Confounding and Negative Control Methods in Observational Study of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Effectiveness: A Nationwide, Population-Based Danish Health Registry Study

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Niels Obel, Matthew P Fox, Malte M Tetens, Lars Pedersen, Tyra Grove Krause, Henrik Ullum, Henrik Toft Sørensen
{"title":"Confounding and Negative Control Methods in Observational Study of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Effectiveness: A Nationwide, Population-Based Danish Health Registry Study","authors":"Niels Obel, Matthew P Fox, Malte M Tetens, Lars Pedersen, Tyra Grove Krause, Henrik Ullum, Henrik Toft Sørensen","doi":"10.2147/clep.s468572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<strong>Background:</strong> Observational studies of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness are prone to confounding, which can be illustrated using negative control methods.<br/><strong>Methods:</strong> Nationwide population-based cohort study including two cohorts of Danish residents 60– 90 years of age matched 1:1 on age and sex: A vaccinated and a non-vaccinated cohort, including 61052 SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated individuals between 1 March and 1 July 2021 and 61052 individuals not vaccinated preceding 1 July 2021. From these two cohorts, we constructed negative control cohorts of individuals diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection or acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cancer, low energy fracture, or head-trauma. Outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 infection, negative control outcomes (eg, mammography, prostate biopsy, operation for cataract, malignant melanoma, examination of eye and ear), and death. We used Cox regression to calculate adjusted incidence and mortality rate ratios (aIRR and aMRR).<br/><strong>Results:</strong> Risks of SARS-CoV2 infection and all negative control outcomes were elevated in the vaccinated population, ranging from an aIRR of 1.15 (95% CI: 1.09– 1.21) for eye examinations to 3.05 (95% CI: 2.24– 4.14) for malignant melanoma. Conversely, the risk of death in the SARS-CoV-2 infected cohort and in all negative control cohorts was lower in vaccinated individuals, ranging from an aMRR of 0.23 (95% CI: 0.19– 0.26) after SARS-CoV-2 infection to 0.50 (95% CI: 0.37– 0.67) after stroke.<br/><strong>Conclusion:</strong> Our findings indicate that observational studies of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness may be subject to substantial confounding. Therefore, randomized trials are essential to establish vaccine efficacy after the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants and the rollout of multiple booster vaccines.<br/><br/><strong>Plain Language Summary:</strong> <strong>Why was this study done</strong>: After the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants and the rollout of multiple booster SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, the impact of vaccination on risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and death after the infection has mainly been explored in observational studies. We used negative control methods to investigate whether confounding affects the results of observational SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness studies.<br/><strong>Findings</strong>: We used Danish registry data obtained during the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine roll-out to conduct a nationwide, matched population-based cohort study of Danish residents 60– 90 years in which we compared vaccinated individuals with non-vaccinated individuals. Compared with unvaccinated individuals, vaccinated individuals had increased risks of SARS-CoV2 infection but also had increased risks of all negative control outcomes (mammography, prostate biopsy, operation for cataract, malignant melanoma, examination of eye and ear). The risk of death after SARS-CoV2 infection was lower in the vaccinated cohort, as was the risk of death after acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cancer, low energy fracture, and head-trauma.<br/><strong>Meaning</strong>: The negative control methods indicate that observational studies of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness may be prone to substantial confounding which may impact the observed associations. This bias may both lead to underestimation of vaccine effectiveness (increased risk of SARS-CoV2 infection among vaccinated individuals) and overestimation of the vaccine effectiveness (decreased risk of death after of SARS-CoV2 infection among vaccinated individuals). Our results highlight the need for randomized vaccine efficacy studies after the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants and the rollout of multiple booster vaccines.<br/><br/>","PeriodicalId":10362,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Epidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/clep.s468572","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Observational studies of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness are prone to confounding, which can be illustrated using negative control methods.
Methods: Nationwide population-based cohort study including two cohorts of Danish residents 60– 90 years of age matched 1:1 on age and sex: A vaccinated and a non-vaccinated cohort, including 61052 SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated individuals between 1 March and 1 July 2021 and 61052 individuals not vaccinated preceding 1 July 2021. From these two cohorts, we constructed negative control cohorts of individuals diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection or acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cancer, low energy fracture, or head-trauma. Outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 infection, negative control outcomes (eg, mammography, prostate biopsy, operation for cataract, malignant melanoma, examination of eye and ear), and death. We used Cox regression to calculate adjusted incidence and mortality rate ratios (aIRR and aMRR).
Results: Risks of SARS-CoV2 infection and all negative control outcomes were elevated in the vaccinated population, ranging from an aIRR of 1.15 (95% CI: 1.09– 1.21) for eye examinations to 3.05 (95% CI: 2.24– 4.14) for malignant melanoma. Conversely, the risk of death in the SARS-CoV-2 infected cohort and in all negative control cohorts was lower in vaccinated individuals, ranging from an aMRR of 0.23 (95% CI: 0.19– 0.26) after SARS-CoV-2 infection to 0.50 (95% CI: 0.37– 0.67) after stroke.
Conclusion: Our findings indicate that observational studies of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness may be subject to substantial confounding. Therefore, randomized trials are essential to establish vaccine efficacy after the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants and the rollout of multiple booster vaccines.

