Targeted Estimation of Cumulative Vaccine Sieve Effects

  • David Benkeser
  • Marco Carone
  • Peter Gilbert
Part of the Springer Series in Statistics book series (SSS)


Over the last century, effective vaccines have been developed for prevention of disease caused by many pathogens. However, effective vaccines have not yet been developed to prevent infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). A challenge in developing a vaccine to prevent HIV infection is the substantial heterogeneity in the genetic characteristics of the virus. Preventive HIV vaccines are typically constructed using only several antigens and may protect well against infection caused by virus strains similar to antigens in the vaccine, but fail to protect against disease caused by antigenically dissimilar strains. Therefore, when evaluating preventive HIV vaccines, it is important to study whether and how the efficacy of the vaccine varies with the virus’ characteristics—this field of study is called sieve analysis (Gilbert et al. 19982001). The vaccine can be thought of as a sieve, inducing a strain-specific immunity that presents a barrier to infection, while there also may be “holes in the sieve,” that is, HIV strains that break through the vaccine barrier.


  1. O. Aalen, Nonparametric estimation of partial transition probabilities in multiple decrement models. Ann. Stat. 6, 534–545 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. H. Bang, J.M. Robins, Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models. Biometrics 61, 962–972 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. J. Benichou, M.H. Gail, Estimates of absolute cause-specific risk in cohort studies. Biometrics 46, 813–826 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. J.P. Fine, R.J. Gray, A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 94(446), 496–509 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. J.J. Gaynor, E.J. Feuer, C.C. Tan, D.H. Wu, C.R. Little, D.J. Straus, B.D. Clarkson, M.F. Brennan, On the use of cause-specific failure and conditional failure probabilities: examples from clinical oncology data. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 88(422), 400–409 (1993)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. P.B. Gilbert, Comparison of competing risks failure time methods and time-independent methods for assessing strain variations in vaccine protection. Stat. Med. 19(22), 3065–3086 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. P.B. Gilbert, S.G. Self, M.A. Ashby, Statistical methods for assessing differential vaccine protection against human immunodeficiency virus types. Biometrics 54(3), 799–814 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. P.B. Gilbert, S.G. Self, M. Rao, A. Naficy, J. Clemens, Sieve analysis: methods for assessing from vaccine trial data how vaccine efficacy varies with genotypic and phenotypic pathogen variation. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 54(1), 68–85 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. N. Grambauer, M. Schumacher, J. Beyersmann, Proportional subdistribution hazards modeling offers a summary analysis, even if misspecified. Stat. Med. 29(7–8), 875–884 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. S.M. Hammer, M.E. Sobieszczyk, H. Janes, S.T. Karuna, M.J. Mulligan, D. Grove, B.A. Koblin, S.P. Buchbinder, M.C. Keefer, G.D. Tomaras, Efficacy trial of a DNA/rAd5 HIV-1 preventive vaccine. N. Engl. J. Med. 369(22), 2083–2092 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. M. Lunn, D. McNeil, Applying Cox regression to competing risks. Biometrics 51, 524–532 (1995). ISSN 0006-341XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. K.L. Moore, M.J. van der Laan, Application of time-to-event methods in the assessment of safety in clinical trials, in Design, Summarization, Analysis & Interpretation of Clinical Trials with Time-to-Event Endpoints, ed. by K.E. Peace (Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton, 2009a)Google Scholar
  13. M. Pintilie, Analysing and interpreting competing risk data. Stat. Med. 26(6), 1360–1367 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. R.L. Prentice, J.D. Kalbfleisch, A.V. Peterson Jr, N. Flournoy, V.T. Farewell, N.E. Breslow, The analysis of failure times in the presence of competing risks. Biometrics 34(4), 541–554 (1978)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. M. Rolland, P.T. Edlefsen, B.B. Larsen, S. Tovanabutra, E. Sanders-Buell, T. Hertz, C. Carrico, S. Menis, C.A. Magaret, H. Ahmed, Increased HIV-1 vaccine efficacy against viruses with genetic signatures in Env V2. Nature 490(7420), 417–420 (2012). ISSN 0028-0836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. O.M. Stitelman, M.J. van der Laan. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation of effect modification parameters in survival analysis. Int. J. Biostat. 7(1), 1–34 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. C.A. Struthers, J.D. Kalbfleisch, Misspecified proportional hazard models. Biometrika 73(2), 363–369 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. M.J. van der Laan, S. Gruber, Targeted minimum loss based estimation of causal effects of multiple time point interventions. Int. J. Biostat. 8(1), Article 9 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biostatistics and BioinformaticsRollins School of Public Health, Emory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiostatisticsUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Vaccine and Infectious Disease DivisionFred Hutchinson Cancer Research CenterSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations