Literature DB >> 32735010

A decision-theoretic approach to Bayesian clinical trial design and evaluation of robustness to prior-data conflict.

Silvia Calderazzo1, Manuel Wiesenfarth1, Annette Kopp-Schneider1.   

Abstract

Bayesian clinical trials allow taking advantage of relevant external information through the elicitation of prior distributions, which influence Bayesian posterior parameter estimates and test decisions. However, incorporation of historical information can have harmful consequences on the trial's frequentist (conditional) operating characteristics in case of inconsistency between prior information and the newly collected data. A compromise between meaningful incorporation of historical information and strict control of frequentist error rates is therefore often sought. Our aim is thus to review and investigate the rationale and consequences of different approaches to relaxing strict frequentist control of error rates from a Bayesian decision-theoretic viewpoint. In particular, we define an integrated risk which incorporates losses arising from testing, estimation, and sampling. A weighted combination of the integrated risk addends arising from testing and estimation allows moving smoothly between these two targets. Furthermore, we explore different possible elicitations of the test error costs, leading to test decisions based either on posterior probabilities, or solely on Bayes factors. Sensitivity analyses are performed following the convention which makes a distinction between the prior of the data-generating process, and the analysis prior adopted to fit the data. Simulation in the case of normal and binomial outcomes and an application to a one-arm proof-of-concept trial, exemplify how such analysis can be conducted to explore sensitivity of the integrated risk, the operating characteristics, and the optimal sample size, to prior-data conflict. Robust analysis prior specifications, which gradually discount potentially conflicting prior information, are also included for comparison. Guidance with respect to cost elicitation, particularly in the context of a Phase II proof-of-concept trial, is provided.
© The Author 2020. Published by Oxford University Press.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Average type I error rate; Bayesian clinical trial design; Bayesian decision theory; Prior-data conflict; Robust prior; Sampling-analysis prior

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 32735010      PMCID: PMC9118338          DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxaa027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biostatistics        ISSN: 1465-4644            Impact factor:   5.279


  16 in total

1.  Bayesian assessment of sample size for clinical trials of cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  A O'Hagan; J W Stevens
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2001 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Revised evidence for statistical standards.

Authors:  Andrew Gelman; Christian P Robert
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-04-23       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Robust meta-analytic-predictive priors in clinical trials with historical control information.

Authors:  Heinz Schmidli; Sandro Gsteiger; Satrajit Roychoudhury; Anthony O'Hagan; David Spiegelhalter; Beat Neuenschwander
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2014-10-29       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Quantification of prior impact in terms of effective current sample size.

Authors:  Manuel Wiesenfarth; Silvia Calderazzo
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Beyond p-values: A phase II dual-criterion design with statistical significance and clinical relevance.

Authors:  Satrajit Roychoudhury; Nicolas Scheuer; Beat Neuenschwander
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 2.486

6.  Bayesian clinical trial design using historical data that inform the treatment effect.

Authors:  Matthew A Psioda; Joseph G Ibrahim
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 5.899

7.  Commensurate Priors for Incorporating Historical Information in Clinical Trials Using General and Generalized Linear Models.

Authors:  Brian P Hobbs; Daniel J Sargent; Bradley P Carlin
Journal:  Bayesian Anal       Date:  2012-08-28       Impact factor: 3.728

Review 8.  Use of historical control data for assessing treatment effects in clinical trials.

Authors:  Kert Viele; Scott Berry; Beat Neuenschwander; Billy Amzal; Fang Chen; Nathan Enas; Brian Hobbs; Joseph G Ibrahim; Nelson Kinnersley; Stacy Lindborg; Sandrine Micallef; Satrajit Roychoudhury; Laura Thompson
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2013-08-05       Impact factor: 1.894

9.  Rejection odds and rejection ratios: A proposal for statistical practice in testing hypotheses.

Authors:  M J Bayarri; Daniel J Benjamin; James O Berger; Thomas M Sellke
Journal:  J Math Psychol       Date:  2016-02-05       Impact factor: 2.223

10.  Power gains by using external information in clinical trials are typically not possible when requiring strict type I error control.

Authors:  Annette Kopp-Schneider; Silvia Calderazzo; Manuel Wiesenfarth
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2019-07-02       Impact factor: 2.207

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.