practical and ethical advantages of bayesian approaches in ... adaptive... · considering the...
Post on 05-Jul-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Practical and ethical advantages of Bayesian approaches in
adaptive clinical trial designs
Kristian Thorlund
2
Background
This talk was previously given as an invited talk at a DSEN sponsored meeting on innovative clinical trials designs, Jan 31-2014, Ottawa
3
Background
Health care is moving towards an era with a growing number of patient sub-populations that are rare and difficult to study in clinical trials
Within Canada, there is a very high demand for clinical trial methodologists that can think beyond the conventional parallel design RCT
4
Objectives
Generate a healthy debate on how to move forward and be innovative, yet conscientious, about trial designs in Canada
Illustrate the ‘type of thinking’ that may be required for trial designs in challenging populations
5
Outline
• Teaser
• Bayesian stereotypes and efficiency reflections
• Introduction to Bayesian analysis
• Introduction to Adaptive designs
• Illustrative example: hepatitis C
ECMO trials
• Phase I - CMT: 4/10 deaths; ECMO: 0/9 deaths • Phase II – ECMO 1/10 death • Within the scientific literature this was criticized
on both sides – No patients should have been randomized to CMT – Not enough patients were randomized to CMT
• Was O’Rourke’s approach a breaking point? – 4 babies deaths was all the staff could take
12
Traditional hierarchy of evidence
RCTs
&
Systematic reviews
Cohort Studies
Case-series
Clinical expert opinions
13
In small populations
Observational studies
RCTs and SRs expert opinion
14
In small populations
Highly
Efficient
Study Design
Not so efficient study design
15
Bayesian Statistics
Are Bayesian statistics the answer?
… when and how?
16
Concepts of Bayesian Statistics (gross oversimplification)
Bayesian analysis is unique for allowing data to be mixed with ‘prior’ (external) evidence or opinions.
By contrast, the conventional Frequentist discipline of statistics is only data driven
17
Bayesian Stereotypes
Not fully data driven Too complex
Hard to trust due to ‘subjectivity’ Buzz word.. Used by
the cool statisticians
Goes against conventional EBM
Incorporates evidence of ‘lower quality’
Too philosophical
18
Bayesian Stereotypes
Please forget these stereotypes!
Bayesian analysis is flexible it can be what you want, need and/or require of it to be
• Easy or complex
• Rigorous or exploratory
• Objective or subjective
• Broad or narrow
19
In small populations
Highly
Efficient
Study Design
Not so efficient study design
20
In small populations
Bayesian
Adaptive
Designs
Conventional parallel design RCTs
21
Concepts of Bayesian Statistics (gross oversimplification)
Bayesian analysis is unique for allowing data to be mixed with ‘prior’ (external) evidence or opinions.
By contrast, the conventional Frequentist discipline of statistics is only data driven
22
Bayesian Statistical Inferences
Priors take the form of probability distributions, and are mixed with the likelihood to shape a posterior probability distribution from which inferences are drawn
Frequentist drawn inferences solely from the likelihood (but necessitates parametric distributional assumptions)
23
Bayesian priors
Available data from RCTs (e.g. response to Tx)
Drug A vs Drug B Difference in response
24
Bayesian priors
+ external data: clinical expert survey/obs. study
Drug A vs Drug B Difference in response
25
Bayesian posterior distributions
Adding the two together forms a ‘posterior’ distribution
26
Bayesian philosophy (again gross oversimplification)
Bayesians try to answer ‘given the data, what are the likely effects and degrees of uncertainty’
Frequentist try to answer ‘how likely are the estimated treatment effects to be observed in a study attempting to replicate the current data?’
27
Bayesian thinking and adaptive designs
Considering the underlying philosophies, Bayesian statistics and adaptive clinical trials seem to go hand in hand.
Frequentist methods in adaptive clinical trials are conceptually counter-intuitive.
Note: many researchers apply frequentist methods, but Bayesian thinking (without knowing it)
28
Adaptive designs
Adaptive designs typically allow for flexible change in randomization ratio or elimination of treatment groups after interim analyses
29
Adaptive designs
For example, a trial examining placebo, low dose, mid dose, and high dose, may start with 1:1:1:1 randomisation, but gradually randomise more and more to higher doses based on better observed responses in the mid and high dose arms
This is Bayesian thinking relying only on data, or in other words, non-informed Bayesian statistics (i.e., employed priors are non-informative)
30
Adaptive designs
Consider the placebo, low, mid, high dose example. After data is available for 200 patients, you make a decision on whether to change the 1:1:1:1 randomisation ratio
31
Adaptive designs
Assume you see the following responses. What would your new randomization ratio be?
