Literature DB >> 29577741

LIBERTI: A SMART study in plastic surgery.

Jonathan C Hibbard1,2, Jonathan S Friedstat3, Sonia M Thomas4, Renee E Edkins5, C Scott Hultman5, Michael R Kosorok1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Laser treatment of burns scars is considered by some providers to be standard of care. However, there is little evidence-based research as to the true benefit. A number of factors hinder evaluation of the benefit of laser treatment. These include significant heterogeneity in patient response and possible delayed effects from the laser treatment. Moreover, laser treatments are often provided sequentially using different types of equipment and settings, so there are effectively a large number of overall treatment options that need to be compared. We propose a trial capable of coping with these issues and that also attempts to take advantage of the heterogeneous response in order to estimate optimal treatment plans personalized to each individual patient. It will be the first large-scale randomized trial to compare the effectiveness of laser treatments for burns scars and, to our knowledge, the very first example of the utility of a Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial in plastic surgery.
METHODS: We propose using a Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial design to investigate the effect of various permutations of laser treatment on hypertrophic burn scars. We will compare and test hypotheses regarding laser treatment effects at a general population level. Simultaneously, we hope to use the data generated to discover possible beneficial personalized treatment plans, tailored to individual patient characteristics.
RESULTS: We show that the proposed trial has good power to detect laser treatment effect at the overall population level, despite comparing a large number of treatment combinations. The trial will simultaneously provide high-quality data appropriate for estimating precision-medicine treatment rules. We detail population-level comparisons of interest and corresponding sample size calculations. We provide simulations to suggest the power of the trial to detect laser effect and also the possible benefits of personalization of laser treatment to individual characteristics.
CONCLUSION: We propose, to our knowledge, the first use of a Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial in surgery. The trial is rigorously designed so that it is reasonably straightforward to implement and powered to answer general overall questions of interest. The trial is also designed to provide data that are suitable for the estimation of beneficial precision-medicine treatment rules that depend both on individual patient characteristics and on-going real-time patient response to treatment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CO2 laser; Hypertrophic scarring; Q-learning; Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial; burn; clinical trial; dynamic treatment regime; dynamic treatment rule; factorial experiment; individualized treatment rule; laser treatment; outcome-weighted learning; plastic surgery; precision medicine; pulsed-dye laser; surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29577741      PMCID: PMC5990436          DOI: 10.1177/1740774518762435

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Trials        ISSN: 1740-7745            Impact factor:   2.486


  39 in total

1.  The path to personalized medicine.

Authors:  Margaret A Hamburg; Francis S Collins
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  An experimental design for the development of adaptive treatment strategies.

Authors:  S A Murphy
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2005-05-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  The inevitable application of big data to health care.

Authors:  Travis B Murdoch; Allan S Detsky
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-04-03       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  To heal and restore broken bodies: a retrospective, descriptive study of the role and impact of pastoral care in the treatment of patients with burn injury.

Authors:  Charles Scott Hultman; Michael A Saou; S Tanner Roach; Suzanne Cloyd Hultman; Bruce A Cairns; Shirley Massey; Harold G Koenig
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.539

5.  Experimental design and primary data analysis methods for comparing adaptive interventions.

Authors:  Inbal Nahum-Shani; Min Qian; Daniel Almirall; William E Pelham; Beth Gnagy; Gregory A Fabiano; James G Waxmonsky; Jihnhee Yu; Susan A Murphy
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2012-10-01

6.  Placebo-free designs for evaluating new mental health treatments: the use of adaptive treatment strategies.

Authors:  Ree Dawson; Philip W Lavori
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2004-11-15       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Imbalance properties of centre-stratified permuted-block and complete randomisation for several treatments in a clinical trial.

Authors:  Vladimir V Anisimov; Wai Y Yeung; D Stephen Coad
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-12-27       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation.

Authors:  Lieneke J Draaijers; Fenike R H Tempelman; Yvonne A M Botman; Wim E Tuinebreijer; Esther Middelkoop; Robert W Kreis; Paul P M van Zuijlen
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 4.730

9.  The use of pulsed dye laser for the prevention and treatment of hypertrophic scars in chinese persons.

Authors:  Henry H Chan; David S Y Wong; W S Ho; L K Lam; W Wei
Journal:  Dermatol Surg       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 3.398

10.  Estimation of optimal dynamic treatment regimes.

Authors:  Ying-Qi Zhao; Eric B Laber
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2014-05-28       Impact factor: 2.486

View more
  3 in total

1.  Understanding heterogeneity of responses to, and optimizing clinical efficacy of, exercise training in older adults: NIH NIA Workshop summary.

Authors:  Melissa L Erickson; Jacob M Allen; Daniel P Beavers; Linda M Collins; Karina W Davidson; Kirk I Erickson; Karyn A Esser; Matthijs K C Hesselink; Kerrie L Moreau; Eric B Laber; Charlotte A Peterson; Courtney M Peterson; Jane E Reusch; John P Thyfault; Shawn D Youngstedt; Juleen R Zierath; Bret H Goodpaster; Nathan K LeBrasseur; Thomas W Buford; Lauren M Sparks
Journal:  Geroscience       Date:  2022-10-15       Impact factor: 7.581

2.  Adaptive Enrichment Designs in Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Peter F Thall
Journal:  Annu Rev Stat Appl       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 7.917

Review 3.  Sample size considerations for comparing dynamic treatment regimens in a sequential multiple-assignment randomized trial with a continuous longitudinal outcome.

Authors:  Nicholas J Seewald; Kelley M Kidwell; Inbal Nahum-Shani; Tianshuang Wu; James R McKay; Daniel Almirall
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 3.021

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.