Bayesian methods in clinical trials: a Bayesian analysis of ECOG trials E1684 and E1690.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
E1684 was the pivotal adjuvant melanoma trial for establishment of high-dose interferon (IFN) as effective therapy of high-risk melanoma patients. E1690 was an intriguing effort to corroborate E1684, and the differences between the outcomes of these trials have embroiled the field in controversy over the past several years. The analyses of E1684 and E1690 were carried out separately when the results were published, and there were no further analyses trying to perform a single analysis of the combined trials.Method
In this paper, we consider such a joint analysis by carrying out a Bayesian analysis of these two trials, thus providing us with a consistent and coherent methodology for combining the results from these two trials.Results
The Bayesian analysis using power priors provided a more coherent flexible and potentially more accurate analysis than a separate analysis of these data or a frequentist analysis of these data. The methodology provides a consistent framework for carrying out a single unified analysis by combining data from two or more studies.Conclusions
Such Bayesian analyses can be crucial in situations where the results from two theoretically identical trials yield somewhat conflicting or inconsistent results.
SUBMITTER: Ibrahim JG
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3571975 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background/aimsRegulatory approval of a drug or device involves an assessment of not only the benefits but also the risks of adverse events associated with the therapeutic agent. Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating effectiveness, the number of treated patients in a single RCT may not be enough to detect a rare but serious side effect of the treatment. Meta-analysis plays an important role in the evaluation of the safety of medical products and has advantage over analyzing a single RCT when estimating the rate of adverse events.MethodsIn this article, we compare 15 widely used meta-analysis models under both Bayesian and frequentist frameworks when outcomes are extremely infrequent or rare. We present extensive simulation study results and then apply these methods to a real meta-analysis that considers RCTs investigating the effect of rosiglitazone on the risks of myocardial infarction and of death from cardiovascular causes.ResultsOur simulation studies suggest that the beta hyperprior method modeling treatment group-specific parameters and accounting for heterogeneity performs the best. Most models ignoring between-study heterogeneity give poor coverage probability when such heterogeneity exists. In the data analysis, different methods provide a wide range of log odds ratio estimates between rosiglitazone and control treatments with a mixed conclusion on their statistical significance based on 95% confidence (or credible) intervals.ConclusionIn the rare event setting, treatment effect estimates obtained from traditional meta-analytic methods may be biased and provide poor coverage probability. This trend worsens when the data have large between-study heterogeneity. In general, we recommend methods that first estimate the summaries of treatment-specific risks across studies and then relative treatment effects based on the summaries when appropriate. Furthermore, we recommend fitting various methods, comparing the results and model performance, and investigating any significant discrepancies among them.
| S-EPMC8041270 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This paper considers the design and interpretation of clinical trials comparing treatments for conditions so rare that worldwide recruitment efforts are likely to yield total sample sizes of 50 or fewer, even when patients are recruited over several years. For such studies, the sample size needed to meet a conventional frequentist power requirement is clearly infeasible. Rather, the expectation of any such trial has to be limited to the generation of an improved understanding of treatment options. We propose a Bayesian approach for the conduct of rare-disease trials comparing an experimental treatment with a control where patient responses are classified as a success or failure. A systematic elicitation from clinicians of their beliefs concerning treatment efficacy is used to establish Bayesian priors for unknown model parameters. The process of determining the prior is described, including the possibility of formally considering results from related trials. As sample sizes are small, it is possible to compute all possible posterior distributions of the two success rates. A number of allocation ratios between the two treatment groups can be considered with a view to maximising the prior probability that the trial concludes recommending the new treatment when in fact it is non-inferior to control. Consideration of the extent to which opinion can be changed, even by data from the best feasible design, can help to determine whether such a trial is worthwhile.
| S-EPMC4260127 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Interim analyses in clinical trials can take on a multitude of forms. They are often used to guide Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) recommendations to study teams regarding recruitment targets for large, later-phase clinical trials. As collaborative biostatisticians working and teaching in multiple fields of research and across a broad array of trial phases, we note the large heterogeneity and confusion surrounding interim analyses in clinical trials. Thus, in this paper, we aim to provide a general overview and guidance on interim analyses for a nonstatistical audience. We explain each of the following types of interim analyses: efficacy, futility, safety, and sample size re-estimation, and we provide the reader with reasoning, examples, and implications for each. We emphasize that while the types of interim analyses employed may differ depending on the nature of the study, we would always recommend prespecification of the interim analytic plan to the extent possible with risk mitigation and trial integrity remaining a priority. Finally, we posit that interim analyses should be used as tools to help the DSMB make informed decisions in the context of the overarching study. They should generally not be deemed binding, and they should not be reviewed in isolation.
| S-EPMC10260346 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bayesian analysis is firmly grounded in the science of probability and has been increasingly supplementing or replacing traditional approaches based on P values. In this review, we present gradually more complex examples, along with programming code and data sets, to show how Bayesian analysis takes evidence from randomized clinical trials to update what is already known about specific treatments in cardiovascular medicine. In the example of revascularization choices for diabetic patients who have multivessel coronary artery disease, we combine the results of the FREEDOM trial (Future Revascularization Evaluation in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Optimal Management of Multivessel Disease) with prior probability distributions to show how strongly we should believe in the new Class I recommendation ("should be done") for a preference of bypass surgery over percutaneous coronary intervention. In the debate about the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation, we avoid a common pitfall in traditional meta-analysis and create a network of randomized clinical trials to compare outcomes after specific treatment durations. Although we find no credible increase in mortality, we affirm the tradeoff between increased bleeding and reduced myocardial infarctions with prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy, findings that support the new Class IIb recommendation ("may be considered") to extend dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation. In the decision between culprit artery-only and multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, we use hierarchical meta-analysis to analyze evidence from observational studies and randomized clinical trials and find that the probability of all-cause mortality at longest follow-up is similar after both strategies, a finding that challenges the older ban against noninfarct-artery intervention during primary percutaneous coronary intervention. These examples illustrate how Bayesian analysis integrates new trial information with existing knowledge to reduce uncertainty and change attitudes about treatments in cardiovascular medicine.
| S-EPMC6421843 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Randomized clinical trials (RCT) increasingly investigate combination therapies. Strong biological rationale or early clinical evidence commonly suggest that the effect of the combination treatment is importantly greater than the maximum effect of any of the individual treatments. While these relationships are commonly well-accepted, RCTs do not incorporate them into the design or analysis plans. We therefore propose a simple Bayesian framework for incorporating the known relationships that the effectiveness of a combination treatment exceeds that of any individual treatment, but does not necessarily exceed the sum of individual effects. We term the collation of these two relationships 'fractional additivity'. We performed a binary outcome simulation study of a response adaptive randomized three-arm clinical trial with treatment arms A, B, and A&B that allowed for dropping an inferior treatment arm and terminating the trial early for superiority during any of 4 interim analyses. We compared the Bayesian fractional additivity model to a conventional analysis by measuring the expected proportion of failures, sample size at trial termination, time to termination, and root mean squared error of final estimates. We also compared the fractional additivity model to a 'full additivity' model where the effect of A&B was assumed to be the sum of the effect of A and B. In simulation scenarios where important fractional additivity or full additivity existed, the Bayesian fractional additivity model yielded a 3-4% relative reduction in expected number of failures, and a 30%-50% relative reduction in sample size at trial termination compared to a conventional analysis. These results held true even when the Bayesian fractional additivity model employed a biased prior. The full additivity model had slightly higher gains, but too frequently terminated the trial at the first interim look. In scenarios where no or weak fractional additivity exists, the expected sample size and time to termination were similar for the Bayesian fractional additivity model with a moderately optimistic bias about fractional additivity and the conventional model. Lastly, the fractional additivity model generally yielded similar or lower root mean squared error compared to the other models. In conclusion, our proposed Bayesian fractional additivity model provides an efficient approach for estimating effects of combination treatments in clinical trials. The approach is not only highly applicable in adaptive clinical trials, but also provides added power in a conventional RCT.
| S-EPMC5898557 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common symptomatic, inflammatory, and immunological disorder of nasal mucosa. Multiple clinical trials and systematic reviews have implicated acupuncture methods as potentially effective treatment strategies for AR, however, considering the great burden of AR, it is crucial to explore the most recent clinical evidence supporting acupuncture in AR. Besides, the methodologies reported in previous studies as well as those commonly applied during clinical practices greatly vary. Herein, we conducted network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of diverse acupuncture methods for AR treatment. Methods We conducted a literature search for relevant reports published from inception to 1 July 2020 in several scientific databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Web of Science, CNKI, WF, VIP, CBM, AMED as well as related registration platforms. Primary outcomes as reported in the identified studies were assessed using nasal symptoms. All Meta-analyses were performed with RevMan, ADDIS, and STATA software. To ensure consistency among our reviewers, the intra-class correlation coefficient was used. Results Exactly 39 studies with 3433 participants were covered in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis demonstrated that all acupuncture types were superior to sham acupuncture in terms of total nasal symptom score and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire. Moxibustion was recommended as the most effective intervention as it reduced nasal symptoms in 6 treatments. On the other hand, manual acupuncture plus conventional medicine was recommended as the most effective intervention in improving the quality of life in 9 treatments. Notably, moxibustion was recommended as the most effective intervention that changed the content of IgE in 9 treatments. Moreover, adverse events of these interventions were acceptable. Conclusion Our findings revealed that all acupuncture methods are effective and safe for AR. Moreover, either moxibustion or manual acupuncture plus conventional medicine are potentially the most effective treatment strategies for AR. Based on these findings, it is evident that acupuncture therapy is not inferior to pharmacologic therapy. Therefore, for AR patients who are either unresponsive to conventional medicine or are intolerant to adverse events, acupuncture therapy should be administered. However, the quality of these included trials was mainly ranked as moderate quality, we recommend additional well-designed RCTs with larger sample sizes to validate these findings.
