Effects of imperfect test sensitivity and specificity on observational studies of influenza vaccine effectiveness.

BACKGROUND The recently developed test-negative design is now standard for observational studies of influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE). It is unclear how influenza test misclassification biases test-negative VE estimates relative to VE estimates from traditional cohort or case-control studies. METHODS We simulated populations whose members may develop acute respiratory illness (ARI) due to influenza and to non-influenza pathogens. In these simulations, vaccination reduces the risk of influenza but not of non-influenza ARI. Influenza test sensitivity and specificity, risks of influenza and non-influenza ARI, and VE were varied across the simulations. In each simulation, we estimated influenza VE using a cohort design, a case-control design, and a test-negative design. RESULTS In the absence of influenza test misclassification, all three designs accurately estimated influenza VE. In the presence of misclassification, all three designs underestimated VE. Bias in VE estimates was slightly greater in the test-negative design than in cohort or case-control designs. Assuming the use of highly sensitive and specific reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction tests for influenza, bias in the test-negative studies was trivial across a wide range of realistic values for VE. DISCUSSION Although influenza test misclassification causes more bias in test-negative studies than in traditional cohort or case-control studies, the difference is trivial for realistic combinations of attack rates, test sensitivity/specificity, and VE.

[1]  Jennifer C Nelson,et al.  The test-negative design for estimating influenza vaccine effectiveness. , 2013, Vaccine.

[2]  Michael Haber,et al.  The case test-negative design for studies of the effectiveness of influenza vaccine. , 2013, Vaccine.

[3]  S. Trottier,et al.  Interim estimates of 2013/14 influenza clinical severity and vaccine effectiveness in the prevention of laboratory-confirmed influenza-related hospitalisation, Canada, February 2014. , 2014, Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin.

[4]  C. Broome,et al.  Pneumococcal Disease after Pneumococcal Vaccination , 1980 .

[5]  J. Nelson,et al.  Evidence of bias in estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness in seniors. , 2006, International journal of epidemiology.

[6]  A. Monto,et al.  Influenza vaccine effectiveness in the 2011-2012 season: protection against each circulating virus and the effect of prior vaccination on estimates. , 2014, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[7]  J. Nelson,et al.  Influenza vaccination and risk of community-acquired pneumonia in immunocompetent elderly people: a population-based, nested case-control study , 2008, The Lancet.

[8]  Manish M Patel,et al.  Duration of Protection of Pentavalent Rotavirus Vaccination in Nicaragua , 2012, Pediatrics.

[9]  A. Monto,et al.  Efficacy studies of influenza vaccines: effect of end points used and characteristics of vaccine failures. , 2011, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[10]  S. Tabassum,et al.  Diagnosis of human rotavirus in stool specimens: comparison of different methods. , 2007, Mymensingh medical journal : MMJ.

[11]  Edward A Belongia,et al.  Comparison of Nasal and Nasopharyngeal Swabs for Influenza Detection in Adults , 2012, Clinical Medicine & Research.

[12]  M. Valenciano,et al.  Low and decreasing vaccine effectiveness against influenza A(H3) in 2011/12 among vaccination target groups in Europe: results from the I-MOVE multicentre case-control study. , 2013, Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin.

[13]  C. Broome,et al.  Pneumococcal disease after pneumococcal vaccination: an alternative method to estimate the efficacy of pneumococcal vaccine. , 1980, New England Journal of Medicine.

[14]  E. Bouza,et al.  Comparison of real-time RT-PCR, shell vial culture, and conventional cell culture for the detection of the pandemic influenza A (H1N1) in hospitalized patients. , 2011, Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease.

[15]  Effectiveness of vaccine against medical consultation due to laboratory-confirmed influenza: results from a sentinel physician pilot project in British Columbia, 2004-2005. , 2005, Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada.

[16]  Evan W. Orenstein,et al.  Methodologic issues regarding the use of three observational study designs to assess influenza vaccine effectiveness. , 2007, International journal of epidemiology.

[17]  T. Koepsell,et al.  Epidemiologic Methods: Studying the Occurrence of Illness , 2003 .

[18]  X. Beristain,et al.  Effectiveness of rotavirus vaccines in preventing cases and hospitalizations due to rotavirus gastroenteritis in Navarre, Spain. , 2012, Vaccine.

[19]  U. Buchholz,et al.  Influenza vaccine effectiveness estimates in Europe in a season with three influenza type/subtypes circulating: the I-MOVE multicentre case-control study, influenza season 2012/13. , 2014, Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin.

[20]  Sander Greenland,et al.  Modern Epidemiology 3rd edition , 1986 .

[21]  K. Ariyoshi,et al.  Potential effect of virus interference on influenza vaccine effectiveness estimates in test-negative designs , 2014, Epidemiology and Infection.

[22]  R. Atmar,et al.  Comparison of reverse transcription-PCR with tissue culture and other rapid diagnostic assays for detection of type A influenza virus , 1996, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[23]  O. Quaye,et al.  Comparison of Premier™ Rotaclone®, ProSpecT™, and RIDASCREEN® rotavirus enzyme immunoassay kits for detection of rotavirus antigen in stool specimens. , 2013, Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology.