A Bayesian quasi-likelihood design for identifying the minimum effective dose and maximum utility dose in dose-ranging studies

被引:0
|
作者
Tian, Feng [1 ]
Lin, Ruitao [1 ,3 ]
Wang, Li [2 ]
Yuan, Ying [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Biostat, Houston, TX USA
[2] AbbVie Inc, Dept Stat, N Chicago, IL USA
[3] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Biostat, Houston, TX 77030 USA
关键词
Bayesian adaptive design; dose finding; risk-benefit tradeoff; phase II trials; PHASE-II; END-POINT; TOXICITY; TRIALS;
D O I
10.1177/09622802241239268
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Most existing dose-ranging study designs focus on assessing the dose-efficacy relationship and identifying the minimum effective dose. There is an increasing interest in optimizing the dose based on the benefit-risk tradeoff. We propose a Bayesian quasi-likelihood dose-ranging design that jointly considers safety and efficacy to simultaneously identify the minimum effective dose and the maximum utility dose to optimize the benefit-risk tradeoff. The binary toxicity endpoint is modeled using a beta-binomial model. The efficacy endpoint is modeled using the quasi-likelihood approach to accommodate various types of data (e.g. binary, ordinal or continuous) without imposing any parametric assumptions on the dose-response curve. Our design utilizes a utility function as a measure of benefit-risk tradeoff and adaptively assign patients to doses based on the doses' likelihood of being the minimum effective dose and maximum utility dose. The design takes a group-sequential approach. At each interim, the doses that are deemed overly toxic or futile are dropped. At the end of the trial, we use posterior probability criteria to assess the strength of the dose-response relationship for establishing the proof-of-concept. If the proof-of-concept is established, we identify the minimum effective dose and maximum utility dose. Our simulation study shows that compared with some existing designs, the Bayesian quasi-likelihood dose-ranging design is robust and yields competitive performance in establishing proof-of-concept and selecting the minimum effective dose. Moreover, it includes an additional feature for further maximum utility dose selection.
引用
收藏
页码:931 / 944
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Dose-ranging design and analysis methods to identify the minimum effective dose (MED)
    Zhou, Yijie
    Chen, Su
    Sullivan, Danielle
    Li, Yihan
    Zhang, Ying
    Xie, Wangang
    Zhang, Hongtao
    Tang, Yuanyuan
    Wang, Li
    Hartford, Alan
    Yang, Bo
    CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS, 2017, 63 : 59 - 66
  • [2] Dose-ranging studies
    Manion, D
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE, 1999, : 8 - 9
  • [3] DOSE-RANGING STUDIES OF CLONAZEPAM IN MAN
    HOLLISTER, LE
    PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY COMMUNICATIONS, 1975, 1 (01) : 89 - 92
  • [4] DOSE-RANGING AND DOSE-SETTING FOR INVIVO GENETIC TOXICOLOGY STUDIES
    MACKAY, LM
    ELLIOTT, BM
    MUTATION RESEARCH, 1993, 291 (03): : 254 - 254
  • [5] The continual reassessment method: comparison of Bayesian stopping rules for dose-ranging studies
    Zohar, S
    Chevret, S
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2001, 20 (19) : 2827 - 2843
  • [7] Evaluation and Recommendations on Adaptive Dose-Ranging Trials: Highlights From the PhRMA Adaptive Dose-Ranging Studies Working Group
    Pinheiro, Jose
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 2010, 50 (09): : 47S - 49S
  • [8] A Bayesian weighted quasi-likelihood design for phase I/II clinical trial with repeated dose administration in preterm newborns
    Ursino, Moreno
    Yuan, Ying
    Alberti, Corinne
    Comets, Emmanuelle
    Friede, Tim
    Lents, Frederike
    Stallard, Nigel
    Zohar, Sarah
    TRIALS, 2017, 18
  • [9] PHARMACOLOGIC AND DOSE-RANGING STUDIES OF CYCLOCYTIDINE (CC) IN MAN
    HO, DHW
    RODRIGUE.V
    GOTTLIEB, JA
    LOO, TL
    BODEY, GP
    FREIREIC.EJ
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR CANCER RESEARCH, 1974, 15 (MAR): : 93 - 93
  • [10] Clinical efficacy of cerivastatin: Phase IIa dose-ranging and dose-scheduling studies
    Hunninghake, DB
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 1998, 82 (4B): : 26J - 31J