Bias due to differential and non-differential disease- and exposure misclassification in studies of vaccine effectiveness

Background Studies of vaccine effectiveness (VE) rely on accurate identification of vaccination and cases of vaccine-preventable disease. In practice, diagnostic tests, clinical case definitions and vaccination records often present inaccuracies, leading to biased VE estimates. Previous studies investigated the impact of non-differential disease misclassification on VE estimation. Methods We explored, through simulation, the impact of non-differential and differential disease- and exposure misclassification when estimating VE using cohort, case-control, test-negative case-control and case-cohort designs. The impact of misclassification on the estimated VE is demonstrated for VE studies on childhood seasonal influenza and pertussis vaccination. We additionally developed a web-application graphically presenting bias for user-selected parameters. Results Depending on the scenario, the misclassification parameters had differing impacts. Decreased exposure specificity had greatest impact for influenza VE estimation when vaccination coverage was low. Decreased exposure sensitivity had greatest impact for pertussis VE estimation for which high vaccination coverage is typically achieved. The impact of the exposure misclassification parameters was found to be more noticeable than that of the disease misclassification parameters. When misclassification is limited, all study designs perform equally. In case of substantial (differential) disease misclassification, the test-negative design performs worse. Conclusions Misclassification can lead to significant bias in VE estimates and its impact strongly depends on the scenario. We developed a web-application for assessing the potential (joint) impact of possibly differential disease- and exposure misclassification that can be modified by users to their own study scenario. Our results and the simulation tool may be used to guide better design, conduct and interpretation of future VE studies

Guillain-Barré syndrome and adjuvanted pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 vaccines: A multinational self-controlled case series in Europe

Background: The risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) following the United States' 1976 swine flu vaccination campaign in the USA led to enhanced active surveillance during the pandemic influenza (A(H1N1)pdm09) immunization campaign. This study aimed to estimate the risk

A novel formulation of inhaled sodium cromoglicate (PA101) in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and chronic cough: a randomised, double-blind, proof-of-concept, phase 2 trial

Background Cough can be a debilitating symptom of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and is difficult to treat. PA101 is a novel formulation of sodium cromoglicate delivered via a high-efficiency eFlow nebuliser that achieves significantly higher drug deposition in the lung compared with the existing formulations. We aimed to test the efficacy and safety of inhaled PA101 in patients with IPF and chronic cough and, to explore the antitussive mechanism of PA101, patients with chronic idiopathic cough (CIC) were also studied. Methods This pilot, proof-of-concept study consisted of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with IPF and chronic cough and a parallel study of similar design in patients with CIC. Participants with IPF and chronic cough recruited from seven centres in the UK and the Netherlands were randomly assigned (1:1, using a computer-generated randomisation schedule) by site staff to receive PA101 (40 mg) or matching placebo three times a day via oral inhalation for 2 weeks, followed by a 2 week washout, and then crossed over to the other arm. Study participants, investigators, study staff, and the sponsor were masked to group assignment until all participants had completed the study. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in objective daytime cough frequency (from 24 h acoustic recording, Leicester Cough Monitor). The primary efficacy analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one post-baseline efficacy measurement. Safety analysis included all those who took at least one dose of study drug. In the second cohort, participants with CIC were randomly assigned in a study across four centres with similar design and endpoints. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02412020) and the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT Number 2014-004025-40) and both cohorts are closed to new participants. Findings Between Feb 13, 2015, and Feb 2, 2016, 24 participants with IPF were randomly assigned to treatment groups. 28 participants with CIC were enrolled during the same period and 27 received study treatment. In patients with IPF, PA101 reduced daytime cough frequency by 31·1% at day 14 compared with placebo; daytime cough frequency decreased from a mean 55 (SD 55) coughs per h at baseline to 39 (29) coughs per h at day 14 following treatment with PA101, versus 51 (37) coughs per h at baseline to 52 (40) cough per h following placebo treatment (ratio of least-squares [LS] means 0·67, 95% CI 0·48–0·94, p=0·0241). By contrast, no treatment benefit for PA101 was observed in the CIC cohort; mean reduction of daytime cough frequency at day 14 for PA101 adjusted for placebo was 6·2% (ratio of LS means 1·27, 0·78–2·06, p=0·31). PA101 was well tolerated in both cohorts. The incidence of adverse events was similar between PA101 and placebo treatments, most adverse events were mild in severity, and no severe adverse events or serious adverse events were reported. Interpretation This study suggests that the mechanism of cough in IPF might be disease specific. Inhaled PA101 could be a treatment option for chronic cough in patients with IPF and warrants further investigation

