Measuring Vaccine Efficacy Against Infection and Disease in Clinical Trials: Sources and Magnitude of Bias in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine Efficacy Estimates.

BACKGROUND: Phase III trials have estimated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine efficacy (VE) against symptomatic and asymptomatic infection. We explore the direction and magnitude of potential biases in these estimates and their implications for vaccine protection against infection and against disease in breakthrough infections. METHODS: We developed a mathematical model that accounts for natural and vaccine-induced immunity, changes in serostatus, and imperfect sensitivity and specificity of tests for infection and antibodies. We estimated expected biases in VE against symptomatic, asymptomatic, and any severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and against disease following infection for a range of vaccine characteristics and measurement approaches, and the likely overall biases for published trial results that included asymptomatic infections. RESULTS: VE against asymptomatic infection measured by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or serology is expected to be low or negative for vaccines that prevent disease but not infection. VE against any infection is overestimated when asymptomatic infections are less likely to be detected than symptomatic infections and the vaccine protects against symptom development. A competing bias toward underestimation arises for estimates based on tests with imperfect specificity, especially when testing is performed frequently. Our model indicates considerable uncertainty in Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 and Janssen Ad26.COV2.S VE against any infection, with slightly higher than published, bias-adjusted values of 59.0% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 38.4-77.1) and 70.9% (95% UI 49.8-80.7), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple biases are likely to influence COVID-19 VE estimates, potentially explaining the observed difference between ChAdOx1 and Ad26.COV2.S vaccines. These biases should be considered when interpreting both efficacy and effectiveness study results.

Implementation and adherence to regular asymptomatic testing in a COVID-19 vaccine trial.

BACKGROUND: For pathogens which cause infections that present asymptomatically, evaluating vaccine efficacy (VE) against asymptomatic infection is important for understanding a vaccine's potential epidemiological impact. Regular testing for subclinical infections is a potentially valuable strategy but its success hinges on participant adherence and minimising false positives. This paper describes the implementation and adherence to weekly testing in a COVID-19 vaccine trial. METHODS: COV002 was a phase 2/3 trial assessing the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. Asymptomatic infections were detected using weekly self-administered swabs for RT-PCR testing. We analysed adherence using mixed-effects regression models and estimated the probability of true and false positive asymptomatic infections using estimates of adherence and testing characteristics. FINDINGS: 356,551 tests were self-administered by 10,811 participants during the 13-month follow-up. Median adherence was 75.0% (IQR 42·6-90·9), which translated to a 74·5% (IQR 50·9-78·8) probability of detecting a positive asymptomatic infection during the swabbing period, and between 21 and 96 false positives during VE evaluation. The odds of returning a swab declined by 8% per week and further after testing positive and unblinding. Adherence was higher in older age groups, females and non-healthcare workers. INTERPRETATION: The COV002 trial demonstrated the feasibility of running a long-term regular asymptomatic testing strategy. This information could be valuable for designing future phase III vaccine trials in which infection is an outcome. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, AstraZeneca.

Is coronal restoration more important than root filling for ultimate endodontic success?

UNLABELLED: The importance of a good coronal seal and restoration of the endodontically treated tooth has been hotly debated over recent years. This article reviews the evidence in the literature that exists to demonstrate which techniques can be used for optimal results, and whether the root filling or coronal seal is more relevant. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Evidence from both in vitro and in vivo studies supports the findings that both coronal seal and root filling in combination are essential for successful and predictable endodontics.