Treatment Effect Heterogeneity & Dynamic Treatment Regime Development S.A. Murphy.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Discussionof Dynamic Treatment Regimens Dean Follmann NIAID.
Advertisements

Piloting and Sizing Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trials in Dynamic Treatment Regime Development 2012 Atlantic Causal Inference Conference.
11 Confidence Intervals, Q-Learning and Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy Time for Causality – Bristol April, 2012 TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read.
Experimental Trials. Oslin ExTENd Late Trigger for Nonresponse 8 wks Response TDM + Naltrexone CBI Random assignment: CBI +Naltrexone Nonresponse Early.
Using Clinical Trial Data to Construct Policies for Guiding Clinical Decision Making S. Murphy & J. Pineau American Control Conference Special Session.
Experimenting to Improve Clinical Practice S.A. Murphy AAAS, 02/15/13 TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.:
1 Developing Dynamic Treatment Regimes for Chronic Disorders S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan RAND: August, 2005.
1 Dynamic Treatment Regimes Advances and Open Problems S.A. Murphy ICSPRAR-2008.
Methodology for Adaptive Treatment Strategies for Chronic Disorders: Focus on Pain S.A. Murphy NIH Pain Consortium 5 th Annual Symposium on Advances in.
Experiments and Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan JSM: August, 2005.
SMART Designs for Constructing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy 15th Annual Duke Nicotine Research Conference September, 2009.
Dynamic Treatment Regimes, STAR*D & Voting D. Lizotte, E. Laber & S. Murphy LSU ---- Geaux Tigers! April 2009.
Substance Abuse, Multi-Stage Decisions, Generalization Error How are they connected?! S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan CMU, Nov., 2004.
An Experimental Paradigm for Developing Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan March, 2004.
Constructing Dynamic Treatment Regimes & STAR*D S.A. Murphy ICSA June 2008.
1 Dynamic Treatment Regimens S.A. Murphy PolMeth XXV July 10, 2008.
SMART Designs for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy K. Lynch, J. McKay, D. Oslin & T.Ten Have CPDD June, 2005.
Dynamic Treatment Regimes: Challenges in Data Analysis S.A. Murphy Survey Research Center January, 2009.
1 A Prediction Interval for the Misclassification Rate E.B. Laber & S.A. Murphy.
Sizing a Trial for the Development of Adaptive Treatment Strategies Alena I. Oetting The Society for Clinical Trials, 29th Annual Meeting St. Louis, MO.
Screening Experiments for Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy At ENAR March, 2008.
Experiments and Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan Florida: January, 2006.
SMART Experimental Designs for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy NIDA DESPR February, 2007.
Hypothesis Testing and Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy Schering-Plough Workshop May 2007 TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before.
An Experimental Paradigm for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan UNC: November, 2003.
1 A Confidence Interval for the Misclassification Rate S.A. Murphy & E.B. Laber.
Experiments and Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan PSU, October, 2005 In Honor of Clifford C. Clogg.
Planning Survival Analysis Studies of Dynamic Treatment Regimes Z. Li & S.A. Murphy UNC October, 2009.
Statistical Issues in Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies for Chronic Disorders S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan CDC/ATSDR: March, 2005.
SMART Experimental Designs for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy RWJ Clinical Scholars Program, UMich April, 2007.
Hypothesis Testing and Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy, L. Gunter & B. Chakraborty ENAR March 2007.
1 SMART Designs for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy K. Lynch, J. McKay, D. Oslin & T.Ten Have UMichSpline February, 2006.
Dynamic Treatment Regimes, STAR*D & Voting D. Lizotte, E. Laber & S. Murphy ENAR March 2009.
A Finite Sample Upper Bound on the Generalization Error for Q-Learning S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan CALD: February, 2005.
Methodology for Adaptive Treatment Strategies R21 DA S.A. Murphy For MCATS Oct. 8, 2009.
An Experimental Paradigm for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan ACSIR, July, 2003.
Dynamic Treatment Regimes, STAR*D & Voting D. Lizotte, E. Laber & S. Murphy Psychiatric Biostatistics Symposium May 2009.
An Experimental Paradigm for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan February, 2004.
Methods for Estimating the Decision Rules in Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan IBC/ASC: July, 2004.
1 Possible Roles for Reinforcement Learning in Clinical Research S.A. Murphy November 14, 2007.
Experiments and Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan April, 2006.
SMART Designs for Developing Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy MD Anderson December 2006.
Exploratory Analyses Aimed at Generating Proposals for Individualizing and Adapting Treatment S.A. Murphy BPRU, Hopkins September 22, 2009.
SMART Experimental Designs for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy ISCTM, 2007.
1 A Prediction Interval for the Misclassification Rate E.B. Laber & S.A. Murphy.
Experiments and Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan Chicago: May, 2005.
Susan Murphy, PI University of Michigan Acknowledgements: MCAT network and NIH The Goal To facilitate methodological collaborations necessary for producing.
1 Dynamic Treatment Regimes: Interventions for Chronic Conditions (such as Poverty or Criminality?) S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan In Honor of Clifford.
SMART Designs for Developing Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy Symposium on Causal Inference Johns Hopkins, January, 2006.
Experiments and Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy At NIAID, BRB December, 2007.
1 Machine/Reinforcement Learning in Clinical Research S.A. Murphy May 19, 2008.
Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy CCNIA Proposal Meeting 2008.
Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy Workshop on Adaptive Treatment Strategies Convergence, 2008.
Practical Application of Adaptive Treatment Strategies in Trial Design and Analysis S.A. Murphy Center for Clinical Trials Network Classroom Series April.
Experiments and Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan January, 2006.
Hypothesis Testing and Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy SCT May 2007.
Adaptive Treatment Design and Analysis S.A. Murphy TRC, UPenn April, 2007.
Adaptive Treatment Strategies: Challenges in Data Analysis S.A. Murphy NY State Psychiatric Institute February, 2009.
Sequential, Multiple Assignment, Randomized Trials and Treatment Policies S.A. Murphy UAlberta, 09/28/12 TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint.
Overview of Adaptive Treatment Regimes Sachiko Miyahara Dr. Abdus Wahed.
SMART Case Studies Module 3—Day 1 Getting SMART About Developing Individualized Adaptive Health Interventions Methods Work, Chicago, Illinois, June
Sequential, Multiple Assignment, Randomized Trials and Treatment Policies S.A. Murphy MUCMD, 08/10/12 TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual.
Sequential, Multiple Assignment, Randomized Trials Module 2—Day 1 Getting SMART About Developing Individualized Adaptive Health Interventions Methods Work,
Adaptive Treatment Strategies Module 1—Day 1 Getting SMART About Developing Individualized Adaptive Health Interventions Methods Work, Chicago, Illinois,
1 SMART Designs for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy K. Lynch, J. McKay, D. Oslin & T.Ten Have NDRI April, 2006.
Motivation Using SMART research designs to improve individualized treatments Alena Scott 1, Janet Levy 3, and Susan Murphy 1,2 Institute for Social Research.
An Experimental Paradigm for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy NIDA Meeting on Treatment and Recovery Processes January, 2004.
SMART Trials for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy Workshop on Adaptive Treatment Designs NCDEU, 2006.
Secondary Aims Using Data Arising from a SMART Module 6—Day 2 Getting SMART About Developing Individualized Adaptive Health Interventions Methods Work,
University of Michigan, Biostatistics
Presentation transcript:

