Case-control vaccine effectiveness studies: Data collection, analysis and reporting results

The case-control methodology is frequently used to evaluate vaccine effectiveness post-licensure. The results of such studies provide important insight into the level of protection afforded by vaccines in a \u27real world\u27 context, and are commonly used to guide vaccine policy decisions. However, the potential for bias and confounding are important limitations to this method, and the results of a poorly conducted or incorrectly interpreted case-control study can mislead policies. In 2012, a group of experts met to review recent experience with case-control studies evaluating vaccine effectiveness; we summarize the recommendations of that group regarding best practices for data collection, analysis, and presentation of the results of case-control vaccine effectiveness studies. Vaccination status is the primary exposure of interest, but can be challenging to assess accurately and with minimal bias. Investigators should understand factors associated with vaccination as well as the availability of documented vaccination status in the study context; case-control studies may not be a valid method for evaluating vaccine effectiveness in settings where many children lack a documented immunization history. To avoid bias, it is essential to use the same methods and effort gathering vaccination data from cases and controls. Variables that may confound the association between illness and vaccination are also important to capture as completely as possible, and where relevant, adjust for in the analysis according to the analytic plan. In presenting results from case-control vaccine effectiveness studies, investigators should describe enrollment among eligible cases and controls as well as the proportion with no documented vaccine history. Emphasis should be placed on confidence intervals, rather than point estimates, of vaccine effectiveness. Case-control studies are a useful approach for evaluating vaccine effectiveness; however careful attention must be paid to the collection, analysis and presentation of the data in order to best inform evidence-based vaccine policies

Case-control vaccine effectiveness studies: Preparation, design, and enrollment of cases and control

Case-control studies are commonly used to evaluate effectiveness of licensed vaccines after deployment in public health programs. Such studies can provide policy-relevant data on vaccine performance under \u27real world\u27 conditions, contributing to the evidence base to support and sustain introduction of new vaccines. However, case-control studies do not measure the impact of vaccine introduction on disease at a population level, and are subject to bias and confounding, which may lead to inaccurate results that can misinform policy decisions. In 2012, a group of experts met to review recent experience with case-control studies evaluating the effectiveness of several vaccines; here we summarize the recommendations of that group regarding best practices for planning, design and enrollment of cases and controls. Rigorous planning and preparation should focus on understanding the study context including healthcare-seeking and vaccination practices. Case-control vaccine effectiveness studies are best carried out soon after vaccine introduction because high coverage creates strong potential for confounding. Endpoints specific to the vaccine target are preferable to non-specific clinical syndromes since the proportion of non-specific outcomes preventable through vaccination may vary over time and place, leading to potentially confusing results. Controls should be representative of the source population from which cases arise, and are generally recruited from the community or health facilities where cases are enrolled. Matching of controls to cases for potential confounding factors is commonly used, although should be reserved for a limited number of key variables believed to be linked to both vaccination and disease. Case-control vaccine effectiveness studies can provide information useful to guide policy decisions and vaccine development, however rigorous preparation and design is essential

Toxic shock syndrome in the United States: surveillance update, 1979 1996.

Menstrual toxic shock syndrome (TSS) emerged as a public health threat to women of reproductive age in 1979 80. We reviewed surveillance data for the period 1979 to 1996, when 5,296 cases were reported, and discuss changes in the epidemiologic features of TSS

Surveillance for Unexplained Deaths and Critical Illnesses

Population-based surveillance for unexplained death and critical illness possibly due to infectious causes (UNEX) was conducted in four U.S. Emerging Infections Program sites (population 7.7 million) from May 1, 1995, to December 31, 1998, to define the incidence, epidemiologic features, and etiology of this syndrome. A case was defined as death or critical illness in a hospitalized, previously healthy person, 1 to 49 years of age, with infection hallmarks but no cause identified after routine testing. A total of 137 cases were identified (incidence rate 0.5 per 100,000 per year). Patients’ median age was 20 years, 72 (53%) were female, 112 (82%) were white, and 41 (30%) died. The most common clinical presentations were neurologic (29%), respiratory (27%), and cardiac (21%). Infectious causes were identified for 34 cases (28% of the 122 cases with clinical specimens); 23 (68%) were diagnosed by reference serologic tests, and 11 (32%) by polymerase chain reaction-based methods. The UNEX network model would improve U.S. diagnostic capacities and preparedness for emerging infections

Coccidioidomycosis among Workers at an Archeological Site, Northeastern Utah

In 2001, an outbreak of acute respiratory disease occurred among persons working at a Native American archeological site at Dinosaur National Monument in northeastern Utah. Epidemiologic and environmental investigations were undertaken to determine the cause of the outbreak. A clinical case was defined by the presence of at least two of the following symptoms: self-reported fever, shortness of breath, or cough. Ten workers met the clinical case definition; 9 had serologic confirmation of coccidioidomycosis, and 8 were hospitalized. All 10 were present during sifting of dirt through screens on June 19; symptoms began 9–12 days later (median 10). Coccidioidomycosis also developed in a worker at the site in September 2001. A serosurvey among 40 other Dinosaur National Monument workers did not find serologic evidence of recent infection. This outbreak documents a new endemic focus of coccidioidomycosis, extending northward its known geographic distribution in Utah by approximately 200 miles

