bioRxiv ScienceSearch

bioRxiv · 10.1101/071498

Using simulation to aid trial design: ring-vaccination trials

Abstract

BackgroundThe 2014-5 West African Ebola epidemic highlights the need for rigorous, rapid clinical trials under difficult circumstances. Challenges include temporally and spatially patchy transmission, and the responsibility to deliver public health interventions during a randomized trial. An innovative design such as ring vaccination with an immediate arm and a delayed arm can address these issues, but complex trials raise complex analysis issues.\n\nMethods and FindingsWe present a stochastic, compartmental model for a ring vaccination trial of a vaccine for an Ebola-like disease. After identification of an index case, a ring of primary contacts is recruited and either vaccinated immediately or after a delay of 21 days. The primary outcome of the trial is effectiveness calculated from cumulative incidence in the two arms, counting cases only from a pre-specified window in which the immediate arm is assumed to be fully protected and the delayed arm is not protected. The results of simulating the trial are used to calculate the sample size necessary for 80% power and the estimates of effectiveness are reported under a variety of assumptions regarding the trial design and implementation.\n\nThe three key components of sample size calculations - attack rate in controls, estimate of incidence difference between the arms, and intracluster correlation coefficient - are dependent on trial design and implementation in a way that can be quantitatively predicted by the model. Under baseline parameter assumptions, we found that a total of 8,900 study participants were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference in attack rate between the two arms, whereas a standard approach with the same parameters returns a necessary sample size of 7,100 individuals. Such a study would on average return a vaccine effectiveness estimate of 69.81%, with average 95% confidence interval (41.2%, 84.2%).\n\nWe found that for this design the necessary sample size and estimated effectiveness are sensitive to properties of the vaccine - in particular, pre-exposure and post-exposure efficacy; to two setting-specific parameters over which investigators have little control - rate of infections from outside the ring and overall attack rate in the controls; and to three parameters that are determined by the study design - the time window in which cases are counted, intensity of case-detection and administrative delay in vaccinating individuals.\n\nThis approach replaces assumptions about parameters in the trial with assumptions about disease dynamics and vaccine characteristics at the individual level.\n\nConclusionsIncorporating simulation into the trial design process can improve robustness of sample size calculations. Simulation can identify optimal values for study design parameters that can be controlled. For this specific trial design, vaccine effectiveness depends on properties of the ring vaccination design and on the measurement window, as well as the epidemiologic setting. Rejecting the null likely indicates one or more types of vaccine efficacy at the individual level, but the magnitude of the effect will vary across settings.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Matt T. Hitchings, Rebecca F. Grais, Marc Lipsitch. 2016-08-25. Using simulation to aid trial design: ring-vaccination trials. https://doi.org/10.1101/071498

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

A risk stratification approach for improved interpretation of diagnostic accuracy statistics

Diagnostic accuracy statistics, including predictive values, risk-differences, Youdens index and Area Under the Curve (AUC), assess the promise of novel biomarkers proposed as diagnostic tests. We reinterpret these statistics in light of risk-stratification (how well a biomarker separates those at higher risk from those at lower risk) to better understand their implications for public-health programs. We introduce an intuitively simple statistic, Mean Risk Stratification (MRS): the average change in risk (pre-test vs. post-test) revealed for tested individuals. High MRS implies better risk separation achieved by testing. MRS demonstrates that conventional predictive values can mislead because they do not account for disease prevalence or test-positivity rates. Little risk-stratification is possible for rare diseases, demonstrating a \"high-bar\" to justify population-based screening. Importantly, we demonstrate that the risk-difference, Youdens index, and AUC measure only multiplicative relative gains in risk-stratification: AUC=0.6 achieves only 20% of maximum risk-stratification (AUC=0.9 achieves 80%). However, large relative gains in risk-stratification might not imply large absolute gains if disease is rare or if the test is rarely positive. We illustrate MRS by our experience comparing the performance of cervical cancer screening tests in China vs. the USA. The test with the worst AUC=0.72 in China (visual inspection with ascetic acid) provides twice the risk-stratification of the test with best AUC=0.83 in the USA (human papillomavirus and Pap cotesting) because China has three times more cervical precancer/cancer. MRS could be routinely calculated to better understand the clinical/public-health implications of standard diagnostic accuracy statistics.

Epidemiology

Collider Scope: How selection bias can induce spurious associations

Large-scale cross-sectional and cohort studies have transformed our understanding of the genetic and environmental determinants of health outcomes. However, the representativeness of these samples may be limited - either through selection into studies, or by attrition from studies over time. Here we explore the potential impact of this selection bias on results obtained from these studies, from the perspective that this amounts to conditioning on a collider (i.e., a form of collider bias). While it is acknowledged that selection bias will have a strong effect on representativeness and prevalence estimates, it is often assumed that it should not have a strong impact on estimates of associations. We argue that because selection can induce collider bias (which occurs when two variables independently influence a third variable, and that third variable is conditioned upon), selection can lead to substantially biased estimates of associations. In particular, selection related to phenotypes can bias associations with genetic variants associated with those phenotypes. In simulations, we show that even modest influences on selection into, or attrition from, a study can generate biased and potentially misleading estimates of both phenotypic and genotypic associations. Our results highlight the value of knowing which population your study sample is representative of. If the factors influencing selection and attrition are known, they can be adjusted for. For example, having DNA available on most participants in a birth cohort study offers the possibility of investigating the extent to which polygenic scores predict subsequent participation, which in turn would enable sensitivity analyses of the extent to which bias might distort estimates.\n\nKey MessagesSelection bias (including selective attrition) may limit the representativeness of large-scale cross-sectional and cohort studies.\n\nThis selection bias may induce collider bias (which occurs when two variables independently influence a third variable, and that variable is conditioned upon).\n\nThis may lead to substantially biased estimates of associations, including of genetic associations, even when selection / attrition is relatively modest.

Epidemiology

A comparative analysis of Chikungunya and Zika transmission

The recent global dissemination of Chikungunya and Zika has fostered public health concern worldwide. To better understand the drivers of transmission of these two arboviral diseases, we propose a joint analysis of Chikungunya and Zika epidemics in the same territories, taking into account the common epidemiological features of the epidemics: transmitted by the same vector, in the same environments, and observed by the same surveillance systems. We analyse eighteen outbreaks in French Polynesia and the French West Indies using a hierarchical time-dependent SIR model accounting for the effect of virus, location and weather on transmission, and based on a disease specific serial interval. We show that Chikungunya and Zika have similar transmission potential in the same territories (transmissibility ratio between Zika and Chikungunya of 1.04 [95% credible interval: 0.97; 1.13]), but that detection and reporting rates were different (around 19% for Zika and 40% for Chikungunya). Temperature variations between 22{degrees}C and 29{degrees}C did not alter transmission, but increased precipitation showed a dual effect, first reducing transmission after a two-week delay, then increasing it around five weeks later. The present study provides valuable information for risk assessment and introduces a modelling framework for the comparative analysis of arboviral infections that can be extended to other viruses and territories.

Epidemiology