Evaluating Vaccine Efficacy Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection

  1. Dan-Yu Lin
  2. Yu Gu
  3. Donglin Zeng
  4. Holly E Janes
  5. Peter B Gilbert

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Although interim results from several large, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials demonstrated high vaccine efficacy (VE) against symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it is unknown how effective the vaccines are in preventing people from becoming asymptomatically infected and potentially spreading the virus unwittingly. It is more difficult to evaluate VE against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection than against symptomatic COVID-19 because infection is not observed directly but rather is known to occur between 2 antibody or reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests. Additional challenges arise as community transmission changes over time and as participants are vaccinated on different dates because of staggered enrollment of participants or crossover of placebo recipients to the vaccine arm before the end of the study. Here, we provide valid and efficient statistical methods for estimating potentially waning VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection with blood or nasal samples under time-varying community transmission, staggered enrollment, and blinded or unblinded crossover. We demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed methods through numerical studies that mimic the BNT162b2 phase 3 trial and the Prevent COVID U study. In addition, we assess how crossover and the frequency of diagnostic tests affect the precision of VE estimates.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1093/cid/ciab630
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.16.21255614: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.04.16.21255614 on medRxiv