Aşı epidemiyolojisi: aşı etkililiği için epidemiyolojik çalışma tasarımları

Abstract

Yeterli etkinliği gösterilmiş ve lisans almış bir aşının bir toplumda uygulanmasıyla ilgili hastalıktan korunma düzeyi ideal olmayan saha koşullarında, gözlemsel epidemiyolojik çalışmalarla belirlenen ‘aşı etkililiği’ ile ölçülür. Toplumda ilgili hastalık insidandaki azalmanın uygulanan aşılamadan mı, aşılama dışındaki nedenlerden mi kaynaklandığının belirlenmesi için, aşı etkililiği sürveyansın bir parçası olarak rutin izlenmelidir. Bu nedenle aşı etkililiği çalışmaları halk sağlığı eylemleri için önemli bir role sahiptir. Kohort ve olgu kontrol çalışmaları gibi klasik gözlemsel epidemiyolojik çalışmalara alternatif olarak geliştirilen çeşitli çalışma tasarımları da aşı etkililiğini belirlemek için kullanılabilir. İlgili aşı ve hastalığa ve mevcut olanaklara göre kohort ve olgu kontrol çalışmalarının yanı sıra indirekt kohort yöntemi, test negatif olgu kontrol tasarımı, olgu olgu çalışması, tarama yöntemi, hane halkı temas çalışması gibi alternatif tasarımlardan uygun olan kullanılarak aşı etkililiği belirlenebilir. Bu tasarımlardan başka olgu kohort çalışması, iç içe olgu-kontrol çalışması, insidans yoğunluğu olgu kontrol tasarımı gibi farklı alanlarda kullanılmakta olan tasarımlar da aşı etkililiğini belirlemek için seçilebilecek tasarımlar arasındadır. Ancak bu tasarımların hiç birinin mükemmel olmadığı ve çeşitli genel varsayımların yanı sıra tasarıma göre farklı varsayımlar altında yürütülmeleri gerektiği unutulmamalıdır. getirilmediği ölçüde aşı etkililiği tahmini gerçek değerinden uzaklaşır. Aşılı veya aşısız gruptaki atak Gerekli varsayımların yerine hızını olduğundan daha az veya daha fazla gösteren herhangi bir faktör aşı etkililiği tahmininde taraf tutmaya yol açar. Bu faktörlerin tasarım aşamasında veya analiz sırasında mümkün olduğunca kontrol edilmesi gerekir. Aşı etkililiği tahminlerinin yanıltıcı olmaması için uygun tasarımın seçilmesi ve seçilen tasarıma göre gereken varsayımlar, olası taraf tutma kaynakları ve karıştırıcılar çalışmanın planlama aşamasında ve çalışma sonuçları yorumlanırken mutlaka göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır

Keywords

• Aşı etkililiği, aşı epidemiyolojisi, çalışma tasarımları

Vaccine epidemiology: epidemiologic study designs for vaccine effectiveness

Abstract

Protection level against a disease of interest by application of a licenced vaccine whose effectiveness has been proved in a population is measured by “vaccine effectiveness” which is determined with observational epidemiological studies conducted under non-ideal field conditions. For determination of whether decrease in incidence of related disease in a population is due to vaccination or other reasons rather than vaccination, vaccine effectiveness should be monitored as a routine part of the surveillance. Therefore, vaccine effectiveness studies play an important role in public health actions. Various other study designs that are developed as an alternative to classical observational epidemiological studies such as cohort and case-control studies can also be used in determination of vaccine effectiveness. In accordance with related vaccine and disease and current facilities, vaccine effectiveness can be determined by using appropriate one of the alternative designs such as indirect cohort method, test-negative case-control design, case-case study, the screening method, household contact study, as well as cohort and case-control studies. Additionally, study designs which are used in other fields such as case-cohort study, nested case-control study, incidence density case-control design are among the designs that can be chosen for determination of vaccine effectiveness. However, it should be remembered that none of them is perfect and they should be performed under different assumptions related with each design, as well as various general assumptions. How necessary assumptions are not fulfilled, estimation of vaccine effectiveness will go far from its actual value. Any

Keywords

• Vaccine effectiveness, vaccine epidemiology, study designs

References

1. World Bank. World development report 1993: investing in health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993: 72-107.
2. Weinberg GA, Szilagyi PG. Vaccine epidemiology: efficacy, effectiveness, and the translational research roadmap. J Infect Dis, 2010; 201(11): 1607-10.
3. Begg N, Miller E. Role of epidemiology in vaccine policy. Vaccine, 1990; 8(3): 180-9.
4. Chen RT, Orenstein WA. Epidemiological methods in immünization programs. Epidemiol Rev, 1996; 18(2): 99-117.
5. Torvaldsen S, McIntyre PB. Observational methods in epidemiologic assessment of vaccine effectiveness. Commun Dis Intell Q Rep, 2002; 26(3): 451-7.
6. Hanquet G, Valenciano M, Simondon F, Moren A. Vaccine effects and impact of vaccination programmes in post-licensure studies. Vaccine, 2013; 31(48): 5634-42.
7. Simpson CR, Lone NI, Kavanagh K, Ritchie LD, Robertson C, Sheikh A, et al. Trivalent inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed influenza in a Scottish population 2000 to 2009. Euro Surveill, 2015; 20 (8).
8. De Serres G, Pilishvili T, Link-Gelles R, Reingold A, Gershman K, Petit S, et al. Use of surveillance data to estimate the effectiveness of the 7-valent conjugate pneumococcal vaccine in children less than 5 years of age over a 9 year period. Vaccine, 2012; 30 (27): 4067-72.

