-
Mediation Analyses for the Effect of Antibodies in Vaccination
Authors:
Michael P. Fay,
Dean A. Follmann
Abstract:
We review standard mediation assumptions as they apply to identifying antibody effects in a randomized vaccine trial and propose new study designs to allow identification of an estimand that was previously unidentifiable. For these mediation analyses, we partition the total ratio effect (one minus the vaccine effect) from a randomized vaccine trial into indirect (effects through antibodies) and di…
▽ More
We review standard mediation assumptions as they apply to identifying antibody effects in a randomized vaccine trial and propose new study designs to allow identification of an estimand that was previously unidentifiable. For these mediation analyses, we partition the total ratio effect (one minus the vaccine effect) from a randomized vaccine trial into indirect (effects through antibodies) and direct effects (other effects). Identifying $λ$, the proportion of the total effect due to an indirect effect, depends on a cross-world quantity, the potential outcome among vaccinated individuals with antibody levels as if given placebo, or vice versa. We review assumptions for identifying $λ$ and show that there are two versions of $λ$, unless the effect of adding antibodies to the placebo arm is equal in magnitude to the effect of subtracting antibodies from the vaccine arm. We focus on the case when individuals in the placebo arm are unlikely to have the needed antibodies. In that case, if a standard assumption (given confounders, potential mediators and potential outcomes are independent) is true, only one version of $λ$ is identifiable, and if not neither is identifiable. We propose alternatives for identifying the other version of $λ$, using experimental design to identify a formerly cross-world quantity. Two alternative experimental designs use a three arm trial with the extra arm being passive immunization (administering monoclonal antibodies), with or without closeout vaccination. Another alternative is to combine information from a placebo-controlled vaccine trial with a placebo-controlled passive immunization trial.
△ Less
Submitted 6 June, 2023; v1 submitted 12 August, 2022;
originally announced August 2022.
-
Assessing Vaccine Durability in Randomized Trials Following Placebo Crossover
Authors:
Jonathan Fintzi,
Dean Follmann
Abstract:
Randomized vaccine trials are used to assess vaccine efficacy and to characterize the durability of vaccine induced protection. If efficacy is demonstrated, the treatment of placebo volunteers becomes an issue. For COVID-19 vaccine trials, there is broad consensus that placebo volunteers should be offered a vaccine once efficacy has been established. This will likely lead to most placebo volunteer…
▽ More
Randomized vaccine trials are used to assess vaccine efficacy and to characterize the durability of vaccine induced protection. If efficacy is demonstrated, the treatment of placebo volunteers becomes an issue. For COVID-19 vaccine trials, there is broad consensus that placebo volunteers should be offered a vaccine once efficacy has been established. This will likely lead to most placebo volunteers crossing over to the vaccine arm, thus complicating the assessment of long term durability. We show how to analyze durability following placebo crossover and demonstrate that the vaccine efficacy profile that would be observed in a placebo controlled trial is recoverable in a trial with placebo crossover. This result holds no matter when the crossover occurs and with no assumptions about the form of the efficacy profile. We only require that the vaccine efficacy profile applies to the newly vaccinated irrespective of the timing of vaccination. We develop different methods to estimate efficacy within the context of a proportional hazards regression model and explore via simulation the implications of placebo crossover for estimation of vaccine efficacy under different efficacy dynamics and study designs. We apply our methods to simulated COVID-19 vaccine trials with durable and waning vaccine efficacy and a total follow-up of two years.
△ Less
Submitted 5 April, 2021; v1 submitted 4 January, 2021;
originally announced January 2021.
