Bayesian meta-analysis for evaluating treatment effectiveness in biomarker subgroups using trials of mixed patient populations

IF 5 2区 生物学 Q1 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
Lorna Wheaton, Dan Jackson, Sylwia Bujkiewicz
{"title":"Bayesian meta-analysis for evaluating treatment effectiveness in biomarker subgroups using trials of mixed patient populations","authors":"Lorna Wheaton,&nbsp;Dan Jackson,&nbsp;Sylwia Bujkiewicz","doi":"10.1002/jrsm.1707","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>During drug development, evidence can emerge to suggest a treatment is more effective in a specific patient subgroup. Whilst early trials may be conducted in biomarker-mixed populations, later trials are more likely to enroll biomarker-positive patients alone, thus leading to trials of the same treatment investigated in different populations. When conducting a meta-analysis, a conservative approach would be to combine only trials conducted in the biomarker-positive subgroup. However, this discards potentially useful information on treatment effects in the biomarker-positive subgroup concealed within observed treatment effects in biomarker-mixed populations. We extend standard random-effects meta-analysis to combine treatment effects obtained from trials with different populations to estimate pooled treatment effects in a biomarker subgroup of interest. The model assumes a systematic difference in treatment effects between biomarker-positive and biomarker-negative subgroups, which is estimated from trials which report either or both treatment effects. The systematic difference and proportion of biomarker-negative patients in biomarker-mixed studies are used to interpolate treatment effects in the biomarker-positive subgroup from observed treatment effects in the biomarker-mixed population. The developed methods are applied to an illustrative example in metastatic colorectal cancer and evaluated in a simulation study. In the example, the developed method improved precision of the pooled treatment effect estimate compared with standard random-effects meta-analysis of trials investigating only biomarker-positive patients. The simulation study confirmed that when the systematic difference in treatment effects between biomarker subgroups is not very large, the developed method can improve precision of estimation of pooled treatment effects while maintaining low bias.</p>","PeriodicalId":226,"journal":{"name":"Research Synthesis Methods","volume":"15 4","pages":"543-560"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jrsm.1707","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Synthesis Methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1707","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

During drug development, evidence can emerge to suggest a treatment is more effective in a specific patient subgroup. Whilst early trials may be conducted in biomarker-mixed populations, later trials are more likely to enroll biomarker-positive patients alone, thus leading to trials of the same treatment investigated in different populations. When conducting a meta-analysis, a conservative approach would be to combine only trials conducted in the biomarker-positive subgroup. However, this discards potentially useful information on treatment effects in the biomarker-positive subgroup concealed within observed treatment effects in biomarker-mixed populations. We extend standard random-effects meta-analysis to combine treatment effects obtained from trials with different populations to estimate pooled treatment effects in a biomarker subgroup of interest. The model assumes a systematic difference in treatment effects between biomarker-positive and biomarker-negative subgroups, which is estimated from trials which report either or both treatment effects. The systematic difference and proportion of biomarker-negative patients in biomarker-mixed studies are used to interpolate treatment effects in the biomarker-positive subgroup from observed treatment effects in the biomarker-mixed population. The developed methods are applied to an illustrative example in metastatic colorectal cancer and evaluated in a simulation study. In the example, the developed method improved precision of the pooled treatment effect estimate compared with standard random-effects meta-analysis of trials investigating only biomarker-positive patients. The simulation study confirmed that when the systematic difference in treatment effects between biomarker subgroups is not very large, the developed method can improve precision of estimation of pooled treatment effects while maintaining low bias.

Abstract Image

贝叶斯荟萃分析法:利用混合患者试验评估生物标志物亚组的治疗效果。
在药物开发过程中,可能会出现证据表明某种治疗方法对特定患者亚群更有效。虽然早期试验可能是在生物标记物混合人群中进行的,但后期试验更可能只招募生物标记物阳性患者,从而导致在不同人群中对同一疗法进行研究。在进行荟萃分析时,保守的做法是只将在生物标记物阳性亚组中进行的试验合并在一起。然而,这样做会忽略隐藏在生物标记物混合人群中观察到的治疗效果中有关生物标记物阳性亚组治疗效果的潜在有用信息。我们对标准随机效应荟萃分析进行了扩展,将从不同人群试验中获得的治疗效果结合起来,以估算相关生物标记物亚组的集合治疗效果。该模型假定生物标志物阳性亚组与生物标志物阴性亚组之间的治疗效果存在系统性差异,这种差异是从报告了其中一种或两种治疗效果的试验中估算出来的。利用系统性差异和生物标记物混合研究中生物标记物阴性患者的比例,可以从生物标记物混合人群中观察到的治疗效果中推算出生物标记物阳性亚组的治疗效果。所开发的方法被应用于转移性结直肠癌的一个示例,并在模拟研究中进行了评估。在这个例子中,与只调查生物标记物阳性患者的标准随机效应荟萃分析相比,所开发的方法提高了汇总治疗效果估计值的精确度。模拟研究证实,当生物标记物亚组间治疗效果的系统性差异不是很大时,所开发的方法可以提高集合治疗效果估计的精确度,同时保持较低的偏倚。
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
Research Synthesis Methods
Research Synthesis Methods MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGYMULTID-MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
CiteScore
16.90
自引率
3.10%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Research Synthesis Methods is a reputable, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the development and dissemination of methods for conducting systematic research synthesis. Our aim is to advance the knowledge and application of research synthesis methods across various disciplines. Our journal provides a platform for the exchange of ideas and knowledge related to designing, conducting, analyzing, interpreting, reporting, and applying research synthesis. While research synthesis is commonly practiced in the health and social sciences, our journal also welcomes contributions from other fields to enrich the methodologies employed in research synthesis across scientific disciplines. By bridging different disciplines, we aim to foster collaboration and cross-fertilization of ideas, ultimately enhancing the quality and effectiveness of research synthesis methods. Whether you are a researcher, practitioner, or stakeholder involved in research synthesis, our journal strives to offer valuable insights and practical guidance for your work.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信