Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32384142›Full record

ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2021

A Call for Caution in Use of Pertussis Vaccine Effectiveness Studies to Estimate Waning Immunity: A Canadian Immunization Research Network Study.

Natasha S Crowcroft, Kevin L Schwartz, Rachel D Savage, Cynthia Chen, Caitlin Johnson, Ye Li, Alex Marchand-Austin, Shelly Bolotin, Shelley L Deeks, Frances B Jamieson and 8 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Pertussis vaccines, epidemiology and evolution.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Natasha S CrowcroftDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6761-8783
Kevin L SchwartzCentre for Vaccine Preventable Diseases, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Rachel D SavageInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Cynthia ChenPublic Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Caitlin JohnsonPublic Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ye LiCentre for Vaccine Preventable Diseases, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Alex Marchand-AustinPublic Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Shelly BolotinDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Shelley L DeeksCentre for Vaccine Preventable Diseases, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Frances B JamiesonDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Steven J DrewsMedical Microbiology, Canadian Blood Service, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Margaret L RussellDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Lawrence W SvensonAlberta Health, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Kimberley SimmondsDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Christiaan H RigholtVaccine and Drug Evaluation Centre, Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Christopher BellDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Salaheddin M MahmudVaccine and Drug Evaluation Centre, Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Jeffrey C KwongCentre for Vaccine Preventable Diseases, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
University of Toronto · CAPublic Health Ontario · CAUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity of Calgary · CAUniversity of Manitoba · CAWomen's College Hospital · CA

Funding

CIHR CNF 137470
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVaccine effectiveness (VE) studies provide essential evidence on waning vaccine-derived immunity, a major threat to pertussis control. We evaluated how study design affects estimates by comparing 2 case-control studies conducted in Ontario, Canada.

methodsWe compared results from a test-negative design (TND) with a frequency-matched design (FMD) case-control study using pertussis cases from 2005-2015. In the first study, we identified test-negative controls from the public health laboratory that diagnosed cases and, in the second, randomly selected controls from patients attending the same physicians that reported cases, frequency matched on age and year. We compared characteristics of cases and controls using standardized differences.

resultsIn both designs, VE estimates for the early years postimmunization were consistent with clinical trials (TND, 84%; FMD, 89% at 1-3 years postvaccination) but diverged as time since last vaccination increased (TND, 41%; FMD, 74% by 8 years postvaccination). Overall, we observed lower VE and faster waning in the TND than the FMD. In the TND but not FMD, controls differed from cases in important confounders, being younger, having more comorbidities, and higher healthcare use. Differences between the controls of each design were greater than differences between cases. TND controls were more likely to be unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated than FMD controls (P < .001).

conclusionsThe FMD adjusted better for healthcare-seeking behavior than the TND. Duration of protection from pertussis vaccines is unclear because estimates vary by study design. Caution should be exercised by experts, researchers, and decision makers when evaluating evidence on optimal timing of boosters.

Indexed as

Pertussis VaccineWhooping CoughCase-Control StudiesHumansOntarioVaccinationPertussis Vaccineestimating immunityfrequency-matched designpertussistest-negative design

Identifiers

PMID32384142
PMCPMC8246842
OpenAlexW3020937799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.