonstrating how the placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy in period 2, is obtainable following placebo crossover. Denote the expected number of cases in arm Z= 1 (original vaccine), 0 (original placebo) in period k=1,2 by θZK and ωZK, for the standard and crossover trial respectively. For the standard trial, we define the relative risk of original vaccine to original placebo in period k as RRSK = θ1K/θ0K and define the vaccine efficacy as VEK = 1 -RRSK. For the crossover trial we define the relative risk in period k as RRXK = ω 1K/ ω0K. Since period 1 and the original vaccine arm in period 2 are identical under both designs we have θ Z1 = ωZ1, θ 12= ω12 and RRX1 = RRS1. We make the assumption that VE1 applies to both the newly vaccinated during period 1 and the newly vaccinated during period 2. Since VE1 = 1 -RRX1 , RRX1 also applies to the newly vaccinated in period 2. In the standard trial, VE2 = 1-RRS2. To recover VE2 in the crossover trial note that the true crossover counterfactual placebo rate in Thus, to recover the VE in period 2 of a standard trial when confronted with a placebo crossover trial we simply take one minus the product of the relative risks for the two periods of the crossover. Table A1 shows the connection between the parameters of the Standard and Crossover Trials.
We next derive simple expressions for the variance of the vaccine efficacy estimates in each period. We assume that disease acquisition is rare so that YZK , the number of cases in original arm Z =0, 1 in period K=1,2 is Poisson with parameter θZK under the standard design. We analogously assume XZK , the number of cases in original arm Z =0, 1 in period K=1,2 is Poisson with parameter ωZK under the crossover design. Note YZK =XZK for (Z,K)=(1,1), (0,1), and (1,2), but Y02 has a different distribution from X02. To estimate the vaccine efficacies or relative risks, we simply take ratios of case counts of the different periods. For example, � 2 = 1 -Y12/Y02 and the standard and crossover trials, respectively. Using the delta method, one can show that the ratio of variances for the standard versus crossover estimates is approximately ).
Note that as 1 becomes large, RVE2 approaches 1 (if VE1=0 and θ2 remains constant). This underscores the advantage of having a large number of events in period 1 in order to maximize the efficiency of the crossover design relative to the standard design to estimate vaccine efficacy in period 2 and to assess harm.
The ratio of variances for the estimate of the period 1 to period 2 relative risk is given by ) .
To interpret the ratios RVE2 and RVE12, we note that in terms of estimation efficiency, a standard trial with N subjects that achieved a given power would require N/RVE subjects to achieve the same power under a crossover trial. So these ratios provide a simple way to evaluate the relative statistical performance of the two designs when estimating either VE2 or VE1/VE2 .
For power calculations, note that for an alpha=.025 one-sided test that ≤ 0, the power of a asymptotically normal test statistic with mean and variance 1 is approximately given by while the analogous test that ≥ 0 is given by (− − 1.96), where is the standard normal cumulative distribution function.

Parameter Estimation
We finish by noting that estimation of the relative risks and vaccine efficacies can be accomplished by using Generalized Estimating Equations aka modified Poisson regression 25,30 . For each subject we define Y1, T 1, Z which are the indicator of a case in period 1, the follow-up time in period 1 and the original vaccine indicator, respectively. T 1 equals the case time for a case in period 1, the time of dropout for dropouts in period 1, and the length of period 1 for those who are period 1 non-cases and followed past period 1. For subjects with follow-up in period 2 (i.e. period 1 non-cases with follow-up longer than period 1), we define Y2 ,T 2 analogously. We can then fit the working Poisson model for the crossover trial for which ( ) = exp{ 0 + 1 + 2 ( = 2) + 3 ( = 2) + log (TK )} The parameters can be estimated using Generalized Estimating Equations software with a sandwich variance estimator but treating the data across the two periods as independent.
Under the standard trial the parameters associated with period 2 are different and we write Baseline covariates that reflect the risk of case acquisition can be incorporated into the model both to improve the precision of the estimates as well as to ameliorate any bias due to greater removal of the riskier volunteers from the placebo group.
Our development has focused on two periods with equal duration with a constant VE in each period.
This approach can be extended to multiple periods and a parameterized vaccine efficacy curve specified.
A more elegant approach to modeling is given by Cox regression with time-dependent covariate which completely obviates the need to specify periods and can readily allow for smoothly varying vaccine efficacy in addition to the piecewise constant vaccine efficacy of this paper. Development of this method is the focus of another paper.
Many vaccine trials use per-protocol type analyses where cases are not counted until sometime after the final dose has been administered. Such analyses can be addressed by not counting cases or followup during this period. For example if cases are counted day 43 post first dose, this 'black-out' period would apply to both arms and both for the original dosing and the crossover dosing.

Small Sample Calculation of VE in a Placebo Crossover Trial
Assume XZK , the number of cases in original arm Z =0, 1 in period K=1,2 is Poisson with parameter ωZK under the crossover design. For any period, condition on the total number of cases, so that 11 | 11 + 01 = 1 ~ ( 1 , 1 ) and 12 | 12 + 02 = 2 ~ ( 2 , 2 ) This presentation assumes equal follow-up between the arms. Adjustments for unequal follow-up are not presented but can be done (for analogous adjustments, see Dragalin, et al, 2002, Section 4.1).