Cargando…

Differences between Frequentist and Bayesian inference in routine surveillance for influenza vaccine effectiveness: a test-negative case-control study

BACKGROUND: Routine influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) surveillance networks use frequentist methods to estimate VE. With data from more than a decade of VE surveillance from diverse global populations now available, using Bayesian methods to explicitly account for this knowledge may be beneficial...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jackson, Michael L., Ferdinands, Jill, Nowalk, Mary Patricia, Zimmerman, Richard K., Kieke, Burney, Gaglani, Manjusha, Murthy, Kempapura, Petrie, Joshua G., Martin, Emily T., Chung, Jessie R., Flannery, Brendan, Jackson, Lisa A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7968177/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33726743
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10543-z
_version_ 1783666010646118400
author Jackson, Michael L.
Ferdinands, Jill
Nowalk, Mary Patricia
Zimmerman, Richard K.
Kieke, Burney
Gaglani, Manjusha
Murthy, Kempapura
Petrie, Joshua G.
Martin, Emily T.
Chung, Jessie R.
Flannery, Brendan
Jackson, Lisa A.
author_facet Jackson, Michael L.
Ferdinands, Jill
Nowalk, Mary Patricia
Zimmerman, Richard K.
Kieke, Burney
Gaglani, Manjusha
Murthy, Kempapura
Petrie, Joshua G.
Martin, Emily T.
Chung, Jessie R.
Flannery, Brendan
Jackson, Lisa A.
author_sort Jackson, Michael L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Routine influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) surveillance networks use frequentist methods to estimate VE. With data from more than a decade of VE surveillance from diverse global populations now available, using Bayesian methods to explicitly account for this knowledge may be beneficial. This study explores differences between Bayesian vs. frequentist inference in multiple seasons with varying VE. METHODS: We used data from the United States Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness (US Flu VE) Network. Ambulatory care patients with acute respiratory illness were enrolled during seasons of varying observed VE based on traditional frequentist methods. We estimated VE against A(H1N1)pdm in 2015/16, dominated by A(H1N1)pdm; against A(H3N2) in 2017/18, dominated by A(H3N2); and compared VE for live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) vs. inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) among children aged 2–17 years in 2013/14, also dominated by A(H1N1)pdm. VE was estimated using both frequentist and Bayesian methods using the test-negative design. For the Bayesian estimates, prior VE distributions were based on data from all published test-negative studies of the same influenza type/subtype available prior to the season of interest. RESULTS: Across the three seasons, 16,342 subjects were included in the analyses. For 2015/16, frequentist and Bayesian VE estimates were essentially identical (41% each). For 2017/18, frequentist and Bayesian estimates of VE against A(H3N2) viruses were also nearly identical (26% vs. 23%, respectively), even though the presence of apparent antigenic match could potentially have pulled Bayesian estimates upward. Precision of estimates was similar between methods in both seasons. Frequentist and Bayesian estimates diverged for children in 2013/14. Under the frequentist approach, LAIV effectiveness was 62 percentage points lower than IIV, while LAIV was only 27 percentage points lower than IIV under the Bayesian approach. CONCLUSION: Bayesian estimates of influenza VE can differ from frequentist estimates to a clinically meaningful degree when VE diverges substantially from previous seasons. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-10543-z.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7968177
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79681772021-03-22 Differences between Frequentist and Bayesian inference in routine surveillance for influenza vaccine effectiveness: a test-negative case-control study Jackson, Michael L. Ferdinands, Jill Nowalk, Mary Patricia Zimmerman, Richard K. Kieke, Burney Gaglani, Manjusha Murthy, Kempapura Petrie, Joshua G. Martin, Emily T. Chung, Jessie R. Flannery, Brendan Jackson, Lisa A. BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Routine influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) surveillance networks use frequentist methods to estimate VE. With data from more than a decade of VE surveillance from diverse global populations now available, using Bayesian methods to explicitly account for this knowledge may be beneficial. This study explores differences between Bayesian vs. frequentist inference in multiple seasons with varying VE. METHODS: We used data from the United States Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness (US Flu VE) Network. Ambulatory care patients with acute respiratory illness were enrolled during seasons of varying observed VE based on traditional frequentist methods. We estimated VE against A(H1N1)pdm in 2015/16, dominated by A(H1N1)pdm; against A(H3N2) in 2017/18, dominated by A(H3N2); and compared VE for live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) vs. inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) among children aged 2–17 years in 2013/14, also dominated by A(H1N1)pdm. VE was estimated using both frequentist and Bayesian methods using the test-negative design. For the Bayesian estimates, prior VE distributions were based on data from all published test-negative studies of the same influenza type/subtype available prior to the season of interest. RESULTS: Across the three seasons, 16,342 subjects were included in the analyses. For 2015/16, frequentist and Bayesian VE estimates were essentially identical (41% each). For 2017/18, frequentist and Bayesian estimates of VE against A(H3N2) viruses were also nearly identical (26% vs. 23%, respectively), even though the presence of apparent antigenic match could potentially have pulled Bayesian estimates upward. Precision of estimates was similar between methods in both seasons. Frequentist and Bayesian estimates diverged for children in 2013/14. Under the frequentist approach, LAIV effectiveness was 62 percentage points lower than IIV, while LAIV was only 27 percentage points lower than IIV under the Bayesian approach. CONCLUSION: Bayesian estimates of influenza VE can differ from frequentist estimates to a clinically meaningful degree when VE diverges substantially from previous seasons. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-10543-z. BioMed Central 2021-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7968177/ /pubmed/33726743 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10543-z Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Jackson, Michael L.
