Estimating Strain‐Specific and Overall Efficacy of Polyvalent Vaccines Against Recurrent Pathogens From a Cross‐Sectional Study

Evaluating vaccine efficacy for protection against colonization with bacterial pathogens is an area of growing interest. Colonization of the nasopharynx is an asymptomatic carrier state responsible for person‐to‐person transmission. It differs from most clinical outcomes in that it is common, recurr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inBiometrics Vol. 69; no. 1; pp. 235 - 244
Main Authors Auranen, Kari, Rinta‐Kokko, Hanna, Halloran, M. Elizabeth
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England Blackwell Publishers 01.03.2013
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Wiley-Blackwell
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0006-341X
1541-0420
1541-0420
DOI10.1111/j.1541-0420.2012.01826.x

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Evaluating vaccine efficacy for protection against colonization with bacterial pathogens is an area of growing interest. Colonization of the nasopharynx is an asymptomatic carrier state responsible for person‐to‐person transmission. It differs from most clinical outcomes in that it is common, recurrent, and observed only in its prevalent state. To estimate rates of acquisition and clearance of colonization requires repeated active sampling of the same individuals over time, an expensive and invasive undertaking. Motivated by feasibility constraints in efficacy trials with colonization endpoints, investigators have been estimating vaccine efficacy from cross‐sectional studies without principled methods. We present two examples of vaccine studies estimating vaccine efficacy from cross‐sectional data on nasopharyngeal colonization by Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus). This study presents a framework for defining and estimating strain‐specific and overall vaccine efficacy for susceptibility to acquisition of colonization () when there is a large number of strains with mutual interactions and recurrent dynamics of colonization. We develop estimators based on one observation of the current status per study subject, evaluate their robustness, and re‐analyze the two vaccine trials. Methodologically, the proposed estimators are closely related to case–control studies with prevalent cases, with appropriate consideration of the at‐risk time in choosing the controls.
Bibliography:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2012.01826.x
ark:/67375/WNG-H8KT6SFG-P
ArticleID:BIOM1826
istex:EEE51352505B0A6FE5919BC3D4C0203632F1F428
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:0006-341X
1541-0420
1541-0420
DOI:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2012.01826.x