DOCSLIB.ORG

Ethics of Vaccine Research

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ethics of Vaccine Research COMMENTARY Ethics of vaccine research Christine Grady Vaccination has attracted controversy at every stage of its development and use. Ethical debates should consider its basic goal, which is to benefit the community at large rather than the individual. accines truly represent one of the mira- include value, validity, fair subject selection, the context in which it will be used and Vcles of modern science. Responsible for favorable risk/benefit ratio, independent acceptable to those who will use it. This reducing morbidity and mortality from sev- review, informed consent and respect for assessment considers details about the pub- eral formidable diseases, vaccines have made enrolled participants. Applying these princi- lic health need (such as the prevalence, bur- substantial contributions to global public ples to vaccine research allows consideration den and natural history of the disease, as health. Generally very safe and effective, vac- of some of the particular challenges inherent well as existing strategies to prevent or con- cines are also an efficient and cost-effective in testing vaccines (Box 1). trol it), the scientific data and possibilities way of preventing disease. Yet, despite their Ethically salient features of clinical vac- (preclinical and clinical data, expected brilliant successes, vaccines have always been cine research include the fact that it involves mechanism of action and immune corre- controversial. Concerns about the safety and healthy subjects, often (or ultimately) chil- lates) and the likely use of the vaccine (who untoward effects of vaccines, about disturb- dren and usually (at least when testing effi- will use and benefit from it, safety, cost, dis- ing the natural order, about compelling indi- cacy) in very large numbers. Furthermore, tribution, political will, acceptability and so viduals to be vaccinated for the public good in vaccine research, individuals are asked to on). An important consideration is the and the injustices of uneven access to the accept risk for the public good and the value of the research for those participating http://www.nature.com/natureimmunology benefits of vaccines have been interwoven prospect of ‘provisional’ benefit. Finding in the vaccine testing and how it will be throughout the history of vaccines and safe and effective vaccines benefits the pub- maximized through dissemination of remain controversial today1–3. Such contro- lic health through reducing the burden of knowledge gained, product development, versies and the scientific complexities and disease among individual members of the long-term research collaboration and/or successes that fuel them raise considerable public and indirectly protecting unvacci- health system improvements. No judgment of ethical challenges in the development, public nated members of the public through ‘herd value is straightforward or immune from crit- health use and social acceptability of vac- immunity’. Individual benefit is ‘provi- icism, however, as illustrated by the following cines. This commentary will broadly con- sional’, however, because individuals benefit example in which the value of vaccine sider one aspect of these ethical challenges in directly from investigational vaccines only if research was in dispute. An effective rotavirus the clinical testing of vaccines. they are sufficiently exposed to the infec- vaccine was pulled from the US market Vaccine development is a lengthy, expen- tious agent at some future time, had because of a high incidence of intussuscep- sive and multifaceted process of basic and received the active vaccine and had been tion in vaccinated children. Consequently, clinical research, production, licensing and sufficiently protected. debates ensued about proceeding with large © 2004 Nature Publishing Group marketing. Clinical testing, usually with large trials planned in developing countries numbers of healthy subjects, is an integral Value where disease burden and vaccine efficacy and essential part of the process. Principles, According to the framework, the first ethi- might differ. Debates highlighted differing codes and norms of ethics guiding the ethical cal requirement is that the research ques- risk-benefit calculations in developing conduct of all clinical research apply to vac- tion have potential social or scientific value countries in which childhood deaths from cine research, yet most such guidance con- to justify exposing individuals to research rotavirus were high, as well as how accep- centrates on therapeutic clinical trials of risks and inconvenience. Research that can tance of vaccine might be compromised by interventions for individuals seeking treat- improve health or increase useful knowl- the US decision6,7. Assessing the value of ment. Little specific attention has been given edge has value. Determining the value of a this research was clearly, and appropriately, to how the ethics of vaccine trials differ. vaccine trial calls for an understanding that context dependent. “…the major purpose is to determine Applying a framework for ethical research whether a vaccine is of use as a public Validity One framework for ethical clinical research health tool. This is in contrast to the many A valuable research question ethically synthesizes and simplifies guidance found in large scale therapeutic trials where the requires a valid research design and imple- existing codes and regulations and describes objective is to determine what is best for mentation. Carefully chosen and rigorous seven principles universally applicable to eth- individuals. Yet, our ethical system is built study design, methodology and implemen- ical clinical research4. The seven principles around individuality…”5. tation strategies appropriate to the research Although vaccines have considerable