A Bayesian Meta-analysis Method for Estimating Risk Difference of Rare Events

Comparison of Prior Distributions for the Heterogeneity Parameter in a Rare Events Meta-Analysis of a Few Studies

Bayesian meta-analysis is a promising approach for rare events meta-analysis. However, the inference of the overall effect in rare events meta-analysis is sensitive to the choice of prior distribution for the heterogeneity parameter. Therefore, it is crucial to assign a convincing prior specification and ensure that it is both plausible and transparent. Various priors for the heterogeneity parameter have been proposed; however, the comparative performance of alternative prior specifications in rare events meta-analysis is poorly understood. Based on a binomial-normal hierarchical model, we conducted a comprehensive simulation study to compare seven heterogeneity prior specifications for binary outcomes, using the odds ratio as the metric. We compared their performance in terms of coverage, median percentage bias, width of the 95% credible interval, and root mean square error (RMSE). We illustrate the results with two recently published rare events meta-analyses of a few studies. The results show that the half-normal prior (with a scale of 0.5), the prior proposed by Turner et al. for the general healthcare setting (without restriction to a specific type of outcome) and for the adverse event setting perform well when the degree of heterogeneity is not relatively high, yielding smaller bias and shorter interval widths with similar coverage and RMSE in most cases compared to other prior specifications. None of the priors performed better when the heterogeneity between-studies were significantly extreme.

Integrating randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions to assess the effect of rare events: a Bayesian re-analysis of two meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

There is a growing trend to include non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) in rare events meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to complement the evidence from the latter. An important consideration when combining RCTs and NRSIs is how to address potential bias and down-weighting of NRSIs in the pooled estimates. The aim of this study is to explore the use of a power prior approach in a Bayesian framework for integrating RCTs and NRSIs to assess the effect of rare events.

METHODS

We proposed a method of specifying the down-weighting factor based on judgments of the relative magnitude (no information, and low, moderate, serious and critical risk of bias) of the overall risk of bias for each NRSI using the ROBINS-I tool. The methods were illustrated using two meta-analyses, with particular interest in the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in patients using sodium/glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors compared with active comparators, and the association between low-dose methotrexate exposure and melanoma.

RESULTS

No significant results were observed for these two analyses when the data from RCTs only were pooled (risk of DKA: OR = 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25-2.69; risk of melanoma: OR = 1.94, 95%CI: 0.72-5.27). When RCTs and NRSIs were directly combined without distinction in the same meta-analysis, both meta-analyses showed significant results (risk of DKA: OR = 1.50, 95%CI: 1.11-2.03; risk of melanoma: OR = 1.16, 95%CI: 1.08-1.24). Using Bayesian analysis to account for NRSI bias, there was a 90% probability of an increased risk of DKA in users receiving SGLT-2 inhibitors and an 91% probability of an increased risk of melanoma in patients using low-dose methotrexate.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that including NRSIs in a meta-analysis of RCTs for rare events could increase the certainty and comprehensiveness of the evidence. The estimates obtained from NRSIs are generally considered to be biased, and the possible influence of NRSIs on the certainty of the combined evidence needs to be carefully investigated.

A Bayesian approach to sequential analysis in post-licensure vaccine safety surveillance

With rapid development of computing technology, Bayesian statistics have increasingly gained more attention in various areas of public health. However, the full potential of Bayesian sequential methods applied to vaccine safety surveillance has not yet been realized, despite acknowledged practical benefits and philosophical advantages of Bayesian statistics. In this paper, we describe how sequential analysis can be performed in a Bayesian paradigm in the field of vaccine safety. We compared the performance of the frequentist sequential method, specifically, Maximized Sequential Probability Ratio Test (MaxSPRT), and a Bayesian sequential method using simulations and a real world vaccine safety example. The performance is evaluated using three metrics: false positive rate, false negative rate, and average earliest time to signal. Depending on the background rate of adverse events, the Bayesian sequential method could significantly improve the false negative rate and decrease the earliest time to signal. We consider the proposed Bayesian sequential approach to be a promising alternative for vaccine safety surveillance.