Literature DB >> 31070807

Bayesian hierarchical EMAX model for dose-response in early phase efficacy clinical trials.

Byron J Gajewski1, Caitlyn Meinzer2, Scott M Berry1,3, Gaylan L Rockswold4, William G Barsan5, Frederick K Korley5, Renee' H Martin2.   

Abstract

A primary goal of a phase II dose-ranging trial is to identify a correct dose before moving forward to a phase III confirmatory trial. A correct dose is one that is actually better than control. A popular model in phase II is an independent model that puts no structure on the dose-response relationship. Unfortunately, the independent model does not efficiently use information from related doses. One very successful alternate model improves power using a pre-specified dose-response structure. Past research indicates that EMAX models are broadly successful and therefore attractive for designing dose-response trials. However, there may be instances of slight risk of nonmonotone trends that need to be addressed when planning a clinical trial design. We propose to add hierarchical parameters to the EMAX model. The added layer allows information about the treatment effect in one dose to be "borrowed" when estimating the treatment effect in another dose. This is referred to as the hierarchical EMAX model. Our paper compares three different models (independent, EMAX, and hierarchical EMAX) and two different design strategies. The first design considered is Bayesian with a fixed trial design, and it has a fixed schedule for randomization. The second design is Bayesian but adaptive, and it uses response adaptive randomization. In this article, a randomized trial of patients with severe traumatic brain injury is provided as a motivating example.
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EMAX; dosing design, Bayesian models; hierarchical models; logistic

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31070807      PMCID: PMC6606375          DOI: 10.1002/sim.8167

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


  4 in total

1.  Combining multiple comparisons and modeling techniques in dose-response studies.

Authors:  F Bretz; J C Pinheiro; M Branson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Bayesian hypothesis testing in two-arm trials with dichotomous outcomes.

Authors:  Boris G Zaslavsky
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2012-09-24       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Hyperbaric oxygen brain injury treatment (HOBIT) trial: a multifactor design with response adaptive randomization and longitudinal modeling.

Authors:  Byron J Gajewski; Scott M Berry; William G Barsan; Robert Silbergleit; William J Meurer; Renee Martin; Gaylan L Rockswold
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 1.894

4.  Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: development and international validation of prognostic scores based on admission characteristics.

Authors:  Ewout W Steyerberg; Nino Mushkudiani; Pablo Perel; Isabella Butcher; Juan Lu; Gillian S McHugh; Gordon D Murray; Anthony Marmarou; Ian Roberts; J Dik F Habbema; Andrew I R Maas
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2008-08-05       Impact factor: 11.069

  4 in total
  6 in total

1.  Bayesian accrual modeling and prediction in multicenter clinical trials with varying center activation times.

Authors:  Junhao Liu; Jo Wick; Yu Jiang; Matthew Mayo; Byron Gajewski
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2020-04-21       Impact factor: 1.894

2.  Bayesian Hierarchical Factor Analysis for Efficient Estimation across Race/Ethnicity.

Authors:  Jinxiang Hu; Lauren Clark; Peng Shi; Vincent S Staggs; Christine Daley; Byron Gajewski
Journal:  Rev Colomb Estad       Date:  2021-07-12

3.  Sliding Scoring of the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended as Primary Outcome in Traumatic Brain Injury Trials.

Authors:  Sharon D Yeatts; Reneé H Martin; William Meurer; Robert Silbergleit; Gaylan L Rockswold; William G Barsan; Frederick K Korley; David W Wright; Byron J Gajewski
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2020-08-26       Impact factor: 5.269

4.  The design of a Bayesian adaptive clinical trial of tranexamic acid in severely injured children.

Authors:  John M VanBuren; T Charles Casper; Daniel K Nishijima; Nathan Kuppermann; Roger J Lewis; J Michael Dean; Anna McGlothlin
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2021-11-04       Impact factor: 2.279

5.  Comparison of hierarchical EMAX and NDLM models in dose-response for early phase clinical trials.

Authors:  Xiaqing Huang; Byron J Gajewski
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-07-20       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  Two-stage Bayesian hierarchical modeling for blinded and unblinded safety monitoring in randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  Junhao Liu; Jo Wick; Renee' H Martin; Caitlyn Meinzer; Dooti Roy; Byron Gajewski
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-08-17       Impact factor: 4.615

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.