question, and likely to provide interpretable public health value, it does not necessarily generalizable data, also are balanced by con- Christine Grady is in the Department of Clinical follow that every vaccine research proposal siderations of fairness and minimizing risk. Bioethics, Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center, has social or scientific value. A specific vac- In ensuring that the scientific design of a National Institutes of Health, Building 10/1C118, cine study or program’s value depends on its vaccine trial realizes social value for the pri- Bethesda, Maryland 20892-1156, USA. contribution to the goal of finding a safe, mary beneficiaries, several controversial e-mail: [email protected] effective and available vaccine useful within design and methodological issues can arise. NATURE IMMUNOLOGY VOLUME 5 NUMBER 5 MAY 2004 465 COMMENTARY BOX 1 FRAMEWORK APPLIED TO VACCINE RESEARCH is used in some places but not others, the jus- tification for and choice of a control can be Elements of ethical research Specific considerations more difficult. The use of placebo controls Value • Public health need in one arm of National Institutes of •Scientific possibility Health–sponsored acellular pertussis vac- • Social acceptability cine trials in Sweden and Italy, for example, • Political will was criticized despite a previous decision by Validity • Endpoints and measurement of efficacy the Swedish and Italian governments not to • Choice of control (such as placebo) routinely use the available whole killed per- • Randomization tussis vaccine10. These trials could not have •Feasibility of recruitment and follow-up been done in the US, where pertussis vaccine Fair subject selection • Large numbers of healthy subjects, is required for children to go to school. often including children Randomization, a powerful research tool • Participants in developing countries used to balance comparison groups, is a common feature of vaccine trials. Favorable risk/benefit ratio • Risks to individuals: physical, social, Randomization raises ethical questions confidentiality, future trials about participant autonomy, especially as • Risk of no protection empirical data show that randomization is •Provisional benefit to individual • Benefits to community and public good poorly understood by research subjects. • Fair benefit evaluations Although most phase 3 vaccine efficacy trials randomize individuals to demonstrate the Independent review • Familiarity with vaccine research direct protective effects of vaccine, some • International settings studies use cluster randomization or ran- Informed consent • Misconceptions about vaccines domization by community or group. http://www.nature.com/natureimmunology • Cultural and social differences Although often justified by the need to eval- • Community permission uate herd immunity and indirect as well as Respect for enrolled participants • Monitoring welfare direct protection from a vaccine, community • Right to withdraw randomization could be seen as jeopardizing •Treatment and/or compensation for the autonomy rights of individuals within vaccine-induced injury randomized communities. Ethically, it is necessary to ensure that a research study is feasible given the social, polit- Carefully defined endpoints, for example, serve many important scientific and public ical and cultural environment. In this regard, a are essential for high-quality science as well health purposes, addressing questions about feasible strategy for recruiting a large sample as ethical science. Although some vaccines etiology, pathogenicity, pathogenesis, and following them over time is essential. prevent infection, many alter the course of immune response and protection9. Although infection and have their protective effect
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FORMULAS from EPIDEMIOLOGY KEPT SIMPLE (3E) Chapter 3: Epidemiologic Measures
    FORMULAS FROM EPIDEMIOLOGY KEPT SIMPLE (3e) Chapter 3: Epidemiologic Measures Basic epidemiologic measures used to quantify: • frequency of occurrence • the effect of an exposure • the potential impact of an intervention. Epidemiologic Measures Measures of disease Measures of Measures of potential frequency association impact (“Measures of Effect”) Incidence Prevalence Absolute measures of Relative measures of Attributable Fraction Attributable Fraction effect effect in exposed cases in the Population Incidence proportion Incidence rate Risk difference Risk Ratio (Cumulative (incidence density, (Incidence proportion (Incidence Incidence, Incidence hazard rate, person- difference) Proportion Ratio) Risk) time rate) Incidence odds Rate Difference Rate Ratio (Incidence density (Incidence density difference) ratio) Prevalence Odds Ratio Difference Macintosh HD:Users:buddygerstman:Dropbox:eks:formula_sheet.doc Page 1 of 7 3.1 Measures of Disease Frequency No. of onsets Incidence Proportion = No. at risk at beginning of follow-up • Also called risk, average risk, and cumulative incidence. • Can be measured in cohorts (closed populations) only. • Requires follow-up of individuals. No. of onsets Incidence Rate = ∑person-time • Also called incidence density and average hazard. • When disease is rare (incidence proportion < 5%), incidence rate ≈ incidence proportion. • In cohorts (closed populations), it is best to sum individual person-time longitudinally. It can also be estimated as Σperson-time ≈ (average population size) × (duration of follow-up). Actuarial adjustments may be needed when the disease outcome is not rare. • In an open populations, Σperson-time ≈ (average population size) × (duration of follow-up). Examples of incidence rates in open populations include: births Crude birth rate (per m) = × m mid-year population size deaths Crude mortality rate (per m) = × m mid-year population size deaths < 1 year of age Infant mortality rate (per m) = × m live births No.
