Unmasking herd protection by an oral cholera vaccine in a cluster-randomized trial.
Administration, Oral
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Bangladesh
Child
Child, Preschool
Cholera
/ immunology
Cholera Vaccines
/ administration & dosage
Cluster Analysis
Female
Humans
Immunity, Herd
Infant
Male
Middle Aged
Poverty Areas
Proportional Hazards Models
Treatment Outcome
Urban Population
Vaccination
Vaccines, Inactivated
/ administration & dosage
Young Adult
Cholera
cluster-randomized trial
fried-egg design
vaccine effectiveness
Journal
International journal of epidemiology
ISSN: 1464-3685
Titre abrégé: Int J Epidemiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7802871
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 08 2019
01 08 2019
Historique:
accepted:
13
03
2019
pubmed:
11
4
2019
medline:
24
4
2020
entrez:
11
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Several studies have shown that inactivated, whole-cell oral cholera vaccines (OCVs) confer both direct protection on vaccinees and herd protection on populations. Because our earlier cluster-randomized effectiveness trial (CRT) in urban Bangladesh failed to detect OCV herd protection, we reanalysed the trial to assess whether herd effects were masked in our original analysis. A total of 267 270 persons were randomized to 90 approximately equal-sized clusters. In 60 clusters persons aged 1 year and older were eligible to receive OCV and in 30 clusters persons received no intervention and served as controls. We analysed OCV protection against severely dehydrating cholera for the entire clusters, as in our original analysis, and for subclusters consisting of residents of innermost households. We hypothesized that if OCV herd protection was attenuated by cholera transmission into the clusters from the outside in this densely populated setting, herd protection would be most evident in the innermost households. During 2 years of follow-up of all residents of the clusters, total protection (protection of OCV recipients relative to control residents) was 58% [95% confidence interval (CI): 43%, 70%; P<0.0001], indirect protection (protection of non-OCV recipients in OCV clusters relative to control participants) was 16% (95% CI: -20%, 41%; P=0.35) and overall OCV protection (protection of all residents in the OCV clusters relative to control residents) was 46% (95% CI: 30%, 59%; P<0.0001). Analyses of the inner 75% and 50% households of the clusters showed similar findings. However, total protection was 75% (95% CI: 50%, 87%, P<0.0001), indirect protection 52% (95% CI: -9%, 79%; P=0.08) and overall protection 72% (95% CI: 49%, 84%; P<0.0001) for the innermost 25% households. Consistent with past studies, substantial OCV herd protective effects were identified, but were unmasked only by analysing innermost households of the clusters. Caution is needed in defining clusters for analysis of vaccine herd effects in CRTs of vaccines.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Several studies have shown that inactivated, whole-cell oral cholera vaccines (OCVs) confer both direct protection on vaccinees and herd protection on populations. Because our earlier cluster-randomized effectiveness trial (CRT) in urban Bangladesh failed to detect OCV herd protection, we reanalysed the trial to assess whether herd effects were masked in our original analysis.
METHODS
A total of 267 270 persons were randomized to 90 approximately equal-sized clusters. In 60 clusters persons aged 1 year and older were eligible to receive OCV and in 30 clusters persons received no intervention and served as controls. We analysed OCV protection against severely dehydrating cholera for the entire clusters, as in our original analysis, and for subclusters consisting of residents of innermost households. We hypothesized that if OCV herd protection was attenuated by cholera transmission into the clusters from the outside in this densely populated setting, herd protection would be most evident in the innermost households.
RESULTS
During 2 years of follow-up of all residents of the clusters, total protection (protection of OCV recipients relative to control residents) was 58% [95% confidence interval (CI): 43%, 70%; P<0.0001], indirect protection (protection of non-OCV recipients in OCV clusters relative to control participants) was 16% (95% CI: -20%, 41%; P=0.35) and overall OCV protection (protection of all residents in the OCV clusters relative to control residents) was 46% (95% CI: 30%, 59%; P<0.0001). Analyses of the inner 75% and 50% households of the clusters showed similar findings. However, total protection was 75% (95% CI: 50%, 87%, P<0.0001), indirect protection 52% (95% CI: -9%, 79%; P=0.08) and overall protection 72% (95% CI: 49%, 84%; P<0.0001) for the innermost 25% households.
CONCLUSION
Consistent with past studies, substantial OCV herd protective effects were identified, but were unmasked only by analysing innermost households of the clusters. Caution is needed in defining clusters for analysis of vaccine herd effects in CRTs of vaccines.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30968110
pii: 5435914
doi: 10.1093/ije/dyz060
pmc: PMC6693801
doi:
Substances chimiques
Cholera Vaccines
0
Vaccines, Inactivated
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1252-1261Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association.
Références
Lancet. 2009 Nov 14;374(9702):1694-702
pubmed: 19819004
Am J Epidemiol. 1997 Nov 15;146(10):789-803
pubmed: 9384199
Vaccine. 2009 Mar 18;27(13):1928-31
pubmed: 19368773
Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Apr;56(8):1123-31
pubmed: 23362293
Lancet Infect Dis. 2011 Jun;11(6):482-7
pubmed: 21616458
J Clin Microbiol. 2009 Apr;47(4):1218-20
pubmed: 19244463
Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 1994 Jan;1(1):51-4
pubmed: 7496922
J Clin Microbiol. 1983 Apr;17(4):596-600
pubmed: 6343419
J Infect Dis. 1988 Jul;158(1):60-9
pubmed: 3392421
Lancet Infect Dis. 2012 Nov;12(11):837-44
pubmed: 22954655
Lancet. 2015 Oct 3;386(10001):1362-1371
pubmed: 26164097
Lancet. 2005 Jul 2-8;366(9479):44-9
pubmed: 15993232
Value Health. 2009 Sep;12(6):899-908
pubmed: 19824189
Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 1997 Jul;4(4):429-34
pubmed: 9220159