ArticleDrugs in R&D2022
The Pitfalls of Abnormal Laboratory Value Interpretation in Vaccine Clinical Trials: The Example of Asymptomatic Transient Neutropenia.
Article in Drugs in R&D, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hematological and clinical chemistry measurements are an integral part of vaccine safety monitoring. While adopting a conservative approach is important to exclude potential risks for patients, the rationale and methodology underlying the assessment of given adverse events have to be well grounded to avoid raising unfounded concerns. Using asymptomatic transient neutropenia as an example, this paper aims to address the complexity of interpreting abnormal hematological values in vaccine clinical trials and to evaluate the validity of using neutrophil count cut-off points to assess neutropenia in the context of safety monitoring. The validity of the neutrophil count cut-off point methodology was assessed in terms of content validity (i.e., the extent to which a single neutrophil count below the cut-off point corresponds to a clinically significant adverse event), criterion validity (i.e., the extent to which a neutrophil count below a given cut-off point correlates with another manifestation of neutropenia, namely bacteremia), and construct validity (i.e., the exactness of the assumption that a neutrophil count below a given cut-off point corresponds to a reactogenic event caused by the vaccination). We argue that, because of within-individual physiological fluctuations, variations according to population demographics, and poor predictive potential with regard to neutropenia-associated infection, the application of the cut-off point methodology to neutropenia safety monitoring presents major limitations. Based on this assessment, we conclude that hematological laboratory values must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by investigators to determine their clinical significance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.