    [Show full text]
  • Statistical Guidance on Reporting Results from Studies Evaluating Diagnostic Tests Document Issued On: March 13, 2007
    Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff Statistical Guidance on Reporting Results from Studies Evaluating Diagnostic Tests Document issued on: March 13, 2007 The draft of this document was issued on March 12, 2003. For questions regarding this document, contact Kristen Meier at 240-276-3060, or send an e-mail to [email protected]. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health Diagnostic Devices Branch Division of Biostatistics Office of Surveillance and Biometrics Contains Nonbinding Recommendations Preface Public Comment Written comments and suggestions may be submitted at any time for Agency consideration to the Division of Dockets Management, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061, (HFA-305), Rockville, MD, 20852. Alternatively, electronic comments may be submitted to http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments. When submitting comments, please refer to Docket No. 2003D-0044. Comments may not be acted upon by the Agency until the document is next revised or updated. Additional Copies Additional copies are available from the Internet at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/osb/guidance/1620.pdf. You may also send an e-mail request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the guidance or send a fax request to 240-276-3151 to receive a hard copy. Please use the document number 1620 to identify the guidance you are requesting. Contains Nonbinding Recommendations Table of Contents 1. Background....................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Estimated HIV Incidence and Prevalence in the United States
    Volume 26, Number 1 Estimated HIV Incidence and Prevalence in the United States, 2015–2019 This issue of the HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report is published by the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia. Estimates are presented for the incidence and prevalence of HIV infection among adults and adolescents (aged 13 years and older) based on data reported to CDC through December 2020. The HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report is not copyrighted and may be used and reproduced without permission. Citation of the source is, however, appreciated. Suggested citation Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Estimated HIV incidence and prevalence in the United States, 2015–2019. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report 2021;26(No. 1). http://www.cdc.gov/ hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance.html. Published May 2021. Accessed [date]. On the Web: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance.html Confidential information, referrals, and educational material on HIV infection CDC-INFO 1-800-232-4636 (in English, en Español) 1-888-232-6348 (TTY) http://wwwn.cdc.gov/dcs/ContactUs/Form Acknowledgments Publication of this report was made possible by the contributions of the state and territorial health departments and the HIV surveillance programs that provided surveillance data to CDC. This report was prepared by the following staff and contractors of the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, CDC: Laurie Linley, Anna Satcher Johnson, Ruiguang Song, Sherry Hu, Baohua Wu, H.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Relative Risk, Odds Ratio, and Related Terms: As Simple As It Can Get Chittaranjan Andrade, MD
    Understanding Relative Risk, Odds Ratio, and Related Terms: As Simple as It Can Get Chittaranjan Andrade, MD Each month in his online Introduction column, Dr Andrade Many research papers present findings as odds ratios (ORs) and considers theoretical and relative risks (RRs) as measures of effect size for categorical outcomes. practical ideas in clinical Whereas these and related terms have been well explained in many psychopharmacology articles,1–5 this article presents a version, with examples, that is meant with a view to update the knowledge and skills to be both simple and practical. Readers may note that the explanations of medical practitioners and examples provided apply mostly to randomized controlled trials who treat patients with (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies. Nevertheless, similar psychiatric conditions. principles operate when these concepts are applied in epidemiologic Department of Psychopharmacology, National Institute research. Whereas the terms may be applied slightly differently in of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India different explanatory texts, the general principles are the same. ([email protected]). ABSTRACT Clinical Situation Risk, and related measures of effect size (for Consider a hypothetical RCT in which 76 depressed patients were categorical outcomes) such as relative risks and randomly assigned to receive either venlafaxine (n = 40) or placebo odds ratios, are frequently presented in research (n = 36) for 8 weeks. During the trial, new-onset sexual dysfunction articles. Not all readers know how these statistics was identified in 8 patients treated with venlafaxine and in 3 patients are derived and interpreted, nor are all readers treated with placebo. These results are presented in Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 Mrna Vaccine Clinical Trials
