Bayesian group sequential enrichment designs based on adaptive regression of response and survival time on baseline biomarkers

Bayesian Sequential Design for Identifying and Ranking Effective Patient Subgroups in Precision Medicine in the Case of Counting Outcome Data with Inflated Zeros

Precision medicine is revolutionizing health care, particularly by addressing patient variability due to different biological profiles. As traditional treatments may not always be appropriate for certain patient subsets, the rise of biomarker-stratified clinical trials has driven the need for innovative methods. We introduced a Bayesian sequential scheme to evaluate therapeutic interventions in an intensive care unit setting, focusing on complex endpoints characterized by an excess of zeros and right truncation. By using a zero-inflated truncated Poisson model, we efficiently addressed this data complexity. The posterior distribution of rankings and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) approach provided a comprehensive ranking of the subgroups studied. Different subsets of subgroups were evaluated depending on the availability of biomarker data. Interim analyses, accounting for early stopping for efficacy, were an integral aspect of our design. The simulation study demonstrated a high proportion of correct identification of the subgroup which is the most predictive of the treatment effect, as well as satisfactory false positive and true positive rates. As the role of personalized medicine grows, especially in the intensive care setting, it is critical to have designs that can manage complicated endpoints and that can control for decision error. Our method seems promising in this challenging context.

Interpreting Randomized Controlled Trials

This article describes rationales and limitations for making inferences based on data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We argue that obtaining a representative random sample from a patient population is impossible for a clinical trial because patients are accrued sequentially over time and thus comprise a convenience sample, subject only to protocol entry criteria. Consequently, the trial's sample is unlikely to represent a definable patient population. We use causal diagrams to illustrate the difference between random allocation of interventions within a clinical trial sample and true simple or stratified random sampling, as executed in surveys. We argue that group-specific statistics, such as a median survival time estimate for a treatment arm in an RCT, have limited meaning as estimates of larger patient population parameters. In contrast, random allocation between interventions facilitates comparative causal inferences about between-treatment effects, such as hazard ratios or differences between probabilities of response. Comparative inferences also require the assumption of transportability from a clinical trial's convenience sample to a targeted patient population. We focus on the consequences and limitations of randomization procedures in order to clarify the distinctions between pairs of complementary concepts of fundamental importance to data science and RCT interpretation. These include internal and external validity, generalizability and transportability, uncertainty and variability, representativeness and inclusiveness, blocking and stratification, relevance and robustness, forward and reverse causal inference, intention to treat and per protocol analyses, and potential outcomes and counterfactuals.

Simulation study for evaluating an adaptive-randomisation Bayesian hybrid trial design with enrichment

Background

As we enter the era of precision medicine, the role of adaptive designs, such as response-adaptive randomisation or enrichment designs in drug discovery and development, has become increasingly important to identify the treatment given to a patient based on one or more biomarkers. Tailoring the ventilation supply technique according to the responsiveness of patients to positive end-expiratory pressure is a suitable setting for such a design.

Methods

In the setting of marker-strategy design, we propose a Bayesian response-adaptive randomisation with enrichment design based on group sequential analyses. This design combines the elements of enrichment design and response-adaptive randomisation. Concerning the enrichment strategy, Bayesian treatment-by-subset interaction measures were used to adaptively enrich the patients most likely to benefit from an experimental treatment while controlling the false-positive rate.The operating characteristics of the design were assessed by simulation and compared to those of alternate designs.

Results

The results obtained allowed the detection of the superiority of one treatment over another and the presence of a treatment-by-subgroup interaction while keeping the false-positive rate at approximately 5\% and reducing the average number of included patients. In addition, simulation studies identified that the number of interim analyses and the burn-in period may have an impact on the performance of the scheme.

Conclusion

The proposed design highlights important objectives of precision medicine, such as determining whether the experimental treatment is superior to another and identifying wheter such an efficacy could depend on patient profile.

Challenges and opportunities in biomarker-driven trials: adaptive randomization

In an era of precision medicine, as advanced technology such as molecular profiling at individual patient level has been developed and become increasingly accessible and affordable, biomarker-driven trials have been received a lot of attention and are expected to receive more attention in order to integrate clinical practice with clinical research. Biomarkers play a critical role to identify patients who are expected to get benefit from a treatment, and it is important to effectively incorporate the biomarkers into clinical trials to understand the biomarker-treatment relationship and increase the efficiency. We investigate incorporating biomarkers in adaptive randomization to identify patients who would respond better to the treatment and optimize the treatment allocation. The covariate-adjusted variants of the existing response-adaptive randomization are used to implement biomarker-driven randomization, and the performance of the biomarker-driven randomization is compared with the existing randomization methods, such as traditional fixed randomization with equal probability and response-adaptive randomization without incorporating biomarkers, under the group sequential design allowing early stopping due to superiority and futility. Various scenarios are taken into account to see the impact of the biomarker-driven randomization in the simulation study. It shows that the overall type I error rate is likely to be inflated by the effect of prognostic biomarkers. Several suggestions and considerations for the challenges are discussed to maintain the type I error rate at the nominal level.

