1 / 53

Outcome evaluation of immunization

Outcome evaluation of immunization. Wei-Chu Chie. Immunization. Primary prevention specific protection baseline (basic) immunization booster immunization active vs. passive special groups infants and children, elderly adults, high risk groups. 實驗性方法的三要素. 實驗單位 (experimental unit)

elisha
Télécharger la présentation

Outcome evaluation of immunization

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Outcome evaluation of immunization Wei-Chu Chie outcome research

  2. Immunization • Primary prevention • specific protection • baseline (basic) immunization • booster immunization • active vs. passive • special groups • infants and children, elderly • adults, high risk groups outcome research

  3. 實驗性方法的三要素 • 實驗單位 (experimental unit) • 處置 (treatment) • 評估 (evaluation) outcome research

  4. 實驗單位 • 個人為單位 • 病人 • 藥物臨床試驗 • 教育介入 如病人衛生教育 • 健康人 • 疫苗預防性試驗 篩檢工具試驗 • 教育介入 如健康行為的養成 • 群體為單位 • 社區 班級 團體 outcome research

  5. 處置 • 新藥 • 新的飲食 • 診斷或篩檢 • 手術 • 醫療器材 • 教育介入 • 無治療 outcome research

  6. 評估 • 有效性 • 事件/事件史資料 (event/time to event) • well-being指標: 生活品質(quality of life) • 成本: 直接與間接醫療成本 • 暫時性或替代性指標: 生理 生化 病理資料 • 又稱終點 (end-points) • 安全性 • 不良反應及相關指標 • 經濟學: 成本效益 outcome research

  7. Three elements for immunization • Experiment unit • Individual, usually healthy • Treatments • can be viewed as drugs • Evaluation • efficacy • safety outcome research

  8. Basic characteristics • Easy to follow the rule of randomized controlled double-blinded trials • placebo control with blindness: easy to make, usually difficult to guess • individual randomization possible • requires a large sample size • low incidence of the disease to prevent • low incidence of adverse effects outcome research

  9. ethical concerns • administered on healthy people • autonomy emphasized: informed consent • safety emphasized: lower tolerance to adverse effects • active drug or placebo controls • placebo controls: standard design, required by FDA • active drug: ethical reason-the best available outcome research

  10. 人體實驗方法的倫理 • 以藥物臨床試驗發展最完備 • 赫爾辛基宣言 • ICH: International Conference on Harmonisation • GCP: Good Clinical Practice • IRB: Institutional Review Board • 人體試驗委員會 outcome research

  11. 人體實驗方法的倫理 • 赫爾辛基宣言: 醫學倫理四原則 • 仁愛 無害 自主 公正 • 研究重要性與風險相稱 (什麼題目不可做?) • 好處風險及不適感應有最好診治方法加以權衡 • 每個病人都應保證得到最好和被證實的診治技術 • 研究人員或調查小組判斷如果繼續進行會產生不良影響就應停止 • 自主性: 受試者同意書 informed consent • informed 信息的揭示 理解 • consent 自願的同意 同意的能力 outcome research

  12. Cost and effectiveness/utility • Usually proved to be cost-effective • Old schedule and contents of immunization has been established • New vaccines: suffers high cost for R&D • diminishing of marginal return • very difficult to find new, large-sampled, disease outcome research outcome research

  13. Examples • Salmonella typhi Vi conjugate vaccine for children • HPV vaccine for young women • double-blind randomized controlled trials • efficacy: the diseases to prevent • Registry-driven outreach: • randomized controlled trial • administrative study outcome research

  14. Salmonella typhi Vi • Lin FYC at el. The efficacy of a Salmonella typhi Vi conjugate vaccine in two-to-five-year-old children • NEJM 2001;344:1263-9. • Vi-rEPA: Vi 22.5 ug+rEPA (Psudomonas aeroginosa exotoxin A) 22 ug in 0.5 ml of phosphate-buffered saline + 0.01% thimerosal • enhance immunogenicity outcome research

  15. Vi-rEPA: background/goal/hypothesis • Background: • typhoid fever of children under 5 years in developing countries • the need for vaccination/ previous studies • Goal/hypothesis: • to determine whether ... /the vaccine is safe and can prevent typhoid fever in 2-5-year-old children outcome research

  16. Vi-rEPA: study design • Randomized controlled double-blinded trial • vaccine vs. saline placebo control • five-dose vials, indistinguishable 0.5 mlX5 (2.8 ml/vial) • randomized by individual random number 0-9 • randomization code: kept by the Department of Pharmacy of the NIH Clinical Center and by the chairman of the safety monitoring committee • broken on June 23, 2000 outcome research

