Case-control vaccine effectiveness studies: Data collection, analysis and reporting results.

The case-control methodology is frequently used to evaluate vaccine effectiveness post-licensure. The results of such studies provide important insight into the level of protection afforded by vaccines in a 'real world' context, and are commonly used to guide vaccine policy decisions. However, the potential for bias and confounding are important limitations to this method, and the results of a poorly conducted or incorrectly interpreted case-control study can mislead policies. In 2012, a group of experts met to review recent experience with case-control studies evaluating vaccine effectiveness; we summarize the recommendations of that group regarding best practices for data collection, analysis, and presentation of the results of case-control vaccine effectiveness studies. Vaccination status is the primary exposure of interest, but can be challenging to assess accurately and with minimal bias. Investigators should understand factors associated with vaccination as well as the availability of documented vaccination status in the study context; case-control studies may not be a valid method for evaluating vaccine effectiveness in settings where many children lack a documented immunization history. To avoid bias, it is essential to use the same methods and effort gathering vaccination data from cases and controls. Variables that may confound the association between illness and vaccination are also important to capture as completely as possible, and where relevant, adjust for in the analysis according to the analytic plan. In presenting results from case-control vaccine effectiveness studies, investigators should describe enrollment among eligible cases and controls as well as the proportion with no documented vaccine history. Emphasis should be placed on confidence intervals, rather than point estimates, of vaccine effectiveness. Case-control studies are a useful approach for evaluating vaccine effectiveness; however careful attention must be paid to the collection, analysis and presentation of the data in order to best inform evidence-based vaccine policies.

Case-control vaccine effectiveness studies: Preparation, design, and enrollment of cases and controls.

Case-control studies are commonly used to evaluate effectiveness of licensed vaccines after deployment in public health programs. Such studies can provide policy-relevant data on vaccine performance under 'real world' conditions, contributing to the evidence base to support and sustain introduction of new vaccines. However, case-control studies do not measure the impact of vaccine introduction on disease at a population level, and are subject to bias and confounding, which may lead to inaccurate results that can misinform policy decisions. In 2012, a group of experts met to review recent experience with case-control studies evaluating the effectiveness of several vaccines; here we summarize the recommendations of that group regarding best practices for planning, design and enrollment of cases and controls. Rigorous planning and preparation should focus on understanding the study context including healthcare-seeking and vaccination practices. Case-control vaccine effectiveness studies are best carried out soon after vaccine introduction because high coverage creates strong potential for confounding. Endpoints specific to the vaccine target are preferable to non-specific clinical syndromes since the proportion of non-specific outcomes preventable through vaccination may vary over time and place, leading to potentially confusing results. Controls should be representative of the source population from which cases arise, and are generally recruited from the community or health facilities where cases are enrolled. Matching of controls to cases for potential confounding factors is commonly used, although should be reserved for a limited number of key variables believed to be linked to both vaccination and disease. Case-control vaccine effectiveness studies can provide information useful to guide policy decisions and vaccine development, however rigorous preparation and design is essential.

Federal role in early detection preparedness systems.

This report discusses CDC's role in the early detection of threats to public health, including linkage of detection to other preparedness functions, and provides an update on recent progress in improving these capabilities. CDC's role has been fivefold: 1) identifying and adopting information system standards; 2) providing funding; 3) defining critical surveillance functionalities; 4) accelerating Internet-based surveillance systems and electronic reporting of laboratory results; and 5) implementing BioSense, a secure, Internet-accessible, national early detection system that includes syndromic surveillance. Ongoing iterative efforts and consultation are needed to ensure future progress.

Public Health Information Network--improving early detection by using a standards-based approach to connecting public health and clinical medicine.

Public health departments and their clinical partners are moving ahead rapidly to implement systems for early detection of disease outbreaks. In the urgency to develop useful early detection systems, information systems must adhere to certain standards to facilitate sustainable, real-time delivery of important data and to make data available to the public health partners who verify, investigate, and respond to outbreaks. To ensure this crucial interoperability, all information systems supported by federal funding for state and local preparedness capacity are required to adhere to the Public Health Information Network standards.

Statutory basis for public health reporting beyond specific diseases.

Statutory authority for public health surveillance is necessarily broad as previously uncharacterized diseases are regularly discovered. This article provides specific information about general disease reporting provisions in each state. The intent of these reporting laws and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule is to support this critical disease surveillance function for the benefit of the entire population.

Comparison of Three Selective Enrichment Methods for the Isolation of Listeria monocytogenes from Naturally Contaminated Foods.

Three selective enrichment procedures-the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) method, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) method, and the Netherlands Government Food Inspection Service (NGFIS) method-were compared for isolating Listeria monocytogenes from contaminated foods. The foods were obtained from the refrigerators of patients with culture-proven listeriosis who were identified through multistate active surveillance in a U.S. population of 19 million. The study was designed to identify foods that may be important in transmission of L. monocytogenes in sporadic cases of human listeriosis. Of 899 foods analyzed by all three methods, 121 were positive for L. monocytogenes by at least one method. The three enrichment methods detected L. monocytogenes in 65% (FDA), 74% (USDA), and 74% (NGFIS) of the foods shown to contain L. monocytogenes . The differences among the three methods were not statistically significant. However, the recovery of L. monocytogenes by a combination of any two methods (USDA-FDA 88%, USDA-NGFIS 91%, FDA-NGFIS 87%) was significantly better than that by one method alone (p < 0.02). The differences among the combinations of methods were not statistically significant. These results suggest that at least two enrichment methods must be used in combination to recover L. monocytogenes from contaminated foods with a success rate near 90%. Correlations were observed between negative results and low (<0.3 CFU/g) level of L. monocytogenes contamination for the USDA (p << 0.001) and NGFIS (p << 0.001) methods. A similar but somewhat weaker association was observed for the FDA method (p < 0.06).

Listeria monocytogenes Contamination of Turkey Franks: Evaluation of a Production Facility.

A facility which produced turkey franks that had been microbiologically linked to a case of human listeriosis was evaluated to establish prevalence of contamination and identify potential points for intervention. Listeria monocytogenes was isolated from only two of 41 environmental samples obtained in the plant. Among production line product samples analyzed by the Centers for Disease Control, 0 to 8% of samples from the production stages before the peeler-conveyor belt apparatus were positive for the case strain of L. monocytogenes , whereas 12 of 14 (86%) samples collected from this apparatus were positive (p <0.001). The most probable number (MPN) of L. monocytogenes in finished product purchased from a retail outlet was less than 0.3 per gram; however, the opened package of franks from the case patient's refrigerator had an MPN of >1100 per gram. These data suggest that systematic culturing and analysis of products and production facilities may help identify appropriate interventions to reduce L. monocytogenes contamination in food processing plants and contribute to control of L. monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meat products.