Ferdinands, Jill
Nowalk, Mary Patricia
Zimmerman, Richard K.
Kieke, Burney
Gaglani, Manjusha
Murthy, Kempapura
Petrie, Joshua G.
Martin, Emily T.
Chung, Jessie R.
Flannery, Brendan
Jackson, Lisa A.
Differences between Frequentist and Bayesian inference in routine surveillance for influenza vaccine effectiveness: a test-negative case-control study
title Differences between Frequentist and Bayesian inference in routine surveillance for influenza vaccine effectiveness: a test-negative case-control study
title_full Differences between Frequentist and Bayesian inference in routine surveillance for influenza vaccine effectiveness: a test-negative case-control study
title_fullStr Differences between Frequentist and Bayesian inference in routine surveillance for influenza vaccine effectiveness: a test-negative case-control study
title_full_unstemmed Differences between Frequentist and Bayesian inference in routine surveillance for influenza vaccine effectiveness: a test-negative case-control study
title_short Differences between Frequentist and Bayesian inference in routine surveillance for influenza vaccine effectiveness: a test-negative case-control study
title_sort differences between frequentist and bayesian inference in routine surveillance for influenza vaccine effectiveness: a test-negative case-control study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7968177/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33726743
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10543-z
work_keys_str_mv AT jacksonmichaell differencesbetweenfrequentistandbayesianinferenceinroutinesurveillanceforinfluenzavaccineeffectivenessatestnegativecasecontrolstudy
AT ferdinandsjill differencesbetweenfrequentistandbayesianinferenceinroutinesurveillanceforinfluenzavaccineeffectivenessatestnegativecasecontrolstudy
AT nowalkmarypatricia differencesbetweenfrequentistandbayesianinferenceinroutinesurveillanceforinfluenzavaccineeffectivenessatestnegativecasecontrolstudy
AT zimmermanrichardk differencesbetweenfrequentistandbayesianinferenceinroutinesurveillanceforinfluenzavaccineeffectivenessatestnegativecasecontrolstudy
AT kiekeburney differencesbetweenfrequentistandbayesianinferenceinroutinesurveillanceforinfluenzavaccineeffectivenessatestnegativecasecontrolstudy
AT gaglanimanjusha differencesbetweenfrequentistandbayesianinferenceinroutinesurveillanceforinfluenzavaccineeffectivenessatestnegativecasecontrolstudy
AT murthykempapura differencesbetweenfrequentistandbayesianinferenceinroutinesurveillanceforinfluenzavaccineeffectivenessatestnegativecasecontrolstudy
AT petriejoshuag differencesbetweenfrequentistandbayesianinferenceinroutinesurveillanceforinfluenzavaccineeffectivenessatestnegativecasecontrolstudy
AT martinemilyt differencesbetweenfrequentistandbayesianinferenceinroutinesurveillanceforinfluenzavaccineeffectivenessatestnegativecasecontrolstudy
AT chungjessier differencesbetweenfrequentistandbayesianinferenceinroutinesurveillanceforinfluenzavaccineeffectivenessatestnegativecasecontrolstudy
AT flannerybrendan differencesbetweenfrequentistandbayesianinferenceinroutinesurveillanceforinfluenzavaccineeffectivenessatestnegativecasecontrolstudy
AT jacksonlisaa differencesbetweenfrequentistandbayesianinferenceinroutinesurveillanceforinfluenzavaccineeffectivenessatestnegativecasecontrolstudy