PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Arshad, Faaizah
AU  - Schuemie, Martijn J.
AU  - Minty, Evan P.
AU  - Alshammari, Thamir M.
AU  - Lai, Lana Y.H.
AU  - Duarte-Salles, Talita
AU  - Fortin, Stephen
AU  - Nyberg, Fredrik
AU  - Ryan, Patrick B.
AU  - Hripcsak, George
AU  - Prieto-Alhambra, Daniel
AU  - Suchard, Marc A.
TI  - Best of intent, worst of both worlds: why sequentially combining epidemiological designs does not improve signal detection in vaccine safety surveillance
AID  - 10.1101/2022.02.18.22271183
DP  - 2022 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2022.02.18.22271183
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/02/22/2022.02.18.22271183.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/02/22/2022.02.18.22271183.full
AB  - Background Vaccine safety surveillance commonly includes a serial testing approach with a sensitive method for “signal generation” and specific method for “signal validation.” Whether serially combining epidemiological designs improves both sensitivity and specificity is unknown.Methods We assessed the overall performance of serial testing using three administrative claims and one electronic health record database. We compared Type I and II errors before and after empirical calibration for historical comparator, SCCS, and the serial combination of those designs against six vaccine exposure groups with 93 negative control and 279 imputed positive control outcomes.Results Historical comparator mostly had lower Type II error than SCCS. SCCS had lower Type I error than the historical comparator. Before empirical calibration, serial combination increased specificity and decreased sensitivity. Type II errors mostly exceeded 50%. After empirical calibration, Type I errors returned to nominal; sensitivity was lowest when the methods were combined.Conclusion We recommend against the serial approach in vaccine safety surveillance. While serial combination produced fewer false positive signals compared to the most specific method, it generated more false negative signals compared to the most sensitive method. Using the noisy historical comparator in front of SCCS deteriorated overall performance in evaluating safety signals.Key MessagesUsing the serial approach in vaccine safety surveillance did not improve overall performance: specificity increased but sensitivity decreased.Without empirical calibration, Type II errors exceeded 50%; after empirical calibration, Type I error rates returned to nominal with negligible change to Type II error rates.While prior research has suggested high sensitivity of the historical comparator method in distinguishing true safety signals, there were cases when self-controlled case series was more sensitive.Vaccine safety surveillance is becoming increasingly important, so monitoring systems should closely consider the utility and sequence of epidemiological designs.Competing Interest StatementAll authors have submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors disclosure form. FA declares no competing interests. MAS receives grant funding from the US National Institutes of Health and the US Food & Drug Administration and contracts from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and Janssen Research and Development. PBR, SF and MJS are employees of Janssen Research and Development and shareholders in Johnson & Johnson. GH receives grant funding from the US National Institutes of Health and the US Food & Drug Administration. DPAs research group has received grant support from Amgen, Chesi-Taylor, Novartis, and UCB Biopharma. His department has received advisory or consultancy fees from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Johnson, and Johnson, and UCB Biopharma and fees for speaker services from Amgen and UCB Biopharma. Janssen, on behalf of IMI-funded EHDEN and EMIF consortiums, and Synapse Management Partners have supported training programmes organised by DPAs department and open for external participants organized by his department outside submitted work. FN was an employee of AstraZeneca until 2019 and owns some AstraZeneca shares. EPM, LYHL, TMA, and TDS declare no competing interests.Funding StatementThis work was supported by US National Institutes of Health [grant number R01AI153044], a contract from the US Food & Drug Administration and an Intergovernmental Personnel Act agreement with the US Department of Veterans Affairs.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI 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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesThe protocol and analytical code underlying this manuscript are available in the Eumaeus Repository at https://github.com/ohdsi-studies/Eumaeus. https://github.com/ohdsi-studies/Eumaeus