Skip to main content
2024 ISPE Annual Meeting Main banner
Icon Legend
This session is not in your schedule.
This session is in your schedule. Click again to remove it.
Back
Evaluation Video

Oral Presentation

Session: Assessing COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness

Considerations for Negative Control Outcome Analyses in Vaccine Effectiveness Studies: Post-Hoc Analyses from an Adult Vaccine Effectiveness Study conducted within the FDA BEST Initiative

Tuesday, August 27, 2024
8:30 AM – 8:45 AM CEST
Location: Conv Hall I C
Background: Negative control outcomes are useful in observational studies to evaluate potential residual confounding. For vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies, the first 14 days after vaccination has been suggested as a negative control period, since vaccines are not effective immediately after administration. However, analyses from the FDA BEST Initiative observed that COVID-19 vaccines were moderately protective against COVID-19 during this time.

Objectives: 1) To evaluate reasons for the early apparent protective effect of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 monovalent COVID-19 vaccines on COVID-19 diagnosed in any medical setting, and 2) to examine alternative negative control outcomes.

Methods: We investigated patterns of COVID-19 testing and diagnoses within 14 days of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccination among cohorts of vaccinated and matched unvaccinated adults (18-64 years), using data from Optum and CVS Health claims data including COVID-19 vaccine records from Immunization Information Systems. We evaluated characteristics of individuals with concurrent COVID-19 diagnosis and vaccination on Day 0. With Optum data, we also estimated VE for alternative negative control outcomes.

Results: The study included 341,097 (Optum) and 1,151,775 (CVS) matched pairs for BNT162b2 and 201,604 (Optum) and 651,545 (CVS) for mRNA-1273. From Day 0-2, 200 (Optum) and 11,953 (CVS) fewer BNT162b2 vaccinated individuals had a claim for COVID-19 lab testing than unvaccinated individuals. There were differences between groups with and without concurrent COVID-19 diagnosis/vaccination on Day 0. For example, 55% (Optum) and 85% (CVS) of vaccinated individuals with concurrent mRNA-1273 vaccination and COVID-19 diagnosis received the vaccine in an office vs. 11% (Optum) and 12% (CVS) without concurrent vaccination/diagnosis; results were similar for BNT162b2. Additionally, 38% (Optum) and 65% (CVS) of individuals with concurrent mRNA-1273 vaccination and COVID-19 diagnosis were from the Northeast vs. 13% (Optum) and 21% (CVS) without concurrent vaccination/diagnosis. For alternative negative control outcomes of urinary tract infections (UTI) and fractures, VE estimates indicated limited or no association; VE estimates for UTI were 4% (BNT162b2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1%, 8%) and 3% (mRNA-1273: 95% CI: -1%, 8%), and for fractures were -1% (BNT162b2, 95% CI: -6%, 5%) and 4% (mRNA-1273, 95% CI: -3%, 10%).

Conclusions: COVID-19 diagnostic testing patterns and co-recording of vaccine and COVID-19 diagnoses may limit the utility of using the 14-day window following vaccination as a negative control outcome in claims-based COVID-19 studies. Future COVID-19 VE studies should consider multiple negative control outcomes to assess potential for residual confounding.