Pharmaceutical Statistics最新文献

In recently conducted phase III trials in a rare disease area, patients received monthly treatment at a high dose of the drug, which targets to lower a specific biomarker level, closely associated with the efficacy endpoint, to around 10% across patients. Although this high dose demonstrated strong efficacy, treatments were withheld due to the reports of serious adverse events. Dosing in these studies were later resumed at a reduced dosage which targets to lower the biomarker level to 15%-35% across patients. Two questions arose after this disruption. The first is whether the efficacy of this revised regimen as measured by the reduction in annualized event rate is adequate to support the continuation of the development and the second is whether the potential bias due to the loss of patients during this dosing gap process can be gauged. To address these questions, we built a prediction model that quantitatively characterizes biomarker vs. endpoint relationship and predicts efficacy at the 15%-35% range of the biomarker level using the available data from the original high dose. This model predicts favorable event rate in the target biomarker level and shows that the bias due to the loss of patients is limited. These results support the continued development of the revised regimen, however, given the limitation of the data available, this prediction is planned to be validated further when data under the revised regimen become available.

We present the motivation, experience, and learnings from a data challenge conducted at a large pharmaceutical corporation on the topic of subgroup identification. The data challenge aimed at exploring approaches to subgroup identification for future clinical trials. To mimic a realistic setting, participants had access to 4 Phase III clinical trials to derive a subgroup and predict its treatment effect on a future study not accessible to challenge participants. A total of 30 teams registered for the challenge with around 100 participants, primarily from Biostatistics organization. We outline the motivation for running the challenge, the challenge rules, and logistics. Finally, we present the results of the challenge, the participant feedback as well as the learnings. We also present our view on the implications of the results on exploratory analyses related to treatment effect heterogeneity.

It is well known that medication adherence is critical to patient outcomes and can decrease patient mortality. The Pharmacy Quality Alliance (PQA) has recognized and identified medication adherence as an important indicator of medication-use quality. Hence, there is a need to use the right methods to assess medication adherence. The PQA has endorsed the proportion of days covered (PDC) as the primary method of measuring adherence. Although easy to calculate, the PDC has however several drawbacks as a method of measuring adherence. PDC is a deterministic approach that cannot capture the complexity of a dynamic phenomenon. Group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) is increasingly proposed as an alternative to capture heterogeneity in medication adherence. The main goal of this paper is to demonstrate, through a simulation study, the ability of GBTM to capture treatment adherence when compared to its deterministic PDC analogue and to the nonparametric longitudinal K-means. A time-varying treatment was generated as a quadratic function of time, baseline, and time-varying covariates. Three trajectory models are considered combining a cat's cradle effect, and a rainbow effect. The performance of GBTM was compared to the PDC and longitudinal K-means using the absolute bias, the variance, the c-statistics, the relative bias, and the relative variance. For all explored scenarios, we find that GBTM performed better in capturing different patterns of medication adherence with lower relative bias and variance even under model misspecification than PDC and longitudinal K-means.

Drug-drug interaction (DDI) trials are an important part of drug development as they provide evidence on the benefits and risks when two or more drugs are taken concomitantly. Sample size calculation is typically recommended to be based on the existence of clinically justified no-effect boundaries but these are challenging to define in practice, while the default no-effect boundaries of 0.8-1.25 are known to be overly conservative requiring a large sample size. In addition, no-effect boundaries are of little use when there is prior pharmacological evidence that a mild or moderate interaction between two drugs may be present, in which case effect boundaries would be more useful. We introduce precision-based sample size calculation that accounts for both the stochastic nature of the pharmacokinetic parameters and the anticipated width of (no-)effect boundaries, should these exist. The methodology is straightforward, requires considerably less sample size and has favorable operating characteristics. A case study on statins is presented to illustrate the ideas.

The Bayesian logistic regression method (BLRM) is a widely adopted and flexible design for finding the maximum tolerated dose in oncology phase I studies. However, the BLRM design has been criticized in the literature for being overly conservative due to the use of the overdose control rule. Recently, a discussion paper titled "Improving the performance of Bayesian logistic regression model with overall control in oncology dose-finding studies" in Statistics in Medicine has proposed an overall control rule to address the "excessive conservativeness" of the standard BLRM design. In this short communication, we discuss the relative conservativeness of the standard BLRM design and also suggest a dose-switching rule to further enhance its performance.

