Literature DB >> 32921152

Detecting participant noncompliance across multiple time points by modeling a longitudinal biomarker.

Ross L Peterson1, Joseph S Koopmeiners1, Tracy T Smith2, Sharon E Murphy3, Eric C Donny4, David M Vock1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Participant noncompliance, in which participants do not follow their assigned treatment protocol, has long complicated the interpretation of randomized clinical trials. No gold standard has been identified for detecting noncompliance, but in some trials participants' biomarkers can provide objective information that suggests exposure to non-study treatments. However, existing methods are limited to retrospectively detecting noncompliance at a single time point based on a single biomarker measurement. We propose a novel method that can leverage participants' full biomarker history to detect noncompliance across multiple time points. Conditional on longitudinal biomarker data, our method can estimate the probability of compliance at (1) a single time point of the trial, (2) all time points, and (3) a future time point.
METHODS: Across time points, we model the biomarker as a mixture density with (latent) components corresponding to longitudinal patterns of compliance. To estimate the mixture density, we fit mixed effects models for both compliance and the biomarker. We use the mixture density to derive compliance probabilities that condition on the longitudinal biomarker data. We evaluate our compliance probabilities by simulation and apply them to a trial in which current smokers were asked to only smoke low nicotine study cigarettes (Center for the Evaluation of Nicotine in Cigarettes Project 1 Study 2). In the simulation, we investigated three different effects of compliance on the biomarker, as well as the effect of misspecification of the covariance structures. We compared probability estimators (1) and (2) to those that ignore the longitudinal correlation in the data according to area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. We evaluated estimator (3) by plotting its calibration lines. For Center for the Evaluation of Nicotine in Cigarettes Project 1 Study 2, we compared estimators (1) and (3) to a probability estimator of compliance at the last time point that ignores the longitudinal correlation.
RESULTS: In the simulation, for both compliance at the last time point and at all time points, conditioning on the longitudinal biomarker data uniformly raised area under the receiver operating characteristic curve across all three compliance effect scenarios. The gains in area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were smaller under misspecification. The calibration lines for the prediction of compliance closely followed 45°, though with additional variability under misspecification. For compliance at the last time point of Center for the Evaluation of Nicotine in Cigarettes Project 1 Study 2, conditioning on participants' full biomarker history boosted area under the receiver operating characteristic curve by three percentage points. The prediction probabilities somewhat accurately approximated the non-longitudinal compliance probabilities. DISCUSSION: Compared to existing methods that only use a single biomarker measurement, our method can account for the longitudinal correlation in the biomarker and compliance to more accurately identify noncompliant participants. Our method can also use participants' biomarker history to predict compliance at a future time point.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical trials; detection; expectation–maximization algorithm; mixed effects model; participant noncompliance

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32921152      PMCID: PMC9364488          DOI: 10.1177/1740774520956949

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Trials        ISSN: 1740-7745            Impact factor:   2.599


  21 in total

1.  Estimating causal effects from a randomized clinical trial when noncompliance is measured with error.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Boatman; David M Vock; Joseph S Koopmeiners; Eric C Donny
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2018-01-01       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  Effect of Immediate vs Gradual Reduction in Nicotine Content of Cigarettes on Biomarkers of Smoke Exposure: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Dorothy K Hatsukami; Xianghua Luo; Joni A Jensen; Mustafa al'Absi; Sharon S Allen; Steven G Carmella; Menglan Chen; Paul M Cinciripini; Rachel Denlinger-Apte; David J Drobes; Joseph S Koopmeiners; Tonya Lane; Chap T Le; Scott Leischow; Kai Luo; F Joseph McClernon; Sharon E Murphy; Viviana Paiano; Jason D Robinson; Herbert Severson; Christopher Sipe; Andrew A Strasser; Lori G Strayer; Mei Kuen Tang; Ryan Vandrey; Stephen S Hecht; Neal L Benowitz; Eric C Donny
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  The rational clinical examination. Is this patient taking the treatment as prescribed?

Authors:  B J Stephenson; B H Rowe; R B Haynes; W M Macharia; G Leon
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-06-02       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 4.  Methods for measuring and monitoring medication regimen adherence in clinical trials and clinical practice.

Authors:  K C Farmer
Journal:  Clin Ther       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.393

5.  Variations in patients' adherence to medical recommendations: a quantitative review of 50 years of research.

Authors:  M Robin DiMatteo
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Randomized Trial of Low-Nicotine Cigarettes and Transdermal Nicotine.

Authors:  Tracy T Smith; Joseph S Koopmeiners; Katelyn M Tessier; Esa M Davis; Cynthia A Conklin; Rachel L Denlinger-Apte; Tonya Lane; Sharon E Murphy; Jennifer W Tidey; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Eric C Donny
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 5.043

7.  Bayesian estimation of disease prevalence and the parameters of diagnostic tests in the absence of a gold standard.

Authors:  L Joseph; T W Gyorkos; L Coupal
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1995-02-01       Impact factor: 4.897

8.  Patient noncompliance and overcompliance. Behavior patterns underlying a patient's failure to 'follow doctor's orders'.

Authors:  R A Boza; F Milanes; V Slater; L Garrigo; C E Rivera
Journal:  Postgrad Med       Date:  1987-03       Impact factor: 3.840

9.  Efficiency and robustness of causal effect estimators when noncompliance is measured with error.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Boatman; David M Vock; Joseph S Koopmeiners
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2018-08-14       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Mixed model analysis of censored longitudinal data with flexible random-effects density.

Authors:  David M Vock; Marie Davidian; Anastasios A Tsiatis; Andrew J Muir
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2011-09-13       Impact factor: 5.899

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.