Nonlinear mixed-effects modeling as a method for causal inference to predict exposures under desired within-subject dose titration schemes.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology Pub Date : 2024-10-24 DOI:10.1002/psp4.13239
Christian Bartels, Martina Scauda, Neva Coello, Thomas Dumortier, Björn Bornkamp, Giusi Moffa
{"title":"Nonlinear mixed-effects modeling as a method for causal inference to predict exposures under desired within-subject dose titration schemes.","authors":"Christian Bartels, Martina Scauda, Neva Coello, Thomas Dumortier, Björn Bornkamp, Giusi Moffa","doi":"10.1002/psp4.13239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The ICH E9 (R1) guidance and the related estimand framework propose to clearly define and separate the clinical question of interest formulated as estimand from the estimation method. With that it becomes important to assess the validity of the estimation method and the assumptions that must be made. When going beyond the intention to treat analyses that can rely on randomization, causal inference is usually used to discuss the validity of estimation methods for the estimand of interest. In pharmacometrics, mixed-effects models are routinely used to analyze longitudinal clinical trial data; however, they are rarely discussed as a method for causal inference. Here, we evaluate nonlinear mixed-effects modeling and simulation (NLME M&S) in the context of causal inference as a standardization method for longitudinal data in the presence of confounders. Standardization is a well-known method in causal inference to correct for confounding by analyzing and combining results from subgroups of patients. We show that nonlinear mixed-effects modeling is a particular implementation of standardization that conditions on individual parameters described by the random effects of the mixed-effects model. As an example, we use a simulated clinical trial with within-subject dose titration. Being interested in the outcome of the hypothetical situation that patients adhere to the planned treatment schedule, we put assumptions in a causal diagram. From the causal diagram, conditional independence assumptions are derived either by conditioning on the individual parameters or on earlier outcomes. With both conditional independencies unbiased estimates can be obtained.</p>","PeriodicalId":10774,"journal":{"name":"CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/psp4.13239","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The ICH E9 (R1) guidance and the related estimand framework propose to clearly define and separate the clinical question of interest formulated as estimand from the estimation method. With that it becomes important to assess the validity of the estimation method and the assumptions that must be made. When going beyond the intention to treat analyses that can rely on randomization, causal inference is usually used to discuss the validity of estimation methods for the estimand of interest. In pharmacometrics, mixed-effects models are routinely used to analyze longitudinal clinical trial data; however, they are rarely discussed as a method for causal inference. Here, we evaluate nonlinear mixed-effects modeling and simulation (NLME M&S) in the context of causal inference as a standardization method for longitudinal data in the presence of confounders. Standardization is a well-known method in causal inference to correct for confounding by analyzing and combining results from subgroups of patients. We show that nonlinear mixed-effects modeling is a particular implementation of standardization that conditions on individual parameters described by the random effects of the mixed-effects model. As an example, we use a simulated clinical trial with within-subject dose titration. Being interested in the outcome of the hypothetical situation that patients adhere to the planned treatment schedule, we put assumptions in a causal diagram. From the causal diagram, conditional independence assumptions are derived either by conditioning on the individual parameters or on earlier outcomes. With both conditional independencies unbiased estimates can be obtained.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非线性混合效应建模作为一种因果推断方法,用于预测所需的受试者内剂量滴定方案下的暴露量。
ICH E9 (R1)指南和相关的估计值框架建议明确定义作为估计值的临床相关问题,并将其与估计方法分开。因此,评估估算方法的有效性和必须做出的假设就变得非常重要。在超越可以依赖随机化的意向治疗分析时,因果推论通常被用来讨论估计方法对所关注估计对象的有效性。在药物计量学中,混合效应模型通常用于分析纵向临床试验数据;然而,它们很少被作为因果推断的一种方法来讨论。在此,我们评估了非线性混合效应建模和模拟(NLME M&S)在因果推断中作为存在混杂因素的纵向数据标准化方法的应用情况。标准化是因果推断中一种众所周知的方法,通过分析和合并来自亚组患者的结果来校正混杂因素。我们表明,非线性混合效应模型是标准化的一种特殊实现方式,它以混合效应模型随机效应所描述的单个参数为条件。举例来说,我们使用了一个具有受试者内剂量滴定功能的模拟临床试验。我们对患者按计划接受治疗这一假设情况的结果感兴趣,因此在因果图中加入了假设条件。从因果图中,通过对单个参数或早期结果进行条件限制,得出条件独立性假设。有了这两种条件独立性,就可以得到无偏估计值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
11.40%
发文量
146
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Clinical study design strategies to mitigate confounding effects of time-dependent clearance on dose optimization of therapeutic antibodies. Exploration of the potential impact of batch-to-batch variability on the establishment of pharmacokinetic bioequivalence for inhalation powder drug products. Population pharmacokinetics of selexipag for dose selection and confirmation in pediatric patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Issue Information Exposure-response modeling of liver fat imaging endpoints in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease populations administered ervogastat alone and co-administered with clesacostat.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1