9. Puig-Barberà J, Díez-Domingo J, Arnedo-Pena A, Ruiz-García M, Pérez-Vilar S, Micó-Esparza JL,et al. Effectiveness of the 2010-2011 seasonal influenza vaccine in preventing confirmed influenza hospitalizations in adults: a case-case comparison, case-control study. Vaccine, 2012; 30(39): 5714-20.
10. Castilla J, Beristain X, Martínez-Artola V, Navascués A, García Cenoz M, Alvarez N, et al. Effectiveness of rotavirus vaccines in preventing cases and hospitalizations due to rotavirus gastroenteritis in Navarre, Spain. Vaccine, 2012; 30(3): 539-43.
11. Cohen AL, Taylor T Jr, Farley MM, Schaffner W, Lesher LJ, Gershman KA, et al. An assessment of the screening method to evaluate vaccine effectiveness: the case of 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in the United States. PLoS One, 2012; 7(8) :e41785.
12. Seward JF, Zhang JX, Maupin TJ, Mascola L, Jumaan AO. Contagiousness of varicella in vaccinated cases: a household contact study. JAMA, 2004; 292(6): 704-8.
13. Kupek E, de Souza DE, Petry A. Effectiveness of DNA-recombinant anti-hepatitis B vaccines in blood donors: a cohort study. BMC Infect Dis, 2007; 7: 124.
14. Dabrera G, Amirthalingam G, Andrews N, Campbell H, Ribeiro S, Kara E, et al. A case-control study to estimate the effectiveness of maternal pertussis vaccination in protecting newborn infants in England and Wales, 2012-2013. Clin Infect Dis, 2015; 60(3): 333-7.
15. Greenwood M, Yule GU. The Statistics of Anti- typhoid and Anti-cholera Inoculations, and the Interpretation of such Statistics in general. Proc R Soc Med, 1915; 8 (Sect Epidemiol State Med): 113-94. Haber M, Longini IM Jr, Halloran ME. Measures of the effects of vaccination in a randomly mixing population. Int J Epidemiol, 1991; 20: 300–10.
16. Clemens J1, Brenner R, Rao M, Tafari N, Lowe C. Evaluating new vaccines for developing countries. Efficacy or effectiveness? JAMA, 1996; 275(5): 390-7. Shim E, Galvani AP. Distinguishing vaccine efficacy and effectiveness. Vaccine, 2012; 30(47): 6700–5.
17. Orenstein WA, Bernier RH, Hinman AR. Assessing vaccine efficacy in the field. Further observations. Epidemiol Rev, 1988; 10: 212-41.
18. Fine PE, Clarkson JA. Reflections on the efficacy of pertussis vaccines. Rev Infect Dis, 1987; 9: 866- 83.
19. Fine PE. Implications of different study designs for the evaluation of acellular pertussis vaccines. Dev Biol Stand, 1997; 89: 123-33.
20. dos Santos Silva I. Cancer epidemiology: principles and methods. Geneva, Switzerland. International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, 1999.
21. Cherry JD, Olin P. The science and fiction of pertussis vaccines. Pediatrics, 1999; 104: 1381-4.
22. Palmer SR. Vaccine efficacy and control measures in pertussis. Arch Dis Child, 1991; 66: 854-7.
23. Lister S, McIntyre P, Burgess M, O'Brien ED. Immunisation coverage in Australian children: a systematic review. Commun Dis Intell, 1999; 23: 145-70.
24. Mühlemann K, Weiss NS. Can herd immünity influence the assessment of vaccine efficacy in nonrandomized studies? Am J Public Health, 1997; 87: 113.
25. Lone NI, Simpson C, Kavanagh K, Robertson C, McMenamin J, Ritchie L, et al. Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in the community (SIVE): protocol for a cohort study exploiting aunique national linked data set. BMJ Open, 2012; 2(2): e001019.
26. Galloway Y, Stehr-Green P, McNicholas A, O'Hallahan J. Use of an observational cohort study to estimate the effectiveness of the New Zealand group B meningococcal vaccine in children aged under 5 years.Int J Epidemiol, 2009; 38(2): 413-8.
27. Mahamud A, Kamadjeu R, Webeck J, Mbaeyi C, Baranyikwa MT, Birungi J, et al. Effectiveness of oral polio vaccination against paralytic poliomyelitis: a matched case-control study in Somalia. J Infect Dis, 2014; 210 (Suppl 1): 187-93.
28. Richard JL, Zwahlen M, Feuz M, Matter HC; Swiss Sentinel Surveillance Network. Comparison of the effectiveness of two mumps vaccines during an outbreak in Switzerland in 1999 and 2000: a case-cohort study. Eur J Epidemiol, 2003; 18(6): 569-77.
