Struchiner C J, Halloran M E
IMS/UERJ and Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Epidemiol Infect. 2007 Feb;135(2):181-94. doi: 10.1017/S0950268806006716.
In randomized trials, the treatment assignment mechanism is independent of the outcome of interest and other covariates thought to be relevant in determining this outcome. It also allows, on average, for a balanced distribution of these covariates in the vaccine and placebo groups. Randomization, however, does not guarantee that the estimated effect is an unbiased estimate of the biological effect of interest. We show how exposure to infection can be a confounder even in randomized vaccine field trials. Based on a simple model of the biological efficacy of interest, we extend the arguments on comparability and collapsibility to examine the limits of randomization to control for unmeasured covariates. Estimates from randomized, placebo-controlled Phase III vaccine field trials that differ in baseline transmission are not comparable unless explicit control for baseline transmission is taken into account.
在随机试验中,治疗分配机制独立于感兴趣的结果以及被认为与确定该结果相关的其他协变量。平均而言,它还能使这些协变量在疫苗组和安慰剂组中实现均衡分布。然而,随机化并不能保证所估计的效应是对感兴趣的生物学效应的无偏估计。我们展示了即使在随机疫苗现场试验中,感染暴露如何可能成为一个混杂因素。基于一个关于感兴趣的生物学功效的简单模型,我们扩展了关于可比性和可压缩性的论证,以检验随机化在控制未测量协变量方面的局限性。除非考虑对基线传播进行明确控制,否则来自基线传播不同的随机、安慰剂对照III期疫苗现场试验的估计值是不可比的。