Paper detail

Estimation and Hypothesis Testing of Strain-Specific Vaccine Efficacy with Missing Strain Types, with Applications to a COVID-19 Vaccine Trial

Statistical methods are developed for analysis of clinical and virus genetics data from phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled trials of vaccines against novel coronavirus COVID-19. Vaccine efficacy (VE) of a vaccine to prevent COVID-19 caused by one of finitely many genetic strains of SARS-CoV-2 may vary by strain. The problem of assessing differential VE by viral genetics can be formulated under a competing risks model where the endpoint is virologically confirmed COVID-19 and the cause-of-failure is the infecting SARS-CoV-2 genotype. Strain-specific VE is defined as one minus the cause-specific hazard ratio (vaccine/placebo). For the COVID-19 VE trials, the time to COVID-19 is right-censored, and a substantial percentage of failure cases are missing the infecting virus genotype. We develop estimation and hypothesis testing procedures for strain-specific VE when the failure time is subject to right censoring and the cause-of-failure is subject to missingness, focusing on $J \ge 2$ discrete categorical unordered or ordered virus genotypes. The stratified Cox proportional hazards model is used to relate the cause-specific outcomes to explanatory variables. The inverse probability weighted complete-case (IPW) estimator and the augmented inverse probability weighted complete-case (AIPW) estimator are investigated. Hypothesis tests are developed to assess whether the vaccine provides at least a specified level of efficacy against some viral genotypes and whether VE varies across genotypes, adjusting for covariates. The finite-sample properties of the proposed tests are studied through simulations and are shown to have good performances. In preparation for the real data analyses, the developed methods are applied to a pseudo dataset mimicking the Moderna COVE trial.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.