Placebo Low Dose
Mid Dose
High Dose
5/52
11/49
23/50 20/49
32
Adaptive designs
Placebo
Low dose
Mid dose
High Dose 50 patients/arm 100 patients/arm
33
Adaptive designs
Placebo
Low dose
Mid dose
High Dose 50 patients/arm 100 patients/arm
34
Adaptive designs
Placebo
Low dose
Mid dose
High Dose 50 patients/arm 100 patients/arm
35
Bayesian thinking in rare diseases
No major design challenges in larger populations
However, most diseases in pediatrics and rare populations are both rare and trialist face several difficulties enrolling a large number of patients
36
Adaptive designs in pediatrics
Typically only a few centers (e.g., SickKids hospitals) can enroll patients and this limits the number of feasible candidate patients compared with adult trials
Adapting to small numbers is prone to errors by the play of chance. Thus, without innovative twists these designs typically have little value for informing clinical practice
37
Adaptive designs in pediatrics
Consider again a trial that starts with 1:1:1:1 randomisation to placebo, low, mid, and high dose.
Say you can feasibly only enroll 50 patients over the trial period of 3 years. That is, no more than 50 patients will be available for any clinical study over the next 3 years.
How realible is randomisation adjustments then half-way through? How useful it is? (pros and cons?)
38
Adaptive designs
Which adjustments would be comfortable with the following numbers?
Placebo Low Dose
Mid Dose
High Dose
1/7
2/6
3/5 3/6
39
Adaptive designs
You only have 26 patients left and need to make the most our of the evidence.
Placebo Low Dose
Mid Dose
High Dose
1/7
2/6
3/5 3/6
40
Adaptive designs
What is external evidence on the same trial population was available on placebo?
Placebo Low Dose
Mid Dose
High Dose
1/7
2/6
3/5 3/6
External Evidence
on Placebo
4/35 3/19
41
Adaptive designs
How many more patients do we need to randomise to placebo with this evidence?
Placebo Low Dose
Mid Dose
High Dose
1/7
2/6
3/5 3/6
External Evidence
on Placebo
4/35 3/19
42
Conventional vs Bayesian Adaptive
Consider two scenarios
1. We ignore the external evidence and keep randomising 1:1:1:1
2. We include the external placebo evidence, stop randomizing to placebo and randomise 1:1:1 with the three doses
43
Scenario #1
Maintain 1:1:1:1 randomisation, no statisticallly significant difference detected
Placebo Low Dose
Mid Dose
High Dose
2/13
4/12
6/11 7/14
P=0.11
44
Scenario #2
Stop randomising to placebo
Placebo Low Dose
Mid Dose
High Dose
6/18
9/17 9/18
External Evidence
on Placebo
4/35 3/19 1/7
45
Scenario #1 versus Scenario #2
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Placebo Response
Mid Dose Response P=0.11
#1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
P>0.05
#2
Placebo Response Evidence
46
Scenario #1 versus Scenario #2
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Placebo Response
Mid Dose Response P=0.11
#1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
#2
Posterior Placebo Response
‘P<0.05’
47
Motivating example - HCV
An increasing number of highly potent agents are available for treating hepatitis C in adults
Conventional therapy, peginterferon+ribavirin is known to eradicate the virus children at the same rate as in adults and have similar or better safety profile than in adults
(Druyts et al CID 2012, systematic review of 8 trials)
48
Motivating example - HCV
Some of the most potent newer direct acting agents (DAAs) eradicate the virus in 90% of adults without co-administration of interferon (and are thus more safe)
How are these agents likely to work in children?
Can they reduce adverse events (e.g., anemia)?
Can they avoid reduction in growth?
49
Expected efficacy
Peg-Riba DAA+ Peg-Riba
DAA
90% 80-90%
50%
Motivating example - HCV
50
Choosing the randomisation scheme
Peg-Riba DAA+ Peg-Riba
DAA
n? n?
n?
Motivating example - HCV
51
Choosing the randomisation scheme
Peg-Riba DAA+ Peg-Riba
DAA
n? n?
n?
Motivating example - HCV
Peg-Riba External Evidence
50%
52
Expected safety (anemia, neutropenia, rash, …)
Peg-Riba DAA+ Peg-Riba
DAA
25%
10%
20%
Motivating example - HCV
Peg-Riba External Evidence
20%
53
Expected safety (anemia, neutropenia, rash, …)
Peg-Riba DAA+ Peg-Riba
DAA
n?
n?
n?
Motivating example - HCV
Peg-Riba External Evidence
20%
54
Motivating example - HCV
Bayesian adaptive design:
• Borrows strength from systematic review to stop placebo randomization
• Could also borrow strength from adult population (confirm signal)
• Stop early for benefit/safety based on Bayesian ‘significance’
55
This is where we started
Not fully data driven Too complex
Hard to trust due to ‘subjectivity’ Buzz word.. Used by
the cool statisticians
Goes against conventional EBM
Incorporates evidence of ‘lower quality’
Too philosophical
56
Hopefully this is where we are going
Incorporates all relevant evidence Sufficiently flexible
Allows for transparent analysis Only used by the
cool statisticians (same as before)
Takes the step into the era beyond EBM
Helps us think about efficiency
57
THANK YOU!
top related