Dataset Information

Meta-analysis of rare adverse events in randomized clinical trials: Bayesian and frequentist methods.

ABSTRACT:

Background/aims

Regulatory 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.

Methods

In 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.

Results

Our 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.

Conclusion

In 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.

SUBMITTER: Hong H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8041270 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In order to have confidence in model-based phylogenetic methods, such as maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian analyses, one must use an appropriate model of molecular evolution identified using statistically rigorous criteria. Although model selection methods such as the likelihood ratio test and Akaike information criterion are widely used in the phylogenetic literature, model selection methods lack the ability to reject all models if they provide an inadequate fit to the data. There are two methods, however, that assess absolute model adequacy, the frequentist Goldman-Cox (GC) test and Bayesian posterior predictive simulations (PPSs), which are commonly used in conjunction with the multinomial log likelihood test statistic. In this study, we use empirical and simulated data to evaluate the adequacy of common substitution models using both frequentist and Bayesian methods and compare the results with those obtained with model selection methods. In addition, we investigate the relationship between model adequacy and performance in ML and Bayesian analyses in terms of topology, branch lengths, and bipartition support. We show that tests of model adequacy based on the multinomial likelihood often fail to reject simple substitution models, especially when the models incorporate among-site rate variation (ASRV), and normally fail to reject less complex models than those chosen by model selection methods. In addition, we find that PPSs often fail to reject simpler models than the GC test. Use of the simplest substitution models not rejected based on fit normally results in similar but divergent estimates of tree topology and branch lengths. In addition, use of the simplest adequate substitution models can affect estimates of bipartition support, although these differences are often small with the largest differences confined to poorly supported nodes. We also find that alternative assumptions about ASRV can affect tree topology, tree length, and bipartition support. Our results suggest that using the simplest substitution models not rejected based on fit may be a valid alternative to implementing more complex models identified by model selection methods. However, all common substitution models may fail to recover the correct topology and assign appropriate bipartition support if the true tree shape is difficult to estimate regardless of model adequacy.