Information bias of vaccine effectiveness estimation due to informed consent for national registration of COVID-19 vaccination: estimation and correction using a data augmentation model

Background: Registration in the Dutch national COVID-19 vaccination register requires consent from the vaccinee. This causes misclassification of non-consenting vaccinated persons as being unvaccinated. We quantified and corrected the resulting information bias in the estimation of vaccine effectiveness (VE). Methods: National data were used for the period dominated by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant (11 July to 15 November 2021). VE ((1-relative risk)*100%) against COVID-19 hospitalization and ICU admission was estimated for individuals 12-49, 50-69, and ≥70 years of age using negative binomial regression. Anonymous data on vaccinations administered by the Municipal Health Services were used to determine informed consent percentages and estimate corrected VEs by iterative data augmentation. Absolute bias was calculated as the absolute change in VE; relative bias as uncorrected / corrected relative risk. Results: A total of 8,804 COVID-19 hospitalizations and 1,692 COVID-19 ICU admissions were observed. The bias was largest in the 70+ age group where the non-consent proportion was 7.0% and observed vaccination coverage was 87%: VE of primary vaccination against hospitalization changed from 75.5% (95% CI 73.5-77.4) before to 85.9% (95% CI 84.7-87.1) after correction (absolute bias -10.4 percentage point, relative bias 1.74). VE against ICU admission in this group was 88.7% (95% CI 86.2-90.8) before and 93.7% (95% CI 92.2-94.9) after correction (absolute bias -5.0 percentage point, relative bias 1.79). Conclusions: VE estimates can be substantially biased with modest non-consent percentages for registration of vaccination. Data on covariate specific non-consent percentages should be available to correct this bias. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement This study did not receive any funding ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: This is a secondary analysis of another study (https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.07.21.22277831) for which the research proposal was assessed by the Centre for Clinical Expertise at the RIVM. They verified whether the work complies with the specific conditions as stated in the law for medical research involving human subjects (WMO), and were of the opinion that the research does not fulfill one or both of these conditions and therefore conclude it is exempted for further approval by the ethical research committee. I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors