Bayesian Model Averaging to Account for Model Uncertainty in Estimates of a Vaccine's Effectiveness.

PURPOSE

Vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies are often conducted after the introduction of new vaccines to ensure they provide protection in real-world settings. Control of confounding is often needed during the analyses, which is most efficiently done through multivariable modeling. When many confounders are being considered, it can be challenging to know which variables need to be included in the final model. We propose an intuitive Bayesian model averaging (BMA) framework for this task.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were used from a matched case-control study that aimed to assess the effectiveness of the Lyme vaccine post-licensure. Cases were residents of Connecticut, 15-70 years of age with confirmed Lyme disease. Up to 2 healthy controls were matched to each case subject by age. All participants were interviewed, and medical records were reviewed to ascertain immunization history and evaluate potential confounders. BMA was used to systematically search for potential models and calculate the weighted average VE estimate from the top subset of models. The performance of BMA was compared to three traditional single-best-model-selection methods: two-stage selection, stepwise elimination, and the leaps and bounds algorithm.

RESULTS

The analysis included 358 cases and 554 matched controls. VE ranged between 56% and 73% and 95% confidence intervals crossed zero in <5% of all candidate models. Averaging across the top 15 models, the BMA VE was 69% (95% CI: 18-88%). The two-stage, stepwise, and leaps and bounds algorithm yielded VE of 71% (95% CI: 21-90%), 73% (95% CI: 26-90%), and 74% (95% CI: 27-91%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This paper highlights how the BMA framework can be used to generate transparent and robust estimates of VE. The BMA-derived VE and confidence intervals were similar to those estimated using traditional methods. However, by incorporating model uncertainty into the parameter estimation, BMA can lend additional rigor and credibility to a well-designed study.