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: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:Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) currently apply the same statistical threshold of alpha?=?2.5% for controlling for false-positive results or type 1 error, regardless of the burden of disease or patient preferences. Is there an objective and systematic framework for designing RCTs that incorporates these considerations on a case-by-case basis?To apply Bayesian decision analysis (BDA) to cancer therapeutics to choose an alpha and sample size that minimize the potential harm to current and future patients under both null and alternative hypotheses.We used the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and data from the 10 clinical trials of the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology.The NCI SEER database was used because it is the most comprehensive cancer database in the United States. The Alliance trial data was used owing to the quality and breadth of data, and because of the expertise in these trials of one of us (D.J.S.).The NCI SEER and Alliance data have already been thoroughly vetted. Computations were replicated independently by 2 coauthors and reviewed by all coauthors.Our prior hypothesis was that an alpha of 2.5% would not minimize the overall expected harm to current and future patients for the most deadly cancers, and that a less conservative alpha may be necessary. Our primary study outcomes involve measuring the potential harm to patients under both null and alternative hypotheses using NCI and Alliance data, and then computing BDA-optimal type 1 error rates and sample sizes for oncology RCTs.We computed BDA-optimal parameters for the 23 most common cancer sites using NCI data, and for the 10 Alliance clinical trials. For RCTs involving therapies for cancers with short survival times, no existing treatments, and low prevalence, the BDA-optimal type 1 error rates were much higher than the traditional 2.5%. For cancers with longer survival times, existing treatments, and high prevalence, the corresponding BDA-optimal error rates were much lower, in some cases even lower than 2.5%.Bayesian decision analysis is a systematic, objective, transparent, and repeatable process for deciding the outcomes of RCTs that explicitly incorporates burden of disease and patient preferences.
| S-EPMC5824294 | biostudies-other
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 recent years, the use of adaptive design methods in clinical research and development based on accrued data has become very popular due to its flexibility and efficiency. Based on adaptations applied, adaptive designs can be classified into three categories: prospective, concurrent (ad hoc), and retrospective adaptive designs. An adaptive design allows modifications made to trial and/or statistical procedures of ongoing clinical trials. However, it is a concern that the actual patient population after the adaptations could deviate from the originally target patient population and consequently the overall type I error (to erroneously claim efficacy for an infective drug) rate may not be controlled. In addition, major adaptations of trial and/or statistical procedures of on-going trials may result in a totally different trial that is unable to address the scientific/medical questions the trial intends to answer. In this article, several commonly considered adaptive designs in clinical trials are reviewed. Impacts of ad hoc adaptations (protocol amendments), challenges in by design (prospective) adaptations, and obstacles of retrospective adaptations are described. Strategies for the use of adaptive design in clinical development of rare diseases are discussed. Some examples concerning the development of Velcade intended for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma are given. Practical issues that are commonly encountered when implementing adaptive design methods in clinical trials are also discussed.
| S-EPMC2422839 | biostudies-other
Project description:Development of treatments for rare diseases is challenging due to the limited number of patients available for participation. Learning about treatment effectiveness with a view to treat patients in the larger outside population, as in the traditional fixed randomised design, may not be a plausible goal. An alternative goal is to treat the patients within the trial as effectively as possible. Using the framework of finite-horizon Markov decision processes and dynamic programming (DP), a novel randomised response-adaptive design is proposed which maximises the total number of patient successes in the trial and penalises if a minimum number of patients are not recruited to each treatment arm. Several performance measures of the proposed design are evaluated and compared to alternative designs through extensive simulation studies using a recently published trial as motivation. For simplicity, a two-armed trial with binary endpoints and immediate responses is considered. Simulation results for the proposed design show that: (i) the percentage of patients allocated to the superior arm is much higher than in the traditional fixed randomised design; (ii) relative to the optimal DP design, the power is largely improved upon and (iii) it exhibits only a very small bias and mean squared error of the treatment effect estimator. Furthermore, this design is fully randomised which is an advantage from a practical point of view because it protects the trial against various sources of bias. As such, the proposed design addresses some of the key issues that have been suggested as preventing so-called bandit models from being implemented in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC5473477 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Between-patient heterogeneity is very common in clinical trials. This complicates treatment evaluation, due to known prognostic subgroup effects or potential treatment-subgroup interactions. We review two Bayesian phase II clinical trial designs that account explicitly for patient heterogeneity. The first design uses analysis of covariance to assess treatment effects in subgroups known to have different prognoses. The second design uses a hierarchical model for settings where, a priori, the experimental treatment effects in the subgroups are assumed to be exchangeable.Compared with simpler designs that ignore patient heterogeneity, each design provides substantial improvements by reducing both false positive and false negative rates and focusing resources on subgroups where an experimental treatment is more likely to provide an advance over standard therapy. In either case, accounting for potential treatment-subgroup interactions is extremely important.Due to the rapidly increasing number of potential new treatments to be evaluated clinically, increasing costs and limited resources, it is critically important to perform early phase clinical trials efficiently. The new Bayesian methods described here and other related methods provide efficient, broadly applicable tools to address these problems.
| S-EPMC5555403 | biostudies-other