• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

J Infect Dis . Modeling the impacts of clinical influenza testing on influenza vaccine effectiveness estimates

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
J Infect Dis


. 2021 May 20;jiab273.
doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiab273. Online ahead of print.
Modeling the impacts of clinical influenza testing on influenza vaccine effectiveness estimates


Leora R Feldstein[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jill M Ferdinands[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Wesley H Self[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Adrienne G Randolph[SUP] 3 4 [/SUP], Michael Aboodi[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Adrienne H Baughman[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Samuel M Brown[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Matthew C Exline[SUP] 7 [/SUP], D Clark Files[SUP] 8 [/SUP], Kevin Gibbs[SUP] 8 [/SUP], Adit A Ginde[SUP] 9 [/SUP], Michelle N Gong[SUP] 10 [/SUP], Carlos G Grijalva[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Natasha Halasa[SUP] 11 [/SUP], Akram Khan[SUP] 12 [/SUP], Christopher J Lindsell[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Margaret Newhams[SUP] 3 4 [/SUP], Ithan D Peltan[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Matthew E Prekker[SUP] 13 [/SUP], Todd W Rice[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Nathan I Shapiro[SUP] 14 [/SUP], Jay Steingrub[SUP] 15 [/SUP], H Keipp Talbot[SUP] 2 [/SUP], M Elizabeth Halloran[SUP] 16 17 [/SUP], Manish Patel[SUP] 1 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Background: Test-negative design studies for evaluating influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) enroll patients with acute respiratory infection. Enrollment typically occurs before influenza status is determined, resulting in over-enrollment of influenza-negative patients. With availability of rapid and accurate molecular clinical testing, influenza status could be ascertained prior to enrollment, thus improving study efficiency. We estimate potential biases in VE when using clinical testing.
Methods: We simulate data assuming 60% vaccinated, 25% of those vaccinated are influenza positive, and VE of 50%. We show the effect on VE in five scenarios.
Results: VE is affected only when clinical testing preferentially targets patients based on both vaccination and influenza status. VE is overestimated by 10% if non-testing occurs in 39% of vaccinated influenza-positive patients and 24% of others; and if non-testing occurs in 8% of unvaccinated influenza-positive patients and 27% of others. VE is underestimated by 10% if non-testing occurs in 32% of unvaccinated influenza-negative patients and 18% of others.
Conclusions: Although differential clinical testing by vaccine receipt and influenza positivity may produce errors in estimated VE, bias in testing would have to be substantial and overall proportion of patients tested would have to be small to result in a meaningful difference in VE.

Keywords: bias; clinical testing; influenza; vaccine effectiveness.
 
Back
Top Bottom