Challenges and Adaptation of a European Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Study Platform in Response to the COVID-19 Emergence: Experience from the DRIVE Project

The Development of Robust and Innovative Vaccine Effectiveness (DRIVE) project is a public–private partnership aiming to build capacity in Europe for yearly estimation of brand-specific influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE). DRIVE is a five-year project funded by IMI (Innovative Medicines Initiative). It was initiated as a response to the guidance on influenza vaccines by EMA (European Medicines Agency), which advised vaccine manufacturers to work with public health institutes to set up a joint IVE study platform. The COVID-19 pandemic reached Europe in February 2020 and overlapped with the 2019/2020 influenza season only in the last weeks. However, several elements of the DRIVE study network were impacted. The pandemic specifically affected the study sites’ routines and the subsequent assessment of the 2019/20 influenza season. Moreover, the current social distancing measures and lockdown policies across Europe are expected to also limit the circulation of influenza for the 2020/21 season, and therefore the impact of COVID-19 will be higher than in the season 2019/20. Consequently, DRIVE has planned to adapt its study platform to the COVID-19 challenge, encompassing several COVID-19 particularities in the study procedures, data collection and IVE analysis for the 2020/21 season. DRIVE will study the feasibility of implementing these COVID-19 components and establish the foundations of future COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies.

Chest radiograph reading panel performance in a Bangladesh pneumococcal vaccine effectiveness study

IntroductionTo evaluate WHO chest radiograph interpretation processes during a pneumococcal vaccine effectiveness study of children aged 3–35 months with suspected pneumonia in Sylhet, Bangladesh.MethodsEight physicians masked to all data were standardised to WHO methodology and interpreted chest radiographs between 2015 and 2017. Each radiograph was randomly assigned to two primary readers. If the primary readers were discordant for image interpretability or the presence or absence of primary endpoint pneumonia (PEP), then another randomly selected, masked reader adjudicated the image (arbitrator). If the arbitrator disagreed with both primary readers, or concluded no PEP, then a masked expert reader finalised the interpretation. The expert reader also conducted blinded quality control (QC) for 20% of randomly selected images. We evaluated agreement between primary readers and between the expert QC reading and the final panel interpretation using per cent agreement, unadjusted Cohen’s kappa, and a prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa.ResultsAmong 9723 images, the panel classified 21.3% as PEP, 77.6% no PEP and 1.1% uninterpretable. Two primary readers agreed on interpretability for 98% of images (kappa, 0.25; prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa, 0.97). Among interpretable radiographs, primary readers agreed on the presence or absence of PEP in 79% of images (kappa, 0.35; adjusted kappa, 0.57). Expert QC readings agreed with final panel conclusions on the presence or absence of PEP for 92.9% of 1652 interpretable images (kappa, 0.75; adjusted kappa, 0.85).ConclusionPrimary reader performance and QC results suggest the panel effectively applied the WHO chest radiograph criteria for pneumonia.