Treatment Effect Heterogeneity & Dynamic Treatment Regime Development S.A. Murphy

2 Dynamic treatment regimes (DTRs) are individually tailored treatments, with treatment type and dosage changing according to individual outcomes. ***utilize treatment effect heterogeneity to individualize treatment***

3 Example of a DTR Adaptive Drug Court Program for drug abusing offenders. Goal is to minimize recidivism and drug use. Marlowe et al. (2008, 2009, 2011)

4 Adaptive Drug Court Program

Treatment Effect Heterogeneity Focus on Theory: Used to deepen understanding of underlying causal, mechanistic structure Focus on Practice: Used to improve decision making in practice –For Whom, When, and in Which Context, might a specific treatment be most useful? –This is our focus today

Treatment Effect Heterogeneity & DTR Development Take Advantage of Treatment Effect Heterogeneity in Design of Intervention Trial –Embedded tailoring variables –Part of “treatment action” Take Advantage of Treatment Effect Heterogeneity in Design of the DTR. –Data analyses

Pelham ADHD Study Begin low dose Med 8 weeks Assess- Adequate response? Continue, reassess monthly; randomize if deteriorate Intensify Current Treatment Random assignment: Augment with other Treatment No Begin low-intensity BMOD 8 weeks Assess- Adequate response? Continue, reassess monthly; randomize if deteriorate Augment with other treatment Random assignment: Intensify Current Treatment Yes No Random assignment:

Txt Effect Heterogeneity  Embedded Tailoring Variable Embedded Tailoring Variables: (a) Teacher reported Impairment Scale, (b) Teacher reported individualized list of target behaviors Non-response is assessed at 8 weeks and every 4 weeks thereafter.

