Quantifying Efficiency Gains of Innovative Designs of Two-Arm Vaccine Trials for COVID-19 Using an Epidemic Simulation Model

How could a pooled testing policy have performed in managing the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic? Results from a simulation study

A coordinated testing policy is an essential tool for responding to emerging epidemics, as was seen with COVID-19. However, it is very difficult to agree on the best policy when there are multiple conflicting objectives. A key objective is minimizing cost, which is why pooled testing (a method that involves pooling samples taken from multiple individuals and analyzing this with a single diagnostic test) has been suggested. In this article, we present results from an extensive and realistic simulation study comparing testing policies based on individually testing subjects with symptoms (a policy resembling the UK strategy at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic), individually testing subjects at random or pools of subjects randomly combined and tested. To compare these testing methods, a dynamic model compromised of a relationship network and an extended SEIR model is used. In contrast to most existing literature, testing capacity is considered as fixed and limited rather than unbounded. This article then explores the impact of the proportion of symptomatic infections on the expected performance of testing policies. Symptomatic testing performs better than pooled testing unless a low proportion of infections are symptomatic. Additionally, we include the novel feature for testing of non-compliance and perform a sensitivity analysis for different compliance assumptions. Our results suggest for the pooled testing scheme to be superior to testing symptomatic people individually, only a small proportion of the population (> 10 % $$ >10\% $$ ) needs to not comply with the testing procedure.

Value of information dynamics in Disease X vaccine clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Solutions have been proposed to accelerate the development and rollout of vaccines against a hypothetical disease with epidemic or pandemic potential called Disease X. This may involve resolving uncertainties regarding the disease and the new vaccine. However the value for public health of collecting this information will depend on the time needed to perform research, but also on the time needed to produce vaccine doses. We explore this interplay, and its effect on the decision on whether or not to perform research.

METHOD

We simulate numerically the emergence and transmission of a disease in a population using a susceptible-infected-recovered (SIR) compartmental model with vaccination. Uncertainties regarding the disease and the vaccine are represented by parameter prior distributions. We vary the date at which vaccine doses are available, and the date at which information about parameters becomes available. We use the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) and the expected value of partially perfect information (EVPPI) to measure the value of information.

RESULTS

As expected, information has less or no value if it comes too late, or (equivalently) if it can only be used too late. However we also find non trivial dynamics for shorter durations of vaccine development. In this parameter area, it can be optimal to implement vaccination without waiting for information depending on the respective durations of dose production and of clinical research.

CONCLUSION

We illustrate the value of information dynamics in a Disease X outbreak scenario, and present a general approach to properly take into account uncertainties and transmission dynamics when planning clinical research in this scenario. Our method is based on numerical simulation and allows us to highlight non trivial effects that cannot otherwise be investigated.

Response-adaptive randomization in clinical trials: from myths to practical considerations

Response-Adaptive Randomization (RAR) is part of a wider class of data-dependent sampling algorithms, for which clinical trials are typically used as a motivating application. In that context, patient allocation to treatments is determined by randomization probabilities that change based on the accrued response data in order to achieve experimental goals. RAR has received abundant theoretical attention from the biostatistical literature since the 1930's and has been the subject of numerous debates. In the last decade, it has received renewed consideration from the applied and methodological communities, driven by well-known practical examples and its widespread use in machine learning. Papers on the subject present different views on its usefulness, and these are not easy to reconcile. This work aims to address this gap by providing a unified, broad and fresh review of methodological and practical issues to consider when debating the use of RAR in clinical trials.