    medicina Perspective Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials Ronald B. Brown School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L3G1, Canada; [email protected] Abstract: Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the public. The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy. The present article uses clinical epidemiologic tools to critically appraise reports of efficacy in Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine clinical trials. Based on data reported by the manufacturer for Pfzier/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2, this critical appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 95.1%; 95% CI, 90.0% to 97.6%; p = 0.016; absolute risk reduction, 0.7%; 95% CI, 0.59% to 0.83%; p < 0.000. For the Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273, the appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 94.1%; 95% CI, 89.1% to 96.8%; p = 0.004; absolute risk reduction, 1.1%; 95% CI, 0.97% to 1.32%; p < 0.000. Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy. Keywords: mRNA vaccine; COVID-19 vaccine; vaccine efficacy; relative risk reduction; absolute risk reduction; number needed to vaccinate; outcome reporting bias; clinical epidemiology; critical appraisal; evidence-based medicine Citation: Brown, R.B.
    [Show full text]
  • Disease Incidence, Prevalence and Disability
    Part 3 Disease incidence, prevalence and disability 9. How many people become sick each year? 28 10. Cancer incidence by site and region 29 11. How many people are sick at any given time? 31 12. Prevalence of moderate and severe disability 31 13. Leading causes of years lost due to disability in 2004 36 World Health Organization 9. How many people become sick each such as diarrhoeal disease or malaria, it is common year? for individuals to be infected repeatedly and have several episodes. For such conditions, the number The “incidence” of a condition is the number of new given in the table is the number of disease episodes, cases in a period of time – usually one year (Table 5). rather than the number of individuals affected. For most conditions in this table, the figure given is It is important to remember that the incidence of the number of individuals who developed the illness a disease or condition measures how many people or problem in 2004. However, for some conditions, are affected by it for the first time over a period of Table 5: Incidence (millions) of selected conditions by WHO region, 2004 Eastern The Mediter- South- Western World Africa Americas ranean Europe East Asia Pacific Tuberculosisa 7.8 1.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 2.8 2.1 HIV infectiona 2.8 1.9 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 Diarrhoeal diseaseb 4 620.4 912.9 543.1 424.9 207.1 1 276.5 1 255.9 Pertussisb 18.4 5.2 1.2 1.6 0.7 7.5 2.1 Measlesa 27.1 5.3 0.0e 1.0 0.2 17.4 3.3 Tetanusa 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 Meningitisb 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 Malariab 241.3 203.9 2.9 8.6 0.0 23.3 2.7
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 Vaccine Trials
    COVID-19 VACCINE TRIALS SUMMARY OF PFIZER AND MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE RESULTS Some of the most common concerns voiced involve the A review of unblinded reactogenicity data from the speed with which these vaccines were developed and final analysis which consisted of a randomized subset whether they are safe or not. How were the companies of at least 8,000 participants 18 years and older in able to get these vaccines developed and ready for the phase 2/3 study demonstrates that the vaccine distribution so fast? Were they tested in persons who was well tolerated, with most solicited adverse events are most vulnerable? Are the vaccines safe? resolving shortly after vaccination. Even though COVID-19 vaccines were developed at While the vaccine was well tolerated overall, and side an extraordinary speed, companies were required effects lasted for only a day or two, persons taking to take all of the regulatory and operational steps the vaccine should be aware that the side effects normally required for all vaccine trials, so none of are more than is seen in general for the flu vaccine these steps were skipped. What did occur that does and be prepared for them. Most side effects were not normally occur was some upfront financial mild to moderate and included injection-site pain, assistance from the federal government (Moderna redness and swelling at the injection site, fatigue/ accepted, Pfizer declined) and federal regulatory tiredness, headache, chills, muscle pain, and joint agencies working closely with the companies, pain. “Severe” side effects, defined as those that providing near real-time data with companies prevent persons from continuing daily activities were receiving review and advice more quickly.
