Use of Bayesian decision analysis to maximize value in patient-centered randomized clinical trials in Parkinson's disease.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Shomesh E Chaudhuri, Zied Ben Chaouch, Brett Hauber, Brennan Mange, Mo Zhou, Stephanie Christopher, Dawn Bardot, Margaret Sheehan, Anne Donnelly, Lauren McLaughlin, Brittany Caldwell, Heather L Benz, Martin Ho, Anindita Saha, Katrina Gwinn, Murray Sheldon, Andrew W Lo
{"title":"Use of Bayesian decision analysis to maximize value in patient-centered randomized clinical trials in Parkinson's disease.","authors":"Shomesh E Chaudhuri, Zied Ben Chaouch, Brett Hauber, Brennan Mange, Mo Zhou, Stephanie Christopher, Dawn Bardot, Margaret Sheehan, Anne Donnelly, Lauren McLaughlin, Brittany Caldwell, Heather L Benz, Martin Ho, Anindita Saha, Katrina Gwinn, Murray Sheldon, Andrew W Lo","doi":"10.1080/10543406.2023.2170400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A fixed one-sided significance level of 5% is commonly used to interpret the statistical significance of randomized clinical trial (RCT) outcomes. While it is necessary to reduce the false positive rate, the threshold used could be chosen quantitatively and transparently to specifically reflect patient preferences regarding benefit-risk tradeoffs as well as other considerations. How can patient preferences be explicitly incorporated into RCTs in Parkinson's disease (PD), and what is the impact on statistical thresholds for device approval? In this analysis, we apply Bayesian decision analysis (BDA) to PD patient preference scores elicited from survey data. BDA allows us to choose a sample size (<math><mi>n</mi></math>) and significance level (<math><mi>α</mi></math>) that maximizes the overall expected value to patients of a balanced two-arm fixed-sample RCT, where the expected value is computed under both null and alternative hypotheses. For PD patients who had previously received deep brain stimulation (DBS) treatment, the BDA-optimal significance levels fell between 4.0% and 10.0%, similar to or greater than the traditional value of 5%. Conversely, for patients who had never received DBS, the optimal significance level ranged from 0.2% to 4.4%. In both of these populations, the optimal significance level increased with the severity of the patients' cognitive and motor function symptoms. By explicitly incorporating patient preferences into clinical trial designs and the regulatory decision-making process, BDA provides a quantitative and transparent approach to combine clinical and statistical significance. For PD patients who have never received DBS treatment, a 5% significance threshold may not be conservative enough to reflect their risk-aversion level. However, this study shows that patients who previously received DBS treatment present a higher tolerance to accept therapeutic risks in exchange for improved efficacy which is reflected in a higher statistical threshold.</p>","PeriodicalId":54870,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics","volume":" ","pages":"981-1000"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2023.2170400","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A fixed one-sided significance level of 5% is commonly used to interpret the statistical significance of randomized clinical trial (RCT) outcomes. While it is necessary to reduce the false positive rate, the threshold used could be chosen quantitatively and transparently to specifically reflect patient preferences regarding benefit-risk tradeoffs as well as other considerations. How can patient preferences be explicitly incorporated into RCTs in Parkinson's disease (PD), and what is the impact on statistical thresholds for device approval? In this analysis, we apply Bayesian decision analysis (BDA) to PD patient preference scores elicited from survey data. BDA allows us to choose a sample size (n) and significance level (α) that maximizes the overall expected value to patients of a balanced two-arm fixed-sample RCT, where the expected value is computed under both null and alternative hypotheses. For PD patients who had previously received deep brain stimulation (DBS) treatment, the BDA-optimal significance levels fell between 4.0% and 10.0%, similar to or greater than the traditional value of 5%. Conversely, for patients who had never received DBS, the optimal significance level ranged from 0.2% to 4.4%. In both of these populations, the optimal significance level increased with the severity of the patients' cognitive and motor function symptoms. By explicitly incorporating patient preferences into clinical trial designs and the regulatory decision-making process, BDA provides a quantitative and transparent approach to combine clinical and statistical significance. For PD patients who have never received DBS treatment, a 5% significance threshold may not be conservative enough to reflect their risk-aversion level. However, this study shows that patients who previously received DBS treatment present a higher tolerance to accept therapeutic risks in exchange for improved efficacy which is reflected in a higher statistical threshold.

使用贝叶斯决策分析,在以患者为中心的帕金森病随机临床试验中实现价值最大化。
在解释随机临床试验(RCT)结果的统计学意义时,通常采用 5%的固定单侧显著性水平。虽然有必要降低假阳性率,但可以定量、透明地选择所使用的阈值,以具体反映患者在获益与风险权衡方面的偏好以及其他考虑因素。如何将患者的偏好明确纳入帕金森病(PD)的 RCT 中,以及对器械审批的统计阈值有何影响?在本分析中,我们将贝叶斯决策分析(BDA)应用于从调查数据中得出的帕金森病患者偏好评分。通过贝叶斯决策分析,我们可以选择样本量(n)和显著性水平(α),使平衡双臂固定样本 RCT 对患者的总体预期值最大化,其中预期值是在零假设和备择假设下计算的。对于曾接受过脑深部刺激(DBS)治疗的帕金森病患者,BDA 最佳显著性水平介于 4.0% 和 10.0% 之间,类似于或大于传统的 5%。相反,对于从未接受过 DBS 治疗的患者,最佳显著性水平在 0.2% 到 4.4% 之间。在这两类人群中,最佳显著性水平随着患者认知和运动功能症状的严重程度而增加。通过将患者偏好明确纳入临床试验设计和监管决策过程,BDA 提供了一种定量、透明的方法,将临床意义和统计意义结合起来。对于从未接受过 DBS 治疗的帕金森病患者来说,5% 的显著性阈值可能不够保守,不足以反映他们的风险规避水平。然而,本研究表明,曾经接受过 DBS 治疗的患者接受治疗风险的容忍度更高,以换取更好的疗效,这反映在更高的统计阈值上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics
Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 医学-统计学与概率论
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
18.20%
发文量
71
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, a rapid publication journal, discusses quality applications of statistics in biopharmaceutical research and development. Now publishing six times per year, it includes expositions of statistical methodology with immediate applicability to biopharmaceutical research in the form of full-length and short manuscripts, review articles, selected/invited conference papers, short articles, and letters to the editor. Addressing timely and provocative topics important to the biostatistical profession, the journal covers: Drug, device, and biological research and development; Drug screening and drug design; Assessment of pharmacological activity; Pharmaceutical formulation and scale-up; Preclinical safety assessment; Bioavailability, bioequivalence, and pharmacokinetics; Phase, I, II, and III clinical development including complex innovative designs; Premarket approval assessment of clinical safety; Postmarketing surveillance; Big data and artificial intelligence and applications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信