Candida parapsilosis Characterization in an Outbreak Setting

Candida parapsilosis is an important non-albicans species which infects hospitalized patients. No studies have correlated outbreak infections of C. parapsilosis with multiple virulence factors. We used DNA fingerprinting to determine genetic variability among isolates from a C. parapsilosis outbreak and from our clinical database. We compared phenotypic markers of pathogenesis, including adherence, biofilm formation, and protein secretion (secretory aspartic protease [SAP] and phospholipase). Adherence was measured as colony counts on silicone elastomer disks immersed in agar. Biofilms formed on disks were quantified by dry weight. SAP expression was measured by hydrolysis of bovine albumin; a colorimetric assay was used to quantitate phospholipase. DNA fingerprinting indicated that the outbreak isolates were clonal and genetically distinct from our database. Biofilm expression by the outbreak clone was greater than that of sporadic isolates (p < 0.0005). Adherence and protein secretion did not correlate with strain pathogenicity. These results suggest that biofilm production plays a role in C. parapsilosis outbreaks

Accelerating Policy Decisions to Adopt Haemophilus influenzae Type b Vaccine: A Global, Multivariable Analysis

Jessica Shearer and colleagues analyze data from 147 countries to identify factors that influence the time taken to introduce routine vaccination against Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)

Inhalational Anthrax Outbreak among Postal Workers, Washington, D.C., 2001

In October 2001, four cases of inhalational anthrax occurred in workers in a Washington, D.C., mail facility that processed envelopes containing Bacillus anthracis spores. We reviewed the envelopes’ paths and obtained exposure histories and nasal swab cultures from postal workers. Environmental sampling was performed. A sample of employees was assessed for antibody concentrations to B. anthracis protective antigen. Case-patients worked on nonoverlapping shifts throughout the facility. Environmental sampling showed diffuse contamination of the facility, suggesting multiple aerosolization events. Potential workplace exposures were similar for the case-patients and the sample of workers. All nasal swab cultures and serum antibody tests were negative. Available tools could not identify subgroups of employees at higher risk for exposure or disease. Prophylaxis was necessary for all employees. To protect postal workers against bioterrorism, measures to reduce the risk of occupational exposure are necessary

The Public Health Response and Epidemiologic Investigation Related to the Opening of a Bacillus anthracis–Containing Envelope, Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C.

On October 15, 2001, a U.S. Senate staff member opened an envelope containing Bacillus anthracis spores. Chemoprophylaxis was promptly initiated and nasal swabs obtained for all persons in the immediate area. An epidemiologic investigation was conducted to define exposure areas and identify persons who should receive prolonged chemoprophylaxis, based on their exposure risk. Persons immediately exposed to B. anthracis spores were interviewed; records were reviewed to identify additional persons in this area. Persons with positive nasal swabs had repeat swabs and serial serologic evaluation to measure antibodies to B. anthracis protective antigen (anti-PA). A total of 625 persons were identified as requiring prolonged chemoprophylaxis; 28 had positive nasal swabs. Repeat nasal swabs were negative at 7 days; none had developed anti-PA antibodies by 42 days after exposure. Early nasal swab testing is a useful epidemiologic tool to assess risk of exposure to aerosolized B. anthracis. Early, wide chemoprophylaxis may have averted an outbreak of anthrax in this population

Comparative Economic Evaluation of Haemophilus influenzae Type b Vaccination in Belarus and Uzbekistan

BACKGROUND: Hib vaccine has gradually been introduced into more and more countries during the past two decades, partly due to GAVI Alliance support to low-income countries. However, since Hib disease burden is difficult to establish in settings with limited diagnostic capacities and since the vaccine continues to be relatively expensive, some Governments remain doubtful about its value leading to concerns about financial sustainability. Similarly, several middle-income countries have not introduced the vaccine. The aim of this study is to estimate and compare the cost-effectiveness of Hib vaccination in a country relying on self-financing (Belarus) and a country eligible for GAVI Alliance support (Uzbekistan). METHODS AND FINDINGS: A decision analytic model was used to estimate morbidity and mortality from Hib meningitis, Hib pneumonia and other types of Hib disease with and without the vaccine. Treatment costs were attached to each disease event. Data on disease incidence, case fatality ratios and costs were primarily determined from national sources. For the Belarus 2009 birth cohort, Hib vaccine is estimated to prevent 467 invasive disease cases, 4 cases of meningitis sequelae, and 3 deaths, while in Uzbekistan 3,069 invasive cases, 34 sequelae cases and 341 deaths are prevented. Estimated costs per discounted DALY averted are US$9,323 in Belarus and US$ 267 in Uzbekistan. CONCLUSION: The primary reason why the cost-effectiveness values are more favourable in Uzbekistan than in Belarus is that relatively more deaths are averted in Uzbekistan due to higher baseline mortality burden. Two other explanations are that the vaccine price is lower in Uzbekistan and that Uzbekistan uses a three dose schedule compared to four doses in Belarus. However, when seen in the context of the relative ability to pay for public health, the vaccine can be considered cost-effective in both countries