-
Endpoints for randomized controlled clinical trials for COVID-19 treatments
Authors:
Lori E Dodd,
Dean Follmann,
**g Wang,
Franz Koenig,
Lisa L Korn,
Christian Schoergenhofer,
Michael Proschan,
Sally Hunsberger,
Tyler Bonnett,
Mat Makowski,
Drifa Belhadi,
Yeming Wang,
Bin Cao,
France Mentre,
Thomas Jaki
Abstract:
Introduction: Endpoint choice for randomized controlled trials of treatments for COVID-19 is complex. A new disease brings many uncertainties, but trials must start rapidly. COVID-19 is heterogeneous, ranging from mild disease that improves within days to critical disease that can last weeks and can end in death. While improvement in mortality would provide unquestionable evidence about clinical s…
▽ More
Introduction: Endpoint choice for randomized controlled trials of treatments for COVID-19 is complex. A new disease brings many uncertainties, but trials must start rapidly. COVID-19 is heterogeneous, ranging from mild disease that improves within days to critical disease that can last weeks and can end in death. While improvement in mortality would provide unquestionable evidence about clinical significance of a treatment, sample sizes for a study evaluating mortality are large and may be impractical. Furthermore, patient states in between "cure" and "death" represent meaningful distinctions. Clinical severity scores have been proposed as an alternative. However, the appropriate summary measure for severity scores has been the subject of debate, particularly in relating to the uncertainty about the time-course of COVID-19. Outcomes measured at fixed time-points may risk missing the time of clinical benefit. An endpoint such as time-to-improvement (or recovery), avoids the timing problem. However, some have argued that power losses will result from reducing the ordinal scale to a binary state of "recovered" vs "not recovered."
Methods: We evaluate statistical power for possible trial endpoints for COVID-19 treatment trials using simulation models and data from two recent COVID-19 treatment trials.
Results: Power for fixed-time point methods depends heavily on the time selected for evaluation. Time-to-improvement (or recovery) analyses do not specify a time-point. Time-to-event approaches have reasonable statistical power, even when compared to a fixed time-point method evaluated at the optimal time.
Discussion: Time-to-event analyses methods have advantages in the COVID-19 setting, unless the optimal time for evaluating treatment effect is known in advance. Even when the optimal time is known, a time-to-event approach may increase power for interim analyses.
△ Less
Submitted 9 June, 2020;
originally announced June 2020.
-
Assessing surrogate endpoints in vaccine trials with case-cohort sampling and the Cox model
Authors:
Li Qin,
Peter B. Gilbert,
Dean Follmann,
Dongfeng Li
Abstract:
Assessing immune responses to study vaccines as surrogates of protection plays a central role in vaccine clinical trials. Motivated by three ongoing or pending HIV vaccine efficacy trials, we consider such surrogate endpoint assessment in a randomized placebo-controlled trial with case-cohort sampling of immune responses and a time to event endpoint. Based on the principal surrogate definition u…
▽ More
Assessing immune responses to study vaccines as surrogates of protection plays a central role in vaccine clinical trials. Motivated by three ongoing or pending HIV vaccine efficacy trials, we consider such surrogate endpoint assessment in a randomized placebo-controlled trial with case-cohort sampling of immune responses and a time to event endpoint. Based on the principal surrogate definition under the principal stratification framework proposed by Frangakis and Rubin [Biometrics 58 (2002) 21--29] and adapted by Gilbert and Hudgens (2006), we introduce estimands that measure the value of an immune response as a surrogate of protection in the context of the Cox proportional hazards model. The estimands are not identified because the immune response to vaccine is not measured in placebo recipients. We formulate the problem as a Cox model with missing covariates, and employ novel trial designs for predicting the missing immune responses and thereby identifying the estimands. The first design utilizes information from baseline predictors of the immune response, and bridges their relationship in the vaccine recipients to the placebo recipients. The second design provides a validation set for the unmeasured immune responses of uninfected placebo recipients by immunizing them with the study vaccine after trial closeout. A maximum estimated likelihood approach is proposed for estimation of the parameters. Simulated data examples are given to evaluate the proposed designs and study their properties.
△ Less
Submitted 27 March, 2008;
originally announced March 2008.
