Cargando…

Alternative observational designs to estimate the effectiveness of one dose of oral cholera vaccine in Lusaka, Zambia

We conducted a matched case-control (MCC), test-negative case-control (TNCC) and case-cohort study in 2016 in Lusaka, Zambia, following a mass vaccination campaign. Confirmed cholera cases served as cases in all three study designs. In the TNCC, control-subjects were cases with negative cholera cult...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ferreras, E., Blake, A., Chewe, O., Mwaba, J., Zulu, G., Poncin, M., Rakesh, A., Page, A. L., Quilici, M. L., Azman, A. S., Cohuet, S., Ciglenecki, I., Malama, K., Chizema-Kawesha, E., Luquero, F. J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7163804/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32167038
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095026882000062X
_version_ 1783523226496794624
author Ferreras, E.
Blake, A.
Chewe, O.
Mwaba, J.
Zulu, G.
Poncin, M.
Rakesh, A.
Page, A. L.
Quilici, M. L.
Azman, A. S.
Cohuet, S.
Ciglenecki, I.
Malama, K.
Chizema-Kawesha, E.
Luquero, F. J.
author_facet Ferreras, E.
Blake, A.
Chewe, O.
Mwaba, J.
Zulu, G.
Poncin, M.
Rakesh, A.
Page, A. L.
Quilici, M. L.
Azman, A. S.
Cohuet, S.
Ciglenecki, I.
Malama, K.
Chizema-Kawesha, E.
Luquero, F. J.
author_sort Ferreras, E.
collection PubMed
description We conducted a matched case-control (MCC), test-negative case-control (TNCC) and case-cohort study in 2016 in Lusaka, Zambia, following a mass vaccination campaign. Confirmed cholera cases served as cases in all three study designs. In the TNCC, control-subjects were cases with negative cholera culture and polymerase chain reaction results. Matched controls by age and sex were selected among neighbours of the confirmed cases in the MCC study. For the case-cohort study, we recruited a cohort of randomly selected individuals living in areas considered at-risk of cholera. We recruited 211 suspected cases (66 confirmed cholera cases and 145 non-cholera diarrhoea cases), 1055 matched controls and a cohort of 921. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness of one dose of oral cholera vaccine (OCV) was 88.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 42.7–97.8) in the MCC study, 80.2% (95% CI: 16.9–95.3) in the TNCC design and 89.4% (95% CI: 64.6–96.9) in the case-cohort study. Three study designs confirmed the short-term effectiveness of single dose OCV. Major healthcare-seeking behaviour bias did not appear to affect our estimates. Most of the protection among vaccinated individuals could be attributed to the direct effect of the vaccine.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7163804
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71638042020-04-23 Alternative observational designs to estimate the effectiveness of one dose of oral cholera vaccine in Lusaka, Zambia Ferreras, E. Blake, A. Chewe, O. Mwaba, J. Zulu, G. Poncin, M. Rakesh, A. Page, A. L. Quilici, M. L. Azman, A. S. Cohuet, S. Ciglenecki, I. Malama, K. Chizema-Kawesha, E. Luquero, F. J. Epidemiol Infect Original Paper We conducted a matched case-control (MCC), test-negative case-control (TNCC) and case-cohort study in 2016 in Lusaka, Zambia, following a mass vaccination campaign. Confirmed cholera cases served as cases in all three study designs. In the TNCC, control-subjects were cases with negative cholera culture and polymerase chain reaction results. Matched controls by age and sex were selected among neighbours of the confirmed cases in the MCC study. For the case-cohort study, we recruited a cohort of randomly selected individuals living in areas considered at-risk of cholera. We recruited 211 suspected cases (66 confirmed cholera cases and 145 non-cholera diarrhoea cases), 1055 matched controls and a cohort of 921. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness of one dose of oral cholera vaccine (OCV) was 88.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 42.7–97.8) in the MCC study, 80.2% (95% CI: 16.9–95.3) in the TNCC design and 89.4% (95% CI: 64.6–96.9) in the case-cohort study. Three study designs confirmed the short-term effectiveness of single dose OCV. Major healthcare-seeking behaviour bias did not appear to affect our estimates. Most of the protection among vaccinated individuals could be attributed to the direct effect of the vaccine. Cambridge University Press 2020-03-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7163804/ /pubmed/32167038 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095026882000062X Text en © The Author(s) and Epicentre 2020 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Ferreras, E.
Blake, A.
Chewe, O.
Mwaba, J.
Zulu, G.
Poncin, M.
Rakesh, A.
Page, A. L.
Quilici, M. L.
Azman, A. S.
Cohuet, S.
Ciglenecki, I.
Malama, K.
Chizema-Kawesha, E.
Luquero, F. J.
Alternative observational designs to estimate the effectiveness of one dose of oral cholera vaccine in Lusaka, Zambia
title Alternative observational designs to estimate the effectiveness of one dose of oral cholera vaccine in Lusaka, Zambia
title_full Alternative observational designs to estimate the effectiveness of one dose of oral cholera vaccine in Lusaka, Zambia
title_fullStr Alternative observational designs to estimate the effectiveness of one dose of oral cholera vaccine in Lusaka, Zambia
title_full_unstemmed Alternative observational designs to estimate the effectiveness of one dose of oral cholera vaccine in Lusaka, Zambia
title_short Alternative observational designs to estimate the effectiveness of one dose of oral cholera vaccine in Lusaka, Zambia
title_sort alternative observational designs to estimate the effectiveness of one dose of oral cholera vaccine in lusaka, zambia
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7163804/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32167038
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095026882000062X
work_keys_str_mv AT ferrerase alternativeobservationaldesignstoestimatetheeffectivenessofonedoseoforalcholeravaccineinlusakazambia
AT blakea alternativeobservationaldesignstoestimatetheeffectivenessofonedoseoforalcholeravaccineinlusakazambia
AT cheweo alternativeobservationaldesignstoestimatetheeffectivenessofonedoseoforalcholeravaccineinlusakazambia
AT mwabaj alternativeobservationaldesignstoestimatetheeffectivenessofonedoseoforalcholeravaccineinlusakazambia
AT zulug alternativeobservationaldesignstoestimatetheeffectivenessofonedoseoforalcholeravaccineinlusakazambia
AT poncinm alternativeobservationaldesignstoestimatetheeffectivenessofonedoseoforalcholeravaccineinlusakazambia
AT rakesha alternativeobservationaldesignstoestimatetheeffectivenessofonedoseoforalcholeravaccineinlusakazambia
AT pageal alternativeobservationaldesignstoestimatetheeffectivenessofonedoseoforalcholeravaccineinlusakazambia
AT quiliciml alternativeobservationaldesignstoestimatetheeffectivenessofonedoseoforalcholeravaccineinlusakazambia
AT azmanas alternativeobservationaldesignstoestimatetheeffectivenessofonedoseoforalcholeravaccineinlusakazambia
AT cohuets alternativeobservationaldesignstoestimatetheeffectivenessofonedoseoforalcholeravaccineinlusakazambia
AT cigleneckii alternativeobservationaldesignstoestimatetheeffectivenessofonedoseoforalcholeravaccineinlusakazambia
AT malamak alternativeobservationaldesignstoestimatetheeffectivenessofonedoseoforalcholeravaccineinlusakazambia
AT chizemakaweshae alternativeobservationaldesignstoestimatetheeffectivenessofonedoseoforalcholeravaccineinlusakazambia
AT luquerofj alternativeobservationaldesignstoestimatetheeffectivenessofonedoseoforalcholeravaccineinlusakazambia