29. Hennessy S, Liu Z, Tsai TF, Strom BL, Wan CM, Liu HL, et al. Effectiveness of live-attenuated Japanese encephalitis vaccine (SA14-14-2): a case-control study. Lancet, 1996; 347(9015): 1583-6.
30. Hak E, Wei F, Grobbee DE, Nichol KL. A nested case-control study of influenza vaccination was a cost-effective alternative to a full cohort analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004; 57(9): 875-80. Orenstein WA, Bernier RH, Dondero TJ, Hinman AR, Marks JS,et al. Field evaluation of vaccine efficacy. Bull World Health Organ, 1985; 63: 1055-68.
31. Broome CV, Facklam RR, Fraser DW. Pneumococcal disease after pneumococcal vaccination: an alternative method to estimate the efficacy of pneumococcal vaccine. N Engl J Med, 1980; 303(10): 549-52.
32. Crépey P, de Boer PT, Postma MJ, Pitman R. Retrospective public health impact of a quadrivalent influenza vaccine in the United States.Influenza Other Respir Viruses, 2015; 9 (Suppl 1): 39-46.
33. Valenciano M, Kissling E, Ciancio BC, Moren A. Study designs for timely esti-mation of influenza vaccine effectiveness using European sentinel practitioner networks. Vaccine, 2010; 28(46): 7381–8.
34. Flannery B, Thaker SN, Clippard J, Monto AS, Ohmit SE, Zimmerman RK, et al. Interim Estimates of 2013–14 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness - United States, February 2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 2014; 63(7) :137-42.
35. Galanis E, Mak S, Otterstatter M, Taylor M, Zubel M, Takaro TK, et al. The association between campylobacteriosis, agriculture and drinking water: a case-case study in a region of British Columbia, Canada, 2005-2009. Epidemiol Infect, 2014; 142(10): 2075-84.
36. Zenner D, Janmohamed K, Lane C, Little C, Charlett A, Adak GK, et al. The serotype case- case design: a direct comparison of a novel methodology with a case-control study in a national Salmonella Enteritidis PT14b outbreak in England and Wales. Epidemiol Infect, 2013; 141(11): 2346-53.
37. Farrington CP. Estimation of vaccine effectiveness using the screening method.Int J Epidemiol, 1993; 22(4): 742–6.
38. Ivers LC, Hilaire IJ, Teng JE, Almazor CP, Jerome JG, Ternier R, et al. Effectiveness of reactive oral cholera vaccination in rural Haiti: a case-control study and bias-indicator analysis. Lancet Glob Health, 2015; 3(3) :e162-8.
39. Penny MA, Verity R, Bever CA, Sauboin C, Galactionova K, Flasche S, et al. Public health impact and cost-effectiveness of the RTS,S/ AS01 malaria vaccine: a systematic comparison of predictions from four mathematical models. Lancet, 2015 Nov 5. doi: 10.1016/S0140- 6736(15)00725-4.
40. White MT, Verity R, Churcher TS, Ghani AC. Vaccine approaches to malaria control and elimination: Insights from mathematical models. Vaccine, 2015; 33(52): 7544-50. Scott N, McBryde E, Vickerman P, Martin NK, Stone J, Drummer H, et al. The role of a hepatitis C virus vaccine: modelling the benefits alongside direct- acting antiviral treatments. BMC Med, 2015; 13: 198.
41. Ultsch B, Damm O, Beutels P, Bilcke J, Brüggenjürgen B, Gerber-Grote A, et al. Methods for Health Economic Evaluation of Vaccines and Immunization Decision Frameworks: A Consensus Framework from a European Vaccine Economics Community. Pharmacoeconomics, 2015 Oct 17. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0335-2.
42. Biggerstaff M, Reed C, Swerdlow DL, Gambhir M, Graitcer S, Finelli L, et al. Estimating the potential effects of a vaccine program against an emerging influenza pandemic--United States. Clin Infect Dis, 2015;60 (Suppl 1): 20-9.
43. Milne GJ, Halder N, Kelso JK, Barr IG, Moyes J, Kahn K, et al. Trivalent and quadrivalent influenza vaccination effectiveness in Australia and South Africa: results from a modelling study. Influenza Other Respir Viruses, 2015 Dec 12. doi: 10.1111/ irv.12367.
44. Drolet M, Laprise JF, Boily MC, Franco EL, Brisson M. Potential cost-effectiveness of the nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. Int J Cancer, 2014;134(9): 2264-8.
45. Weidemann F, Dehnert M, Koch J, Wichmann O, Höhle M. Modelling the epidemiological impact of rotavirus vaccination in Germany--a Bayesian approach. Vaccine, 2014; 32(40): 5250-7.