Physical, cognitive, and mental health impacts of COVID-19 after hospitalisation (PHOSP-COVID): a UK multicentre, prospective cohort study

Background The impact of COVID-19 on physical and mental health and employment after hospitalisation with acute disease is not well understood. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of COVID-19-related hospitalisation on health and employment, to identify factors associated with recovery, and to describe recovery phenotypes. Methods The Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a multicentre, long-term follow-up study of adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital in the UK with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, involving an assessment between 2 and 7 months after discharge, including detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was done for the primary outcome of patient-perceived recovery, with age, sex, ethnicity, body-mass index, comorbidities, and severity of acute illness as covariates. A post-hoc cluster analysis of outcomes for breathlessness, fatigue, mental health, cognitive impairment, and physical performance was done using the clustering large applications k-medoids approach. The study is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10980107). Findings We report findings for 1077 patients discharged from hospital between March 5 and Nov 30, 2020, who underwent assessment at a median of 5·9 months (IQR 4·9–6·5) after discharge. Participants had a mean age of 58 years (SD 13); 384 (36%) were female, 710 (69%) were of white ethnicity, 288 (27%) had received mechanical ventilation, and 540 (50%) had at least two comorbidities. At follow-up, only 239 (29%) of 830 participants felt fully recovered, 158 (20%) of 806 had a new disability (assessed by the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning), and 124 (19%) of 641 experienced a health-related change in occupation. Factors associated with not recovering were female sex, middle age (40–59 years), two or more comorbidities, and more severe acute illness. The magnitude of the persistent health burden was substantial but only weakly associated with the severity of acute illness. Four clusters were identified with different severities of mental and physical health impairment (n=767): very severe (131 patients, 17%), severe (159, 21%), moderate along with cognitive impairment (127, 17%), and mild (350, 46%). Of the outcomes used in the cluster analysis, all were closely related except for cognitive impairment. Three (3%) of 113 patients in the very severe cluster, nine (7%) of 129 in the severe cluster, 36 (36%) of 99 in the moderate cluster, and 114 (43%) of 267 in the mild cluster reported feeling fully recovered. Persistently elevated serum C-reactive protein was positively associated with cluster severity. Interpretation We identified factors related to not recovering after hospital admission with COVID-19 at 6 months after discharge (eg, female sex, middle age, two or more comorbidities, and more acute severe illness), and four different recovery phenotypes. The severity of physical and mental health impairments were closely related, whereas cognitive health impairments were independent. In clinical care, a proactive approach is needed across the acute severity spectrum, with interdisciplinary working, wide access to COVID-19 holistic clinical services, and the potential to stratify care. Funding UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research

International collaboration to assess the risk of Guillain Barre Syndrome following Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent vaccines

<p>Background: The global spread of the 2009 novel pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus led to the accelerated production and distribution of monovalent 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) vaccines (pH1N1). This pandemic provided the opportunity to evaluate the risk of Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), which has been an influenza vaccine safety concern since the swine flu pandemic of 1976, using a common protocol among high and middle-income countries. The primary objective of this project was to demonstrate the feasibility and utility of global collaboration in the assessment of vaccine safety, including countries both with and without an established infrastructure for vaccine active safety surveillance. A second objective, included a priori, was to assess the risk of GBS following pH1N1 vaccination.</p><p>Methods: The primary analysis used the self-controlled case series (SCCS) design to estimate the relative incidence (RI) of GBS in the 42 days following vaccination with pH1N1 vaccine in a pooled analysis across databases and in analysis using a meta-analytic approach.</p><p>Results: We found a relative incidence of GBS of 2.42(95% CI 1.58-3.72) in the 42 days following exposure to pH1N1 vaccine in analysis of pooled data and 2.09(95% CI 1.28-3.42) using the meta-analytic approach.</p><p>Conclusions: This study demonstrates that international collaboration to evaluate serious outcomes using a common protocol is feasible. The significance and consistency of our findings support a conclusion of an association between 2009 H1N1 vaccination and GBS. Given the rarity of the event the relative incidence found does not provide evidence in contradiction to international recommendations for the continued use of influenza vaccines. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</p>