    [Show full text]
  • Prevalence and Determinants of Vaccine Hesitancy and Vaccines Recommendation Discrepancies Among General Practitioners in French-Speaking Parts of Belgium
    Article Prevalence and Determinants of Vaccine Hesitancy and Vaccines Recommendation Discrepancies among General Practitioners in French-Speaking Parts of Belgium Cathy Gobert 1, Pascal Semaille 2, Thierry Van der Schueren 3 , Pierre Verger 4 and Nicolas Dauby 1,5,6,* 1 Department of Infectious Diseases, CHU Saint-Pierre, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 1000 Bruxelles, Belgium; [email protected] 2 Department of General Medicine, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 1070 Bruxelles, Belgium; [email protected] 3 Scientific Society of General Practice, 1060 Bruxelles, Belgium; [email protected] 4 Southeastern Health Regional Observatory (ORS PACA), 13005 Marseille, France; [email protected] 5 School of Public Health, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 1070 Bruxelles, Belgium 6 Institute for Medical Immunology, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 1070 Bruxelles, Belgium * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: General practitioners (GPs) play a critical role in patient acceptance of vaccination. Vaccine hesitancy (VH) is a growing phenomenon in the general population but also affects GPs. Few data exist on VH among GPs. The objectives of this analysis of a population of GPs in the Belgian Wallonia-Brussels Federation (WBF) were to: (1) determine the prevalence and the features of VH, (2) identify the correlates, and (3) estimate the discrepancy in vaccination’s behaviors between the GPs’ children and the recommendations made to their patients. An online survey was carried out Citation: Gobert, C.; Semaille, P.; Van among the population of general practitioners practicing in the WBF between 7 January and 18 der Schueren, T.; Verger, P.; Dauby, N. March 2020. A hierarchical cluster analysis was carried out based on various dimensions of vaccine Prevalence and Determinants of hesitancy: perception of the risks and the usefulness of vaccines as well as vaccine recommendations Vaccine Hesitancy and Vaccines for their patients.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant-Based COVID-19 Vaccines: Current Status, Design, and Development Strategies of Candidate Vaccines
    Review Plant-Based COVID-19 Vaccines: Current Status, Design, and Development Strategies of Candidate Vaccines Puna Maya Maharjan 1 and Sunghwa Choe 2,3,* 1 G+FLAS Life Sciences, 123 Uiryodanji-gil, Osong-eup, Heungdeok-gu, Cheongju-si 28161, Korea; punamaya.maharjan@gflas.com 2 G+FLAS Life Sciences, 38 Nakseongdae-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08790, Korea 3 School of Biological Sciences, College of Natural Sciences, Seoul National University, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Korea * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The prevalence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in its second year has led to massive global human and economic losses. The high transmission rate and the emergence of diverse SARS-CoV-2 variants demand rapid and effective approaches to preventing the spread, diagnosing on time, and treating affected people. Several COVID-19 vaccines are being developed using different production systems, including plants, which promises the production of cheap, safe, stable, and effective vaccines. The potential of a plant-based system for rapid production at a commercial scale and for a quick response to an infectious disease outbreak has been demonstrated by the marketing of carrot-cell-produced taliglucerase alfa (Elelyso) for Gaucher disease and tobacco- produced monoclonal antibodies (ZMapp) for the 2014 Ebola outbreak. Currently, two plant-based COVID-19 vaccine candidates, coronavirus virus-like particle (CoVLP) and Kentucky Bioprocessing (KBP)-201, are in clinical trials, and many more are in the preclinical stage. Interim phase 2 clinical Citation: Maharjan, P.M.; Choe, S. trial results have revealed the high safety and efficacy of the CoVLP vaccine, with 10 times more Plant-Based COVID-19 Vaccines: neutralizing antibody responses compared to those present in a convalescent patient’s plasma.
