ABSTRACT
Observational studies of the effectiveness of vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are needed to inform real-world use. These are now in planning amid the ongoing rollout of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines globally. While traditional case-control (TCC) and test-negative design (TND) studies feature prominently among strategies used to assess vaccine effectiveness, such studies may encounter important threats to validity. Here we review the theoretical basis for estimation of vaccine direct effects under TCC and TND frameworks, addressing specific natural history parameters of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 relevant to these designs. Bias may be introduced by misclassification of cases and controls, particularly when clinical case criteria include common, non-specific indicators of COVID-19. When using diagnostic assays with high analytical sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection, individuals testing positive may be counted as cases even if their symptoms are due to other causes. The TCC may be particularly prone to confounding due to associations of vaccination with healthcare-seeking behavior or risk of infection. The TND reduces but may not eliminate this confounding, for instance if individuals who receive vaccination seek care or testing for less-severe infection. These circumstances indicate the two study designs cannot be applied naively to datasets gathered through public health surveillance or administrative sources. We suggest practical strategies to reduce bias in vaccine effectiveness estimates at the study design and analysis stages.
Competing Interest Statement
JAL has received grants and consulting fees from Pfizer, Inc. unrelated to this research.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by grants R01-AI14812701 from the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases to NPJ and JAL, and R01-AI139761 from the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases to NED.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Conflicts of interest: JAL has received grants and consulting fees from Pfizer, Inc. unrelated to this research.
Sources of funding: This work was supported by grants R01-AI14812701 from the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases to NPJ and JAL, and R01-AI139761 from the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases to NED.
Data Availability
This is a theoretical study without patient data; equations used to generate the figures appear in the manuscript.