A Causal Framework for Making Individualized Treatment Decisions in Oncology

Simple Summary

Physicians routinely make individualized treatment decisions by accounting for the joint effects of patient prognostic covariates and treatments on clinical outcomes. Ideally, this is performed using historical randomized clinical trial (RCT) data. Randomization ensures that unbiased estimates of causal treatment effect parameters can be obtained from the historical RCT data and used to predict each new patient’s outcome based on the joint effect of their baseline covariates and each treatment being considered. However, this process becomes problematic if a patient seen in the clinic is very different from the patients who were enrolled in the RCT. That is, if a new patient does not satisfy the entry criteria of the RCT, then the patient does not belong to the population represented by the patients who were studied in the RCT. In such settings, it still may be possible to utilize the RCT data to help choose a new patient’s treatment. This may be achieved by combining the RCT data with data from other clinical trials, or possibly preclinical experiments, and using the combined dataset to predict the patient’s expected outcome for each treatment being considered. In such settings, combining data from multiple sources in a way that is statistically reliable is not entirely straightforward, and correctly identifying and estimating the effects of treatments and patient covariates on clinical outcomes can be complex. Causal diagrams provide a rational basis to guide this process. The first step is to construct a causal diagram that reflects the plausible relationships between treatment variables, patient covariates, and clinical outcomes. If the diagram is correct, it can be used to determine what additional data may be needed, how to combine data from multiple sources, how to formulate a statistical model for clinical outcomes as a function of treatment and covariates, and how to compute an unbiased treatment effect estimate for each new patient. We use adjuvant therapy of renal cell carcinoma to illustrate how causal diagrams may be used to guide these steps.

Abstract

We discuss how causal diagrams can be used by clinicians to make better individualized treatment decisions. Causal diagrams can distinguish between settings where clinical decisions can rely on a conventional additive regression model fit to data from a historical randomized clinical trial (RCT) to estimate treatment effects and settings where a different approach is needed. This may be because a new patient does not meet the RCT’s entry criteria, or a treatment’s effect is modified by biomarkers or other variables that act as mediators between treatment and outcome. In some settings, the problem can be addressed simply by including treatment–covariate interaction terms in the statistical regression model used to analyze the RCT dataset. However, if the RCT entry criteria exclude a new patient seen in the clinic, it may be necessary to combine the RCT data with external data from other RCTs, single-arm trials, or preclinical experiments evaluating biological treatment effects. For example, external data may show that treatment effects differ between histological subgroups not recorded in an RCT. A causal diagram may be used to decide whether external observational or experimental data should be obtained and combined with RCT data to compute statistical estimates for making individualized treatment decisions. We use adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma as our motivating example to illustrate how to construct causal diagrams and apply them to guide clinical decisions.

Personalized Risk-Based Screening Design for Comparative Two-Arm Group Sequential Clinical Trials

Personalized medicine has been emerging to take into account individual variability in genes and environment. In the era of personalized medicine, it is critical to incorporate the patients’ characteristics and improve the clinical benefit for patients. The patients’ characteristics are incorporated in adaptive randomization to identify patients who are expected to get more benefit from the treatment and optimize the treatment allocation. However, it is challenging to control potential selection bias from using observed efficacy data and the effect of prognostic covariates in adaptive randomization. This paper proposes a personalized risk-based screening design using Bayesian covariate-adjusted response-adaptive randomization that compares the experimental screening method to a standard screening method based on indicators of having a disease. Personalized risk-based allocation probability is built for adaptive randomization, and Bayesian adaptive decision rules are calibrated to preserve error rates. A simulation study shows that the proposed design controls error rates and yields a much smaller number of failures and a larger number of patients allocated to a better intervention compared to existing randomized controlled trial designs. Therefore, the proposed design performs well for randomized controlled clinical trials under personalized medicine.

Enrichment Bayesian design for randomized clinical trials using categorical biomarkers and a binary outcome

Background

Adaptive clinical trials have been increasingly commonly employed to select a potential target population for one trial without conducting trials separately. Such enrichment designs typically consist of two or three stages, where the first stage serves as a screening process for selecting a specific subpopulation.

Methods

We propose a Bayesian design for randomized clinical trials with a binary outcome that focuses on restricting the inclusion to a subset of patients who are likely to benefit the most from the treatment during trial accrual. Several Bayesian measures of efficacy and treatment-by-subset interactions were used to dictate the enrichment, either based on Gail and Simon’s or Millen’s criteria. A simulation study was used to assess the performance of our design. The method is exemplified in a real randomized clinical trial conducted in patients with respiratory failure that failed to show any benefit of high flow oxygen supply compared with standard oxygen.

Results

The use of the enrichment rules allowed the detection of the existence of a treatment-by-subset interaction more rapidly compared with Gail and Simon’s criteria, with decreasing proportions of enrollment in the whole sample, and the proportions of enrichment lower, in the presence of interaction based on Millen’s criteria. In the real dataset, this may have allowed the detection of the potential interest of high flow oxygen in patients with a SOFA neurological score ≥ 1.

Conclusion

Enrichment designs that handle the uncertainty in treatment efficacy by focusing on the target population offer a promising balance for trial efficiency and ease of interpretation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at (10.1186/s12874-022-01513-z).