On Measuring Vaccine Effectiveness with Observational Study Designs

Authors

  • Farrokh Habibzadeh Global Virus Network, Middle East Region, Shiraz
  • Parham Habibzadeh Division of Clinical Care and Research, Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore
  • Mahboobeh Yadollahie Freelance Researcher, Shiraz

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5644/ama2006-124.383

Keywords:

Vaccines, Research Design, Cohort Studies, Case-Control Studies, SARS-CoV-2

Abstract

Herein, we present a bird’s eye view of common observational study designs utilized for measurement of vaccine effectiveness. Assessing vaccines effectiveness is an integral part of vaccine research, particularly for the newly developed vaccines. A cohort study is prospective, directing from an exposure to one or more outcomes. The design is the best method to ascertain the attack rate of an infectious disease. A traditional case-control study is retrospective, directing from a given outcome to one or more exposures. The design cannot provide the relative risk, but it can provide the odds ratio, which is a good estimation of the relative risk when the attack rate is low. Critically depending on laboratory test results and performance, the test-negative case-control study design is another type of observational study commonly used nowadays for the evaluation of the vaccine effectiveness. Comparing to cohort and traditional case-control designs, conducting a test-negative case-control study is relatively cheaper and faster. Herein, we describe each of the above-mentioned study designs through examples generated by a Monte-Carlo simulation program assuming real-world conditions.

Conclusion. The simulation shows that regardless of the study design employed, the diagnostic test specificity is of utmost importance in providing a valid estimate of the vaccine effectiveness.

Downloads

Published

16.12.2022

Issue

Section

Lessons in Biostatistics

How to Cite

On Measuring Vaccine Effectiveness with Observational Study Designs. (2022). Acta Medica Academica, 51(2), 134-146. https://doi.org/10.5644/ama2006-124.383

Most read articles by the same author(s)