A graphical approach to assess the goodness-of-fit of random-effects linear models when the goal is to measure individual benefits of medical treatments in severely ill patients

Measuring the individualization potential of treatment individualization rules: Application to rules built with a new parametric interaction model for parallel-group clinical trials

For personalized medicine, we propose a general method of evaluating the potential performance of an individualized treatment rule in future clinical applications with new patients. We focus on rules that choose the most beneficial treatment for the patient out of two active (nonplacebo) treatments, which the clinician will prescribe regularly to the patient after the decision. We develop a measure of the individualization potential (IP) of a rule. The IP compares the expected effectiveness of the rule in a future clinical individualization setting versus the effectiveness of not trying individualization. We illustrate our evaluation method by explaining how to measure the IP of a useful type of individualized rules calculated through a new parametric interaction model of data from parallel-group clinical trials with continuous responses. Our interaction model implies a structural equation model we use to estimate the rule and its IP. We examine the IP both theoretically and with simulations when the estimated individualized rule is put into practice in new patients. Our individualization approach was superior to outcome-weighted machine learning according to simulations. We also show connections with crossover and N-of-1 trials. As a real data application, we estimate a rule for the individualization of treatments for diabetic macular edema and evaluate its IP.

Measuring Individual Benefits of Medical Treatments Using Longitudinal Hospital Data with Non-Ignorable Missing Responses Caused by Patient Discharge: Application to the Study of Benefits of Pain Management Post Spinal Fusion

Electronic health records (EHR) provide valuable resources for longitudinal studies and understanding risk factors associated with poor clinical outcomes. However, they may not contain complete follow-ups, and the missing data may not be at random since hospital discharge may depend in part on expected but unrecorded clinical outcomes that occur after patient discharge. These non-ignorable missing data requires appropriate analysis methods. Here, we are interested in measuring and analyzing individual treatment benefits of medical treatments in patients recorded in EHR databases. We present a method for predicting individual benefits that handles non-ignorable missingness due to hospital discharge. The longitudinal clinical outcome of interest is modeled simultaneously with the hospital length of stay using a joint mixed-effects model, and individual benefits are predicted through a frequentist approach: the empirical Bayesian approach. We illustrate our approach by assessing individual pain management benefits to patients who underwent spinal fusion surgery. By calculating sample percentiles of empirical Bayes predictors of individual benefits, we examine the evolution of individual benefits over time. We additionally compare these percentiles with percentiles calculated with a Monte Carlo approach. We showed that empirical Bayes predictors of individual benefits do not only allow examining benefits in specific patients but also reflect overall population trends reliably.

Using population crossover trials to improve the decision process regarding treatment individualization in N-of-1 trials

Healthcare researchers are showing renewed interest in the utilization of N-of-1 clinical trials for the individualization of pharmacological treatments. Here, we propose a frequentist approach to conducting treatment individualization in N-of-1 trials that we call "partial empirical Bayes." We infer the most beneficial treatment for the patient from combining the information provided by a previously conducted population crossover trial with individual patient data. We propose a method for estimating an optimal number of treatment cycles and investigate the statistical conditions under which N-of-1 trials are more beneficial than traditional clinical approaches. We represent the patient population with a random-coefficients linear model and calculate estimators of posttreatment individual disease severities. We show the estimators' consistency under the most common N-of-1 designs and examine their prediction errors and performance with small numbers of patient's responses. We demonstrate by simulating new patients that our approach is equivalent or superior to both the common clinical practice of recommending the on-average best treatment for all patients and the common individualization method that simply compares average responses to the tested treatments. We conclude that some situations exist in which individualization with N-of-1 trials is highly beneficial while other situations exist in which individualization may be unfruitful.