| S-EPMC7552548 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In recent years, multi-regional clinical trials (MRCTs) have increased in popularity in the pharmaceutical industry due to their ability to accelerate the global drug development process. To address potential challenges with MRCTs, the International Council for Harmonisation released the E17 guidance document which suggests the use of statistical methods that utilize information borrowing across regions if regional sample sizes are small. We develop an approach that allows for information borrowing via Bayesian model averaging in the context of a joint analysis of survival and longitudinal data from MRCTs. In this novel application of joint models to MRCTs, we use Laplace's method to integrate over subject-specific random effects and to approximate posterior distributions for region-specific treatment effects on the time-to-event outcome. Through simulation studies, we demonstrate that the joint modeling approach can result in an increased rejection rate when testing the global treatment effect compared with methods that analyze survival data alone. We then apply the proposed approach to data from a cardiovascular outcomes MRCT.
| S-EPMC11247186 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIncreasingly in network meta-analysis (NMA), there is a need to incorporate non-randomised evidence to estimate relative treatment effects, and in particular in cases with limited randomised evidence, sometimes resulting in disconnected networks of treatments. When combining different sources of data, complex NMA methods are required to address issues associated with participant selection bias, incorporating single-arm trials (SATs), and synthesising a mixture of individual participant data (IPD) and aggregate data (AD). We develop NMA methods which synthesise data from SATs and randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using a mixture of IPD and AD, for a dichotomous outcome.MethodsWe propose methods under both contrast-based (CB) and arm-based (AB) parametrisations, and extend the methods to allow for both within- and across-trial adjustments for covariate effects. To illustrate the methods, we use an applied example investigating the effectiveness of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We applied the methods to a dataset obtained from a literature review consisting of 14 RCTs and an artificial dataset consisting of IPD from two SATs and AD from 12 RCTs, where the artificial dataset was created by removing the control arms from the only two trials assessing tocilizumab in the original dataset.ResultsWithout adjustment for covariates, the CB method with independent baseline response parameters (CBunadjInd) underestimated the effectiveness of tocilizumab when applied to the artificial dataset compared to the original dataset, albeit with significant overlap in posterior distributions for treatment effect parameters. The CB method with exchangeable baseline response parameters produced effectiveness estimates in agreement with CBunadjInd, when the predicted baseline response estimates were similar to the observed baseline response. After adjustment for RA duration, there was a reduction in across-trial heterogeneity in baseline response but little change in treatment effect estimates.ConclusionsOur findings suggest incorporating SATs in NMA may be useful in some situations where a treatment is disconnected from a network of comparator treatments, due to a lack of comparative evidence, to estimate relative treatment effects. The reliability of effect estimates based on data from SATs may depend on adjustment for covariate effects, although further research is required to understand this in more detail.
| S-EPMC9275254 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite appealing characteristics for the clinical trials setting, Bayesian inference methods remain scarcely used, especially in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT). This is particularly true when dealing with a survival endpoint, likely due to the additional complexities to model specifications. We propose to use Bayesian inference to estimate the treatment effect in this setting, using a proportional hazards (PH) model for right-censored data. Implementation of such an estimation process is illustrated on two working examples from cancer RCTs, the ALLOZITHRO and the CLL7-SA trials, both originally analyzed using a frequentist approach. In these two different settings, we show that Bayesian sequential analyses can provide early insight on treatment effect in RCTs. Relying on posterior distributions and predictive posterior probabilities, we find that Bayesian sequential analyses of the ALLOZITHRO trial, which was terminated early due to an unanticipated deleterious effect of the intervention on survival, allow quantifying early that the treatment effect was opposite to what was expected. Then, incorporating historical data in the sequential analyses of the CLL7-SA trial would have allowed the treatment effect to be closer to the protocol hypothesis. These post-hoc results give grounds to advocate for a wider use of Bayesian approaches in RCTs, including those with right-censored endpoints, as informative decision tools.
| S-EPMC7817368 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In clinical practice medications are often interchanged in treatment protocols when a patient negatively reacts to their first line of therapy. Although switching between medications is common, clinicians often lack structured guidance when choosing the initial dose and frequency of a new medication, given the former with respect to risk of adverse events. In this paper we propose to establish this dose toxo-equivalence relationship using published clinical trial results with one or both drugs of interest via a Bayesian meta-analysis model that accounts for both within- and between-study variances. With the posterior parameter samples from this model, we compute median and 95% credible intervals for equivalent dose pairs of the two drugs that are predicted to produce equal rates of an adverse outcome, relying solely on study-level information. Via extensive simulations, we show that this approach approximates well the true dose toxo-equivalence relationship, considering different study designs, levels of between-study variance, and the inclusion/exclusion of nonconfounder/nonmodifier subject-level covariates in addition to study-level covariates. We compare the performance of this study-level meta-analysis estimate to the equivalent individual patient data meta-analysis model and find comparable bias and minimal efficiency loss in the study-level coefficients used in the dose toxo-equivalence relationship. Finally, we present the findings of our dose toxo-equivalence model applied to two chemotherapy drugs, based on data from 169 published clinical trials.
| S-EPMC11299894 | biostudies-literature