Cargando…

How missing evidence-based medicine indicators can inform COVID-19 vaccine distribution policies: a scoping review and calculation of indicators from data in randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE: Reports of efficacy, effectiveness and harms of COVID-19 vaccines have not used key indicators from evidence-based medicine (EBM) that can inform policies about vaccine distribution. This study aims to clarify EBM indicators that consider baseline risks when assessing vaccines’ benefits v...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Larkin, Andrew, Waitzkin, Howard, Fassler, Ella, Nayar, Kesavan Rajasekharan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9748517/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36523237
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063525
_version_ 1784849843244498944
author Larkin, Andrew
Waitzkin, Howard
Fassler, Ella
Nayar, Kesavan Rajasekharan
author_facet Larkin, Andrew
Waitzkin, Howard
Fassler, Ella
Nayar, Kesavan Rajasekharan
author_sort Larkin, Andrew
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Reports of efficacy, effectiveness and harms of COVID-19 vaccines have not used key indicators from evidence-based medicine (EBM) that can inform policies about vaccine distribution. This study aims to clarify EBM indicators that consider baseline risks when assessing vaccines’ benefits versus harms: absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number needed to be vaccinated (NNV), versus absolute risk of the intervention (ARI) and number needed to harm (NNH). METHODS: We used a multimethod approach, including a scoping review of the literature; calculation of risk reductions and harms from data concerning five major vaccines; analysis of risk reductions in population subgroups with varying baseline risks; and comparisons with prior vaccines. FINDINGS: The scoping review showed few reports regarding ARR, NNV, ARI and NNH; comparisons of benefits versus harms using these EBM methods; or analyses of varying baseline risks. Calculated ARRs for symptomatic infection and hospitalisation were approximately 1% and 0.1%, respectively, as compared with relative risk reduction of 50%–95% and 58%–100%. NNV to prevent one symptomatic infection and one hospitalisation was in the range of 80–500 and 500–4000. Based on available data, ARI and NNH as measures of harm were difficult to calculate, and the balance between benefits and harms using EBM measures remained uncertain. The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines as measured by ARR and NNV was substantially higher in population subgroups with high versus low baseline risks. CONCLUSIONS: Priorities for vaccine distribution should target subpopulations with higher baseline risks. Similar analyses using ARR/NNV and ARI/NNH would strengthen evaluations of vaccines’ benefits versus harms. An EBM perspective on vaccine distribution that emphasises baseline risks becomes especially important as the world’s population continues to face major barriers to vaccine access—sometimes termed ‘vaccine apartheid’.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9748517
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97485172022-12-14 How missing evidence-based medicine indicators can inform COVID-19 vaccine distribution policies: a scoping review and calculation of indicators from data in randomised controlled trials Larkin, Andrew Waitzkin, Howard Fassler, Ella Nayar, Kesavan Rajasekharan BMJ Open Public Health OBJECTIVE: Reports of efficacy, effectiveness and harms of COVID-19 vaccines have not used key indicators from evidence-based medicine (EBM) that can inform policies about vaccine distribution. This study aims to clarify EBM indicators that consider baseline risks when assessing vaccines’ benefits versus harms: absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number needed to be vaccinated (NNV), versus absolute risk of the intervention (ARI) and number needed to harm (NNH). METHODS: We used a multimethod approach, including a scoping review of the literature; calculation of risk reductions and harms from data concerning five major vaccines; analysis of risk reductions in population subgroups with varying baseline risks; and comparisons with prior vaccines. FINDINGS: The scoping review showed few reports regarding ARR, NNV, ARI and NNH; comparisons of benefits versus harms using these EBM methods; or analyses of varying baseline risks. Calculated ARRs for symptomatic infection and hospitalisation were approximately 1% and 0.1%, respectively, as compared with relative risk reduction of 50%–95% and 58%–100%. NNV to prevent one symptomatic infection and one hospitalisation was in the range of 80–500 and 500–4000. Based on available data, ARI and NNH as measures of harm were difficult to calculate, and the balance between benefits and harms using EBM measures remained uncertain. The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines as measured by ARR and NNV was substantially higher in population subgroups with high versus low baseline risks. CONCLUSIONS: Priorities for vaccine distribution should target subpopulations with higher baseline risks. Similar analyses using ARR/NNV and ARI/NNH would strengthen evaluations of vaccines’ benefits versus harms. An EBM perspective on vaccine distribution that emphasises baseline risks becomes especially important as the world’s population continues to face major barriers to vaccine access—sometimes termed ‘vaccine apartheid’. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-12-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9748517/ /pubmed/36523237 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063525 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Public Health
Larkin, Andrew
Waitzkin, Howard
Fassler, Ella
Nayar, Kesavan Rajasekharan
How missing evidence-based medicine indicators can inform COVID-19 vaccine distribution policies: a scoping review and calculation of indicators from data in randomised controlled trials
title How missing evidence-based medicine indicators can inform COVID-19 vaccine distribution policies: a scoping review and calculation of indicators from data in randomised controlled trials
title_full How missing evidence-based medicine indicators can inform COVID-19 vaccine distribution policies: a scoping review and calculation of indicators from data in randomised controlled trials
title_fullStr How missing evidence-based medicine indicators can inform COVID-19 vaccine distribution policies: a scoping review and calculation of indicators from data in randomised controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed How missing evidence-based medicine indicators can inform COVID-19 vaccine distribution policies: a scoping review and calculation of indicators from data in randomised controlled trials
title_short How missing evidence-based medicine indicators can inform COVID-19 vaccine distribution policies: a scoping review and calculation of indicators from data in randomised controlled trials
title_sort how missing evidence-based medicine indicators can inform covid-19 vaccine distribution policies: a scoping review and calculation of indicators from data in randomised controlled trials
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9748517/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36523237
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063525
work_keys_str_mv AT larkinandrew howmissingevidencebasedmedicineindicatorscaninformcovid19vaccinedistributionpoliciesascopingreviewandcalculationofindicatorsfromdatainrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT waitzkinhoward howmissingevidencebasedmedicineindicatorscaninformcovid19vaccinedistributionpoliciesascopingreviewandcalculationofindicatorsfromdatainrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT fasslerella howmissingevidencebasedmedicineindicatorscaninformcovid19vaccinedistributionpoliciesascopingreviewandcalculationofindicatorsfromdatainrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT nayarkesavanrajasekharan howmissingevidencebasedmedicineindicatorscaninformcovid19vaccinedistributionpoliciesascopingreviewandcalculationofindicatorsfromdatainrandomisedcontrolledtrials