New preprint on estimating and Interpreting vaccine efficacy trial results for infection and transmission | medRxiv. With @rebeccajk13. Long discussion on applications to observational VE studies medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
tl;dr: Analyze separately cases ascertained for different reasons. Don't combine those found because symptomatic with those found by screening a cross section or by testing contacts.
In an RCT there are typically one of these (symptomatic cases, the primary endpoint in most COVID trials) or two (symptomatics and cross-sections). Symptomatics are incident cases and VE is properly measured by 1- incidence rate ratio. The VE measured is vs symptomatic infxn
Our paper on identifying and mitigating biases in epidemiologic studies of #COVID-19 is now out and is #OA . doi.org/10.1007/s10654…. Skillfully led by @AccorsiEmma
this project involved much of our group and many discussions arising from papers we were reading.
We consider the challenges of several kinds of studies: 1. Seroprevalence studies to estimate cumulative incidence
where a key challenge is representativeness of participants
@ZoeMcLaren Thanks for tweeting about this article. I'm going to leave the matching issue for another day, but I want to add a note of caution as one of the authors. We did not claim, and the data do not directly address, the reduction in total infections.
@ZoeMcLaren We used the word "documented infection" to highlight the fact that many infections may have gone undocumented, especially those not symptomatic. The documented infections is a mixture of symptomatic (probably most of them) and asymptomatic (probably a smaller fraction)
@ZoeMcLaren As a consequence, it is mathematically possible to have a big effect on documented infections but a smaller effect on total infections. As an extreme case (likely more extreme than the truth) suppose that symptomatic infections are detected with probability 90% and
@profshanecrotty Thanks @profshanecrotty for another super informative thread (ht @HelenBranswell for tweeting). My 2 cents is just to remember that the comparison between sero+ and sero- in the control arm in Novavax was not randomized and involved ~40 cases in each group.
@profshanecrotty@HelenBranswell Study was of course not designed to assess natural immunity, so kudos to the scientists for reporting these important data, but caution in interpretation. Several reasons to expect bias in observational seroprotection studies like this dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/37366…
@profshanecrotty@HelenBranswell In particular, those who got infected before (sero+) are likely still at high risk for subsequent infection(due to job, housing, use of transport, other persistent factors), leading to noncausal positive association betwn prior and future infection (confounding).
Reupping this. Existing vaccines may well have been unable to get us to the herd immunity threshold before the variants made things harder. Now more unlikely. But if we can identify (hard) and vaccinate (harder) the most vulnerable it will make continued spread less destructive.
but there is evidence so far that the vaccines are highly effective against the most severe forms of COVID, even in South Africa where most cases were the local variant.
The @CDCgov ACIP move toward priortizing frontline workers is premised on "only slightly" more deaths compared to prioritizing by age &/or comorbidity. But that finding depends on the vaccine blocking transmission very efficiently, which we don't know.
In my opinion prioritizing by risk of death is the most robust strategy in the sense of being optimal or near-optimal whatever we find out about transmission blocking and the like. #ACIP
Notwithstanding misinterpretations and deliberate trolling from many the last few days, I have been saying for some time that in my view the most lifesaving strategy, and likely the one that will return us to functioning fastest, would be