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":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Use of Bayesian decision analysis to maximize value in patient-centered randomized clinical trials in Parkinson's disease.
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 () and significance level () 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.
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.