Txt Effect Heterogeneity  Embedded DTRs 4 Embedded DTRs 1)Start with BMOD; only if nonresponse criterion reached, augment with MED 2)Start with BMOD; only if nonresponse criterion reached, intensify BMOD 3)Start with MED; only if nonresponse criterion reached, augment with BMOD 4)Start with MED; only if nonresponse criterion reached, intensify MED

Oslin Alcoholism Trial Late Trigger for Nonresponse 8 wks Response TDM + NTX CBI +MM Random assignment: CBI +NTX+MM Nonresponse Early Trigger for Nonresponse Random assignment: NTX 8 wks Response Random assignment: CBI +NTX+MM CBI+MM TDM + NTX NTX Nonresponse

Txt Effect Heterogeneity  Embedded Tailoring Variable & Embedded DTR Embedded Tailoring Variable: heavy drinking days (HDD) First randomization is between treatment actions: move to stage 2 if 2 HDDs versus move to stage 2 if 5 HDDs 8 Embedded DTRs

12 A Data Analysis Method for Utilizing Treatment Effect Heterogeneity to Construct a “More Deeply Tailored” DTR: Q-Learning Subject data from sequential, multiple assignment, randomized trials. At each stage subjects are randomized among alternative options. A j is a randomized action with known randomization probability. Binary actions with P[A j =1]=P[A j =-1]=.5

13 Dynamic Treatment Regime (DTR) The DTR is given by a sequence of decision rules, one per stage of treatment (here 2 stages) DTR= Goal : Construct for which the expected outcome is maximal.

14 Q-Learning (Watkins, 1989; Ernst et al., 2005; Murphy, 2005) (a popular method from computer science)—generalizes regression to multiple stages Q-Learning uses dynamic programming arguments combined with linear regression estimation of conditional means. Q-Learnin g

15 There is a regression for each stage. Simple Version of Q-Learning – Stage 2 regression: Regress Y on to obtain Stage 1 regression: Regress on to obtain

16 for subjects entering stage 2: is the predicted end of stage 2 response when the stage 2 treatment is equal to the “best” treatment. is the dependent variable in the stage 1 regression for patients moving to stage 2

17 A Simple Version of Q-Learning – Stage 2 regression, (using Y as dependent variable) yields Arg-max over a 2 yields

18 A Simple Version of Q-Learning – Stage 1 regression, (using as dependent variable) yields Arg-max over a 1 yields

Pelham ADHD Study Begin low dose Med 8 weeks Assess- Adequate response? Continue, reassess monthly; randomize if deteriorate Intensify Current Treatment Random assignment: Augment with other Treatment No Begin low-intensity BMOD 8 weeks Assess- Adequate response? Continue, reassess monthly; randomize if deteriorate Augment with other treatment Random assignment: Intensify Current Treatment Yes No Random assignment:

20 (X 1, A 1, R 1, X 2, A 2, Y) –Y = end of year school performance –R 1 =1 if early responder; =0 if early non-responder –X 2 includes the month of non-response, M 2, and a measure of adherence in stage 1 (S 2 ) –S 2 =1 if adherent in stage 1; =0, if non-adherent –X 1 includes baseline school performance, Y 0, whether medicated in prior year (S 1 ), ODD (O 1 ) –S 1 =1 if medicated in prior year; =0, otherwise. ADHD Example

21 Stage 2 regression for Y: Stage 1 outcome: ADHD Example

22 IF medication was not used in the prior year THEN begin with BMOD; ELSE select either BMOD or MED. IF the child is nonresponsive and was non- adherent, THEN augment present treatment; ELSE IF the child is nonresponsive and was adherent, THEN select intensification of current treatment. Dynamic Treatment Regime Proposal

23 High dimensional data; investigators want to collect real time data Feature construction & Feature selection Many stages or infinite horizon This seminar can be found at: seminars/JSM_Txt_Heterogeneity2012.ppt Future Challenges