When the distributions of treatment effect modifiers differ between a randomized trial and an external target population, the sample average treatment effect in the trial may be substantially different from the target population average treatment, and accurate estimation of the latter requires adjusting for the differential distribution of effect modifiers. Despite the increasingly rich literature on transportability, little attention has been devoted to methods for transporting trial results to estimate counterfactual survival functions in target populations, when the primary outcome is time to event and subject to right censoring. In this article, we study inverse probability weighting and doubly robust estimators to estimate counterfactual survival functions and the target average survival treatment effect in the target population, and provide their respective approximate variance estimators. We focus on a common scenario where the target population information is observed only through a complex survey, and elucidate how the survey weights can be incorporated into each estimator we considered. Simulation studies are conducted to examine the finite-sample performances of the proposed estimators in terms of bias, efficiency and coverage, under both correct and incorrect model specifications. Finally, we apply the proposed method to assess transportability of the results in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes-Blood Pressure (ACCORD-BP) trial to all adults with Diabetes in the United States.

Motivated by the need to model dose-response or dose-toxicity curves in clinical trials, we develop a new horseshoe-based prior for Bayesian isotonic regression modeling a binary outcome against an ordered categorical predictor, where the probability of the outcome is assumed to be monotonically non-decreasing with the predictor. The set of differences between outcome probabilities in consecutive categories of the predictor is equipped with a multivariate prior having support over simplex. The Dirichlet distribution, which can be derived from a normalized sum of independent gamma-distributed random variables, is a natural choice of prior, but using mathematical and simulation-based arguments, we show that the resulting posterior is prone to underflow and other numerical instabilities, even under simple data configurations. We propose an alternative prior based on horseshoe-type shrinkage that is numerically more stable. We show that this horseshoe-based prior is not subject to the numerical instability seen in the Dirichlet/gamma-based prior and that the horseshoe-based posterior can estimate the underlying true curve more efficiently than the Dirichlet-based one. We demonstrate the use of this prior in a model predicting the occurrence of radiation-induced lung toxicity in lung cancer patients as a function of dose delivered to normal lung tissue. Our methodology is implemented in the R package isotonicBayes and therefore suitable for use in the design of dose-finding studies or other dose-response modeling contexts.

As an alternative to the Frequentist p-value, the Bayes factor (or ratio of marginal likelihoods) has been regarded as one of the primary tools for Bayesian hypothesis testing. In recent years, several researchers have begun to re-analyze results from prominent medical journals, as well as from trials for FDA-approved drugs, to show that Bayes factors often give divergent conclusions from those of p-values. In this paper, we investigate the claim that Bayes factors are straightforward to interpret as directly quantifying the relative strength of evidence. In particular, we show that for nested hypotheses with consistent priors, the Bayes factor for the null over the alternative hypothesis is the posterior mean of the likelihood ratio. By re-analyzing 39 results previously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, we demonstrate how the posterior distribution of the likelihood ratio can be computed and visualized, providing useful information beyond the posterior mean alone.

For novel immuno-oncology therapies, the primary purpose of a dose-finding trial is to identify an optimal dose (OD), defined as the tolerable dose having adequate efficacy and immune response under the unpredictable dose-outcome (toxicity, efficacy, and immune response) relationships. In addition, the multiple low or moderate-grade toxicities rather than dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and multiple levels of efficacy should be evaluated differently in dose-finding to determine true OD for developing novel immuno-oncology therapies. We proposed a generalized Bayesian optimal interval design for immunotherapy, simultaneously considering efficacy and toxicity grades and immune response outcomes. The proposed design, named gBOIN-ETI design, is model-assisted and easy to implement to develop immunotherapy efficiently. The operating characteristics of the gBOIN-ETI are compared with other dose-finding trial designs in oncology by simulation across various realistic settings. Our simulations show that the gBOIN-ETI design could outperform the other available approaches in terms of both the percentage of correct OD selection and the average number of patients allocated to the OD across various realistic trial settings.

Subgroup analysis may be used to investigate treatment effect heterogeneity among subsets of the study population defined by baseline characteristics. Several methodologies have been proposed in recent years and with these, statistical issues such as multiplicity, complexity, and selection bias have been widely discussed. Some methods adjust for one or more of these issues; however, few of them discuss or consider the stability of the subgroup assignments. We propose exploring the stability of subgroups as a sensitivity analysis step for stratified medicine to assess the robustness of the identified subgroups besides identifying possible factors that may drive this instability. After applying Bayesian credible subgroups, a nonparametric bootstrap can be used to assess stability at subgroup-level and patient-level. Our findings illustrate that when the treatment effect is small or not so evident, patients are more likely to switch to different subgroups (jumpers) across bootstrap resamples. In contrast, when the treatment effect is large or extremely convincing, patients generally remain in the same subgroup. While the proposed subgroup stability method is illustrated through Bayesian credible subgroups method on time-to-event data, this general approach can be used with other subgroup identification methods and endpoints.