  17. Vi-rEPA: study design • Randomization • by individual • for subjects: seven-digit ID • for injection vials: 0-9 on a random basis • subject vs. vial • the same last digit outcome research

  18. Vi-rEPA: study design • Injection protocol • two rounds • 2/21-3/8/1998…4/4-4/20/1998, 64 teams • separate 6 weeks • 0.5 ml with identical last digit • examination before and observations after injection outcome research

  19. Vi-rEPA: subjects • Cao Lanh District of Dong Thap Province in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam • 13776 children (96.4% of 14285) enrolled • exclusion: with illness requiring ongoing medical care • informed consents • parents or guardians outcome research

  20. Vi-rEPA: subjects • At least one injection: 12008 (5991:6017) • Two injections from correctly labeled vials: 11091 (5525:5566) outcome research

  21. Vi-rEPA: exposure/intervention • 0.5 ml Vi-rEPA X 2 six weeks apart • only one experiment group • control: saline placebo outcome research

  22. Vi-rEPA: endpoints • Primary • efficacy: typhoid fever attack rate • safety: rates of adverse effects • Secondary • paired serum IgG antibody titer (ELISA) • antibody persistence • Follow-up • visit weekly to 5/31/2000 (2 years) outcome research

  23. Vi-rEPA: endpoints • Definition of a typhoid fever attack • typhoid fever: S. typhi isolated from blood culture • detection: weekly visit---fever 37.5C at least 3 days---referred---6 ml blood (5 ml for culture, 1 ml for antibody) • review of bacteriologic records outcome research

  24. Vi-rEPA: data analysis • Basic characteristics • for confounding and possible selection bias (Table 1) • Correct label comparison • Intention-to-treat analysis outcome research

  25. Vi-rEPA: data analysis • Efficacy (Tables 3-5) • (1-attack rate (V))/attack rate (P))X100% • paired and unpaired t test for geomatric means of antibody titer, small sample • Safety (Table 2) • chi-square or Fisher’s exact test for adverse effects between two groups (fever, swelling, erythema) outcome research

  26. Vi-rEPA: major results/discussion • Efficacy • primary: attack rates (Table 3) V<P • efficacy 91% • secondary: antibody titer (Tables 4 & 5) • paired serum: only elevated in V group • levels 6mo, 1 yr, & 2 yr after injection • Safety • V>P only for fever 37.5C in two classifications • V>P for swelling 5 cm in who had 2 injections outcome research

  27. Vi-rEPA: major results/discussion • Discussion • Confounding, selection bias: randomization • Information bias: blindness • Definition • Sample size and power of test • Conclusion: • safe and 90% efficacy for 2-5 years outcome research

  28. HPV • Koutsky LA, et al. A controlled trial of a human papillomavirus type 16 vaccine • NEJM 2002;347:1645-51. • HPV-16 L1 virus-like particle vaccine • purified L1 polypeptide (yeast) outcome research

  29. HPV: background/goal/hypothesis • Background: • HPV as a STD/ HVP-16 and cervical cancer • HPV-16 L1 virus-like particle • Goal/hypothesis: • to determine whether ... /the vaccine can prevent HPV-16 infection in women (reduce the incidence of persistent HPV infection) outcome research

  30. HPV: study design • Randomized controlled double-blinded trial • vaccine vs. placebo control • double-blind: indistinguishable • intramuscular injection • randomized by individual • permuted-block design 1:1 outcome research

  31. HPV: subjects • 10/1998-11/1999, 2392 women from 16 centers in the US / advertisement: 1194 vs. 1198 • inclusion criteria: • 16-23 years, not pregnant, reported no prior abnormal Pap smears, no more than 5 male sex partners, virgins seeking contraception • exclusion (Table 1) • positive infection before intervention completed and other reasons • informed consents, IRB, compensation per visit outcome research

  32. HPV: subjects • Sample size • fixed-number-of-events design • at least 31 cases required to show a statistically significant reduction in the primary endpoint • 75% efficacy, 90% power, 2% dropout per yr • 2350 enrolled • 31 cases on 8/31/2001… primary analysis outcome research

  33. HPV: exposure/intervention • Vaccine • 40 ug HPV-16 L1 virus-like particles + 225 ug of aluminum adjuvant = 0.5 ml • only one experiment group • control: placebo 225 ug of aluminum adjuvant in 0.5 ml • im injection at day 0, month 2, and month 6 outcome research

