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

Potential Test-Negative Design Study Bias in Outbreak Settings: Application to Ebola vaccination in Democratic Republic of Congo

View ORCID ProfileCarl A. B. Pearson, W. John Edmunds, View ORCID ProfileThomas J. Hladish, View ORCID ProfileRosalind M. Eggo
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.06.20016576
Carl A. B. Pearson
1Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology & Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
2South African Centre for Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis, Stellenbosch University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Carl A. B. Pearson
  • For correspondence: carl.pearson{at}lshtm.ac.uk
W. John Edmunds
1Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology & Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas J. Hladish
3Department of Biology & Emerging Pathogens Institute, University of Florida
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Thomas J. Hladish
Rosalind M. Eggo
1Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology & Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Rosalind M. Eggo
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Infectious disease outbreaks present unique challenges to study designs for vaccine evaluation. Test-negative design (TND) studies have previously been used to estimate vaccine effectiveness and have been proposed for Ebola virus disease (EVD) vaccines. However, there are key differences in how cases and controls are recruited during outbreaks and pandemics of novel pathogens that have implications for the reliability of effectiveness estimates using this design.

Methods We use a modelling approach to quantify TND bias for a prophylactic vaccine under varying study and epidemiological scenarios. Our model accounts for heterogeneity in vaccine distribution and for two potential routes to testing and recruitment into the study: self-reporting and contact-tracing. We derive conventional and hybrid TND estimators for this model and suggest ways to translate public health response data into the parameters of the model.

Results Using a conventional TND study, our model finds biases in vaccine effectiveness estimates. Bias arises due to differential recruitment from self-reporting and contact-tracing, and due to clustering of vaccination. We estimate the degree of bias when recruitment route is not available, and propose a study design to eliminate the bias if recruitment route is recorded.

Conclusions Hybrid TND studies can resolve the design bias with conventional TND studies applied to outbreak and pandemic response testing data, if those efforts collect individuals’ routes to testing. Without route to testing, other epidemiological data will be required to estimate the magnitude of potential bias in a conventional TND study. Since these studies may need to be conducted retrospectively, public health responses should obtain these data, and generic protocols for outbreak and pandemic response studies should emphasize the need to record routes to testing.

Key Messages

  • - Conventional Test-Negative Design (TND) studies can be biased when follow-up of cases leads to testing and recruitment, which occurs for example during contact tracing.

  • - A hybrid TND estimator can eliminate this bias, if individual testing routes are recorded.

  • - The related bias in the conventional TND estimator can be quantified using epidemiological measures.

  • - If testing route data is unavailable, bias can be limited by other study measures.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 (IMI2) Joint Undertaking between European Union Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations [EBOVAC3: grant number 800176]; Department of Health and Social Care using UK Aid funding managed by the NIHR [VEEPED: PR-OD-1017-20007]; National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences [U54 GM111274]; and HDR UK Innovation Fellowship [grant MR/S003975/1 to R.M.E.]. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Health and Social Care.

Author Declarations

All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.

Yes

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

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

  • revised for clarity & updated to include hybrid design that addresses the study bias issue with conventional test-negative design.

Data Availability

The results are simulation-based. All code for those simulations can be found in the repository.

https://gitlab.com/ebovac/tncc_math

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted December 23, 2020.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

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.
Potential Test-Negative Design Study Bias in Outbreak Settings: Application to Ebola vaccination in Democratic Republic of Congo
(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
Potential Test-Negative Design Study Bias in Outbreak Settings: Application to Ebola vaccination in Democratic Republic of Congo
Carl A. B. Pearson, W. John Edmunds, Thomas J. Hladish, Rosalind M. Eggo
medRxiv 2020.01.06.20016576; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.06.20016576
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Potential Test-Negative Design Study Bias in Outbreak Settings: Application to Ebola vaccination in Democratic Republic of Congo
Carl A. B. Pearson, W. John Edmunds, Thomas J. Hladish, Rosalind M. Eggo
medRxiv 2020.01.06.20016576; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.06.20016576

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 (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)