Literature DB >> 22711340

Bayesian clinical trials in action.

J Jack Lee1, Caleb T Chu.   

Abstract

Although the frequentist paradigm has been the predominant approach to clinical trial design since the 1940s, it has several notable limitations. Advancements in computational algorithms and computer hardware have greatly enhanced the alternative Bayesian paradigm. Compared with its frequentist counterpart, the Bayesian framework has several unique advantages, and its incorporation into clinical trial design is occurring more frequently. Using an extensive literature review to assess how Bayesian methods are used in clinical trials, we find them most commonly used for dose finding, efficacy monitoring, toxicity monitoring, diagnosis/decision making, and studying pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics. The additional infrastructure required for implementing Bayesian methods in clinical trials may include specialized software programs to run the study design, simulation and analysis, and web-based applications, all of which are particularly useful for timely data entry and analysis. Trial success requires not only the development of proper tools but also timely and accurate execution of data entry, quality control, adaptive randomization, and Bayesian computation. The relative merit of the Bayesian and frequentist approaches continues to be the subject of debate in statistics. However, more evidence can be found showing the convergence of the two camps, at least at the practical level. Ultimately, better clinical trial methods lead to more efficient designs, lower sample sizes, more accurate conclusions, and better outcomes for patients enrolled in the trials. Bayesian methods offer attractive alternatives for better trials. More Bayesian trials should be designed and conducted to refine the approach and demonstrate their real benefit in action.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22711340      PMCID: PMC3495977          DOI: 10.1002/sim.5404

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  30 in total

Review 1.  Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis.

Authors:  A J Sutton; K R Abrams
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.021

2.  Adaptive trial design.

Authors:  Donald A Berry
Journal:  Clin Adv Hematol Oncol       Date:  2007-07

3.  An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. 1763.

Authors:  T Bayes
Journal:  MD Comput       Date:  1991 May-Jun

4.  STREPTOMYCIN treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1948-10-30

5.  The BUGS project: Evolution, critique and future directions.

Authors:  David Lunn; David Spiegelhalter; Andrew Thomas; Nicky Best
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Methodological issues in cancer clinical trials: the comparison of therapies.

Authors:  E A Gehan
Journal:  Biomed Pharmacother       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 6.529

Review 7.  Jerome Cornfield's contributions to the conduct of clinical trials.

Authors:  F Ederer
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1982-03       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 8.  Population pharmacokinetics. Theory and clinical application.

Authors:  B Whiting; A W Kelman; J Grevel
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1986 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 6.447

9.  Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control.

Authors:  J Babb; A Rogatko; S Zacks
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-05-30       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Evaluation of methods for estimating population pharmacokinetics parameters. I. Michaelis-Menten model: routine clinical pharmacokinetic data.

Authors:  L B Sheiner; S L Beal
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1980-12
View more
  54 in total

1.  Reflections on the Adaptive Designs Accelerating Promising Trials Into Treatments (ADAPT-IT) Process-Findings from a Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Timothy C Guetterman; Michael D Fetters; Laurie J Legocki; Samkeliso Mawocha; William G Barsan; Roger J Lewis; Donald A Berry; William J Meurer
Journal:  Clin Res Regul Aff       Date:  2015-09-18

2.  Bayesian hierarchical classification and information sharing for clinical trials with subgroups and binary outcomes.

Authors:  Nan Chen; J Jack Lee
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 2.207

3.  Building efficient comparative effectiveness trials through adaptive designs, utility functions, and accrual rate optimization: finding the sweet spot.

Authors:  Byron J Gajewski; Scott M Berry; Melanie Quintana; Mamatha Pasnoor; Mazen Dimachkie; Laura Herbelin; Richard Barohn
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-01-07       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Adaptive Clinical Trials: Advantages and Disadvantages of Various Adaptive Design Elements.

Authors:  Edward L Korn; Boris Freidlin
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Adaptive clinical trial designs in oncology.

Authors:  Yong Zang; J Jack Lee
Journal:  Chin Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-12

6.  Randomized, Multicenter Trial of ARTSS-2 (Argatroban With Recombinant Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Acute Stroke).

Authors:  Andrew D Barreto; Gary A Ford; Loren Shen; Claudia Pedroza; Jon Tyson; Chunyan Cai; Mohammad H Rahbar; James C Grotta
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2017-05-15       Impact factor: 7.914

7.  GAD vaccine reduces insulin loss in recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes: findings from a Bayesian meta-analysis.

Authors:  Craig A Beam; Colleen MacCallum; Kevan C Herold; Diane K Wherrett; Jerry Palmer; Johnny Ludvigsson
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 10.122

8.  Commentary on Hey and Kimmelman.

Authors:  J Jack Lee
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 2.486

9.  Expert prior elicitation and Bayesian analysis of the Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial I.

Authors:  Catherine Q Sun; N Venkatesh Prajna; Tiruvengada Krishnan; Jeena Mascarenhas; Revathi Rajaraman; Muthiah Srinivasan; Anita Raghavan; Kieran S O'Brien; Kathryn J Ray; Stephen D McLeod; Travis C Porco; Nisha R Acharya; Thomas M Lietman
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2013-06-14       Impact factor: 4.799

10.  The number of seizures needed in the EMU.

Authors:  Aaron F Struck; Andrew J Cole; Sydney S Cash; M Brandon Westover
Journal:  Epilepsia       Date:  2015-07-27       Impact factor: 5.864

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.