Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.
Skip to main content

Background Demonstrating efficacy of new Vi-conjugate typhoid vaccines is challenging due to the cost of field trials requiring tens of thousands of participants. New trial designs that use serologically-defined typhoid infections (seroefficacy trials) rather than blood culture positivity as a study endpoint may be useful to assess efficacy using small trials. Methods We developed a model for Vi-IgG antibody response to a Vi-vaccine, decay over time, and natural boosting due to endemic exposures. From this we simulated clinical trials in which two blood samples were taken during follow-up, and the relative risk of serologically-defined typhoid infection (seroefficacy) was computed. We aimed to determine if seroefficacy trial designs could substantially reduce sample sizes compared with trials using blood-culture-confirmed cases; if case detection was higher in seroefficacy trials; and the optimal timing of sample collection. Results The majority (>90%) of blood-culture-positive typhoid cases remain unobserved in surveillance studies. In contrast, underdetection in simulated seroefficacy trials of equivalent vaccines was as little as 26%, and estimates of the relative risk of typhoid infection were unbiased. For simulated trials of non-equivalent vaccines, relative risks were slightly inflated by at least 5% depending on sample collection times. Seroefficacy trials required as few as 460 participants per arm, compared with 10,000 per arm for trials using blood-culture-confirmed cases. Conclusion Seroefficacy trials can establish the efficacy of new conjugate vaccines using small trials enrolling hundreds rather than thousands of participants, and without the need for resource-intensive typhoid fever surveillance programmes.

Original publication

DOI

10.1093/cid/ciy1119

Type

Journal article

Journal

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Publication Date

07/03/2019