  34. HPV: endpoints • Primary • efficacy: persistent HPV infection (surrogate!) • safety: adverse effects • Secondary • HPV antibody titer 5.9 mMU/ml • Follow-up • one month, 6 months after 3rd vaccination, every six months outcome research

  35. HPV: definition and detection of HPV infection • method: • cervical samples: Pap smear, swabs, lavage for HPV-16 DNA testing • abnormal Pap smear: colposcopic exam biopsy • case of ‘persistent’ HPV-16 infection: • (-) at day 0 & month 7… (+) subsequently in 2 or more consecutive visits 4 or more months apart • … biopsy: CIN or cancer and HPV-16 DNA • … HPV-16 DNA detected in the last visit • transient infection: once (+) outcome research

  36. HPV: definition and detection of adverse effects • Any sign or symptom of illness or abnormal lab test … • asked 14 d (dairy, primary), 2, 6, and 7 months • that occurred during the protocol-specified follow-up period, that was not present at enrollment, or if present, had worsened • body temperature recorded five days after • 37.7 C outcome research

  37. HPV: data analysis • Exclusion and reasons (Table 1) • Basic characteristics • for confounding and possible selection bias (Table 2) • Fixed-number-of events design • including and excluding violation cases outcome research

  38. HPV: data analysis • Efficacy • primary endpoint: efficacy by infection rate per person-time • primary analysis: negative before the end of intervention and no violation • second analysis: negative … + general violation • for transient infection/CIN • secondary endpoint: difference of antibody titer at month 7 • geometric means of antibody titer outcome research

  39. HPV: data analysis • Safety • adverse events during the 14 days after any of the 3 vaccinations • all subjects included • number of cases (almost equal size) • pain at the injection site • systemic • discontinued due to AE outcome research

  40. HPV: major results/discussion • Efficacy • primary on persistent infection rate (Table 3) • primary analysis: 100%! • secondary analysis: 100%! • primary but including transient infection: 91.2% • for neoplasia: P. 1649 • secondary on antibody titer (immunogenicity) • Safety (Table 4) outcome research

  41. HPV: major results/discussion • Discussion • Confounding, selection bias: randomization • exclusion after randomization and intervention! • Information bias: blindness • Definition of cases: persistent, transient? • Sample size and power of test • loss of subjects because of (+) infection in the beginning outcome research

  42. HPV: major results/discussion • Follow up time • relation to CIN and CC • Conclusion: • for infection high short-term efficacy • for related neoplasia outcome research

  43. Outreach • Wilcox SA, et al. Registry-driven, community-ased immunization outreach: a randomized controlled trial. AJPH 2001;91:1507-11. outcome research

  44. Outreach: background/goal/hypothesis • Background: • provider-based vs. community-based registry-driven outreach • Goal/hypothesis: • whether community-based registry-driven outreach can improve immunization rate • whether predictors of under immunization can be used to target at-risk children outcome research

  45. Outreach: study design • Randomized controlled trial • three groups • outreach (two samples) • mailed reminder letter • control: no intervention • no double-blindness • both subjects and raters were not blind. • randomized by individual outcome research

  46. Outreach: subjects • KIDS immunization database/tracking system • Philadelphia, 1997 • 1696 6-10 months children/2 random samples • a second random sample: 160 all assigned to the outreach group • no informed consents • IRB review (Albert Einstein Medical Center) outcome research

  47. Outreach: subjects • 1856 children (1696+160) • 104 did not meet participation criteria… 1752 • 23% immunization history incomplete • 4% refused to give history • 16% fail to contact • 991 with immunization history 57% • outreach 379: control 612 • further exclusion: those up-dated by 7 months • 3 DTO, 2 OPV, 2 Hib, 2 HBV outcome research

  48. Outreach: exposure/intervention • two community-based organizations contracted by the DPH • 2/3 bilingual social services agency • outreach 1/3 • reminder letter 1/3 • no intervention 1/3 • 1/3 university nursing center • outreach 1/2 • reminder letter 1/4 • no intervention 1/4 outcome research

  49. Outreach: exposure/intervention • Outreach • outreach workers • locate the family, obtain the immunization history, assess whether up to date • update the registry, 4 attempts • differences between two agencies outcome research

  50. Outreach: endpoints • Primary • Receive immunization during observation period • For not-up-date children only • missing more than the third DTP (degree of delay) • Secondary outcome research

More Related