    [Show full text]
  • EPI Case Study 1 Incidence, Prevalence, and Disease
    EPIDEMIOLOGY CASE STUDY 1: Incidence, Prevalence, and Disease Surveillance; Historical Trends in the Epidemiology of M. tuberculosis STUDENT VERSION 1.0 EPI Case Study 1: Incidence, Prevalence, and Disease Surveillance; Historical Trends in the Epidemiology of M. tuberculosis Estimated Time to Complete Exercise: 30 minutes LEARNING OBJECTIVES At the completion of this Case Study, participants should be able to: ¾ Explain why denominators are necessary when comparing changes in morbidity and mortality over time ¾ Distinguish between incidence rates and prevalence ratios ¾ Calculate and interpret cause-specific morbidity and mortality rates ¾ Describe how changes in mortality or morbidity could be due to an artifact rather than a real change ASPH EPIDEMIOLOGY COMPETENCIES ADDRESSED C. 3. Describe a public health problem in terms of magnitude, person, place, and time C. 6. Apply the basic terminology and definitions of epidemiology C. 7. Calculate basic epidemiology measures C. 9. Draw appropriate inference from epidemiologic data C. 10. Evaluate the strengths and limitations of epidemiologic reports ASPH INTERDISCIPLINARY/CROSS-CUTTING COMPETENCIES ADDRESSED F.1. [Communication and Informatics] Describe how the public health information infrastructure is used to collect, process, maintain, and disseminate data J.1. [Professionalism] Discuss sentinel events in the history and development of the public health profession and their relevance for practice in the field L.2. [Systems Thinking] Identify unintended consequences produced by changes made to a public health system This material was developed by the staff at the Global Tuberculosis Institute (GTBI), one of four Regional Training and Medical Consultation Centers funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is published for learning purposes only.
    [Show full text]
  • Likelihood Ratios, Predictive Values, and Post-Test Probabilities The
    Likelihood ratios, predictive values, and post-test probabilities The purpose of this quick tutorial is to help you better understand how to use likelihood ratios (LRs), predictive values (PVs), and post-test probabilities in medical writing. The key point is that LRs are calculated differently depending on whether a test has only two possible results (dichotomous), or whether it has more than two possible outcomes (multichotomous). Examples of the latter include a clinical decision rule (CDR) that identifies low, moderate and high-risk groups, or reporting serum ferritin as < 20, 20 – 60, 61 – 100, and > 100 mg/dl. Dichotomous tests A likelihood ratio (LR) for a dichotomous test is defined as the likelihood of a test result in patients with the disease divided by the likelihood of the test result in patients without the disease. For example, the likelihood of abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in patients with colorectal cancer, divided by the likelihood of an abnormal FIT in those without cancer. A LR close to 1 means that the test result does not change the likelihood of disease or the outcome of interest appreciably. The more the likelihood ratio for a positive test (LR+) is greater than 1, the more likely the disease or outcome. The more a likelihood ratio for a negative test is less than 1, the less likely the disease or outcome. Thus, LRs correspond nicely to the clinical concepts of ruling in and ruling out disease. One suggested way to interpret LR is as follows (Ebell, 2005 Information Mastery AAFP Home Study): > 10 Large
    [Show full text]
  • Considerations for the Design of Vaccine Efficacy Trials During Public Health Emergencies
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/261875; this version posted February 13, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-ND 4.0 International license. Considerations for the design of vaccine efficacy trials during public health emergencies Natalie E. Dean1*, Pierre-Stéphane Gsell2, Ron Brookmeyer3, Victor De Gruttola4, Christl A. Donnelly5, M. Elizabeth Halloran6,7, Momodou Jasseh8, Martha Nason9, Ximena Riveros2, Conall Watson10, Ana Maria Henao-Restrepo2, Ira M. Longini, Jr.1* 1Department of Biostatistics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 2World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. 3Department of Biostatistics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4Department of Biostatistics, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA. 5MRC Centre for Outbreak Analysis and Modelling, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK. 6Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 7Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 8Medical Research Council, Banjul, The Gambia. 9Biostatistics Research Branch, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Rockville, MD, USA. 10Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. *To whom correspondence should be addressed: [email protected] or [email protected], Dauer Hall, PO Box 117450, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA. +1 (352) 294-1945 One Sentence Summary: As part of the WHO research and development Blueprint for action to prevent epidemics, we describe key considerations for the design and analysis of trials and studies to evaluate experimental vaccines during public health emergencies.
    [Show full text]