Plain Language Summary: Why was this study done: After the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants and the rollout of multiple booster SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, the impact of vaccination on risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and death after the infection has mainly been explored in observational studies. We used negative control methods to investigate whether confounding affects the results of observational SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness studies.
Findings: We used Danish registry data obtained during the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine roll-out to conduct a nationwide, matched population-based cohort study of Danish residents 60– 90 years in which we compared vaccinated individuals with non-vaccinated individuals. Compared with unvaccinated individuals, vaccinated individuals had increased risks of SARS-CoV2 infection but also had increased risks of all negative control outcomes (mammography, prostate biopsy, operation for cataract, malignant melanoma, examination of eye and ear). The risk of death after SARS-CoV2 infection was lower in the vaccinated cohort, as was the risk of death after acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cancer, low energy fracture, and head-trauma.
Meaning: The negative control methods indicate that observational studies of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness may be prone to substantial confounding which may impact the observed associations. This bias may both lead to underestimation of vaccine effectiveness (increased risk of SARS-CoV2 infection among vaccinated individuals) and overestimation of the vaccine effectiveness (decreased risk of death after of SARS-CoV2 infection among vaccinated individuals). Our results highlight the need for randomized vaccine efficacy studies after the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants and the rollout of multiple booster vaccines.

SARS-CoV-2 疫苗有效性观察研究中的混杂因素和阴性对照方法:基于丹麦全国人口的健康登记研究
背景:有关 SARS-CoV-2 疫苗有效性的观察性研究很容易受到混杂因素的影响,阴性对照方法可以说明这一点:全国范围内基于人口的队列研究,包括两组年龄在 60-90 岁之间的丹麦居民,年龄和性别按 1:1 匹配:一个已接种疫苗队列和一个未接种疫苗队列,包括 2021 年 3 月 1 日至 7 月 1 日期间接种 SARS-CoV-2 疫苗的 61052 人和 2021 年 7 月 1 日之前未接种疫苗的 61052 人。在这两个队列中,我们建立了阴性对照队列,其中包括确诊为 SARS-CoV-2 感染或急性心肌梗死、中风、癌症、低能量骨折或头部外伤的患者。结果包括 SARS-CoV-2 感染、阴性对照结果(如乳房 X 光检查、前列腺活检、白内障手术、恶性黑色素瘤、眼部和耳部检查)和死亡。我们使用 Cox 回归计算调整后的发病率和死亡率比(aIRR 和 aMRR):结果:接种疫苗的人群感染 SARS-CoV2 的风险和所有阴性对照结果的风险都较高,眼部检查的 aIRR 为 1.15(95% CI:1.09- 1.21),恶性黑色素瘤的 aIRR 为 3.05(95% CI:2.24- 4.14)。相反,SARS-CoV-2感染队列和所有阴性对照队列中接种疫苗者的死亡风险较低,从SARS-CoV-2感染后的aMRR为0.23(95% CI:0.19- 0.26)到中风后的0.50(95% CI:0.37- 0.67)不等:我们的研究结果表明,SARS-CoV-2 疫苗有效性的观察性研究可能会受到大量混杂因素的影响。因此,在出现新的 SARS-CoV-2 变异株和推出多种加强型疫苗后,随机试验对于确定疫苗疗效至关重要:在SARS-CoV-2新变种出现和多种加强型SARS-CoV-2疫苗推出后,接种疫苗对SARS-CoV-2感染和感染后死亡风险的影响主要是在观察性研究中探讨的。我们采用了阴性对照方法来研究混杂因素是否会影响观察性 SARS-CoV-2 疫苗有效性研究的结果:我们利用 SARS-CoV-2 疫苗推广期间获得的丹麦登记数据,在全国范围内对 60-90 岁的丹麦居民进行了一项基于人群的匹配队列研究。与未接种疫苗的人相比,接种疫苗的人感染 SARS-CoV2 的风险增加了,但所有负面对照结果(乳房 X 光检查、前列腺活检、白内障手术、恶性黑色素瘤、眼部和耳部检查)的风险也增加了。接种疫苗的人群感染 SARS-CoV2 后死亡的风险较低,急性心肌梗死、中风、癌症、低能量骨折和头部外伤后死亡的风险也较低:阴性对照方法表明,SARS-CoV-2 疫苗有效性的观察性研究可能容易受到大量混杂因素的影响,从而影响观察到的关联。这种偏差既可能导致疫苗效果被低估(接种者感染 SARS-CoV2 的风险增加),也可能导致疫苗效果被高估(接种者感染 SARS-CoV2 后死亡的风险降低)。我们的研究结果突出表明,在出现新的 SARS-CoV-2 变体和推出多种加强型疫苗后,有必要进行随机疫苗效力研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Epidemiology
Clinical Epidemiology Medicine-Epidemiology
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
5.10%
发文量
169
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Epidemiology is an international, peer reviewed, open access journal. Clinical Epidemiology focuses on the application of epidemiological principles and questions relating to patients and clinical care in terms of prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. Clinical Epidemiology welcomes papers covering these topics in form of original research and systematic reviews. Clinical Epidemiology has a special interest in international electronic medical patient records and other routine health care data, especially as applied to safety of medical interventions, clinical utility of diagnostic procedures, understanding short- and long-term clinical course of diseases, clinical epidemiological and biostatistical methods, and systematic reviews. When considering submission of a paper utilizing publicly-available data, authors should ensure that such studies add significantly to the body of knowledge and that they use appropriate validated methods for identifying health outcomes. The journal has launched special series describing existing data sources for clinical epidemiology, international health care systems and validation studies of algorithms based on databases and registries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信