• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Int J Epidemiol . Bias in control selection associated with the use of rapid tests in influenza vaccine effectiveness studies

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Int J Epidemiol


. 2025 Jun 11;54(4):dyaf089.
doi: 10.1093/ije/dyaf089. Bias in control selection associated with the use of rapid tests in influenza vaccine effectiveness studies

Eero Poukka[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Caitriona Murphy[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Loretta Mak[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Samuel M S Cheng[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Malik Peiris[SUP] 3 4 [/SUP], Tim K Tsang[SUP] 3 5 [/SUP], Sheena G Sullivan[SUP] 6 7 [/SUP], Benjamin J Cowling[SUP] 3 5 [/SUP]



Affiliations
Abstract

Background: In test-negative design (TND) studies that use rapid tests to estimate influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE), a common concern is case-control misclassification due to imperfect diagnostic accuracy. An imperfect test can also fail to exclude from the control group people infected with other influenza types or other vaccine-preventable respiratory viruses. We investigated these biases while evaluating VE for the 2023/24 seasonal influenza vaccination.
Methods: A TND study was conducted among outpatients aged ≥6 months of age who visited an outpatient clinic in Hong Kong between 15 December 2023 and 13 August 2024. VE was estimated for polymerase chain reaction (PCR)- and rapid-test-confirmed influenza A and B with exclusions of other types of influenza and SARS-CoV-2 based on either PCR or rapid test. Alternatively, for the exclusion of SARS-CoV-2, we adjusted the analysis with COVID-19 vaccination. VE was estimated by using logistic regression adjusted for confounders.
Results: In a study population of 1691 participants, VE against influenza A by PCR was 49% [95% confidence interval (CI) 26%-65%] after the exclusion of PCR-confirmed influenza B and SARS-CoV-2 controls. The corresponding VE against influenza B was 65% (95% CI 35%-81%). VE estimated by adjusting for COVID-19 vaccination status yielded similar estimates to these. When case-control status and exclusions from test-negative controls were determined by using the rapid test, VE was reduced by 5%age-15%age points.
Conclusion: In TND studies using rapid tests, reduced sensitivity affects both case-control classification and control group exclusions, potentially causing bias. New methods for these biases could help to adapt participatory cohorts for the monitoring of VE for influenza, COVID-19, and respiratory syncytial virus.

Keywords: PCR test; bias; influenza; rapid test; test-negative design; vaccine effectiveness.

 
Back
Top Bottom