Overview of Adaptive Treatment Regimes Sachiko Miyahara Dr. Abdus Wahed.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Controlling for Time Dependent Confounding Using Marginal Structural Models in the Case of a Continuous Treatment O Wang 1, T McMullan 2 1 Amgen, Thousand.
Advertisements

Breakout Session 4: Personalized Medicine and Subgroup Selection Christopher Jennison, University of Bath Robert A. Beckman, Daiichi Sankyo Pharmaceutical.
Piloting and Sizing Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trials in Dynamic Treatment Regime Development 2012 Atlantic Causal Inference Conference.
1 QOL in oncology clinical trials: Now that we have the data what do we do?
Treatment Effect Heterogeneity & Dynamic Treatment Regime Development S.A. Murphy.
Department of Biostatistics Faculty Research Seminar Series What am I doing? (Besides teaching BIOST 2083: Linear Models) Abdus S Wahed, Ph.D. Assistant.
Inference for Clinical Decision Making Policies D. Lizotte, L. Gunter, S. Murphy INFORMS October 2008.
Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) Stephen Wisniewski, PhD Epidemiology Data Center STAR*D Data Coordinating Center University.
Using Clinical Trial Data to Construct Policies for Guiding Clinical Decision Making S. Murphy & J. Pineau American Control Conference Special Session.
Methodology for Adaptive Treatment Strategies for Chronic Disorders: Focus on Pain S.A. Murphy NIH Pain Consortium 5 th Annual Symposium on Advances in.
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.
SMART Designs for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy K. Lynch, J. McKay, D. Oslin & T.Ten Have CPDD June, 2005.
Chapter 11: Sequential Clinical Trials Descriptive Exploratory Experimental Describe Find Cause Populations Relationships and Effect Sequential Clinical.
Sizing a Trial for the Development of Adaptive Treatment Strategies Alena I. Oetting The Society for Clinical Trials, 29th Annual Meeting St. Louis, MO.
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.
Common Problems in Writing Statistical Plan of Clinical Trial Protocol Liying XU CCTER CUHK.
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.
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.
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.
SMART Experimental Designs for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy ISCTM, 2007.
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.
SMART Designs for Developing Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy Symposium on Causal Inference Johns Hopkins, January, 2006.
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.
Sample Size Determination Ziad Taib March 7, 2014.
Sampling Techniques LEARNING OBJECTIVES : After studying this module, participants will be able to : 1. Identify and define the population to be studied.
Sequential, Multiple Assignment, Randomized Trials and Treatment Policies S.A. Murphy MUCMD, 08/10/12 TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual.
INTRODUCTION TO SURVIVAL ANALYSIS
Modeling Cure Rates Using the Survival Distribution of the General Population Wei Hou 1, Keith Muller 1, Michael Milano 2, Paul Okunieff 1, Myron Chang.
Epidemiologic design from a sampling perspective Epidemiology II Lecture April 14, 2005 David Jacobs.
Adaptive randomization
Adaptive Strategies in Drug Abuse Research Carl Pieper & Janet Levy Steering Committee Conference Steering Committee Conference March 22, 2007.
POSTER TEMPLATE BY: Weighted Kaplan-Meier Estimator for Adaptive Treatment Strategies in Two-Stage Randomization Designs Sachiko.
Introduction Sample Size Calculation for Comparing Strategies in Two-Stage Randomizations with Censored Data Zhiguo Li and Susan Murphy Institute for Social.
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.
Binomial Distribution and Applications. Binomial Probability Distribution A binomial random variable X is defined to the number of “successes” in n independent.
SMART Trials for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy Workshop on Adaptive Treatment Designs NCDEU, 2006.
Introduction to Biostatistics, Harvard Extension School, Fall, 2005 © Scott Evans, Ph.D.1 Sample Size and Power Considerations.
CHAPTER 10 Comparing Two Populations or Groups
Inference for Proportions
S1316 analysis details Garnet Anderson Katie Arnold
CHAPTER 10 Comparing Two Populations or Groups
CHAPTER 10 Comparing Two Populations or Groups
CHAPTER 10 Comparing Two Populations or Groups
CHAPTER 10 Comparing Two Populations or Groups
CHAPTER 10 Comparing Two Populations or Groups
CHAPTER 10 Comparing Two Populations or Groups
CHAPTER 10 Comparing Two Populations or Groups
CHAPTER 10 Comparing Two Populations or Groups
Presentation transcript:

Overview of Adaptive Treatment Regimes Sachiko Miyahara Dr. Abdus Wahed

Before starting the presentation… ≠ Adaptive Treatment Regimes Adaptive Experimental Design

Adaptive Treatment Regimes vs. Adaptive Experimental Design Adaptive Treatment Regimes “…adaptive as used here refers to a time- varying therapy for managing a chronic illness” (Murphy,2005) Adaptive Experimental Design “…such as designs in which treatment allocation probabilities for the present patients depend on the responses of past patients” (Murphy,2005)

Outline 1. What is Adaptive Treatment Regime? -Definition -Example -Objective 2. How to decide the best regime? - 3 different study designs - Comparison of 3 designs 3. Trial Example (STAR*D) 4. Inference on Adaptive Treatment Regimes

What is Adaptive Treatment Regime? Definition: a set of rule which select the best treatment option, which are made based on subjects’ condition up to that point.

What is Adaptive Treatment Regime? A A’ B1B1 B 1 ’ B2B2 B 2 ’ B2B2 Non Responder Non Responder Patient B1B1 B 1 ’

8 Possible Policies (1) Trt A followed by B 1 if response, else B 2 (AB 1 B 2 ) (2) Trt A followed by B 1 if response, else B 2 ’ (AB 1 B 2 ’) (3) Trt A followed by B 1 ’ if response, else B 2 (AB 1 ’B 2 ) (4) Trt A followed by B 1 ’ if response, else B 2 ’ (AB 1 ’B 2 ’) (5) Trt A’ followed by B 1 if response, else B 2 (A’B 1 B 2 ) (6) Trt A’ followed by B 1 if response, else B 2 ’ (A’B 1 B 2 ’) (7) Trt A’ followed by B 1 ’ if response, else B 2 (A’B 1 ’B 2 ) (8) Trt A’ followed by B 1 ’ if response, else B 2 ’ (A’B 1 ’B 2 ’ )

What is the objective of the Adaptive Treatment Regimes? Objective: To know which treatment strategy works the best, given a patient’s history.

A treatment naïve patient comes to a physician’s office. Questions: 1. What treatment strategy should the physician follow for that patient? 2. How should it be decided? What is the objective of the Adaptive Treatment Regime?

If one knew… (T be the outcome measurement) 1. E(T| AB 1 B 2 ) = E(T| AB 1 B 2 ’) = E(T| AB 1 ’B 2 ) = E(T| AB 1 ’B 2 ’) = E(T| A’B 1 B 2 ) = E(T| A’B 1 B 2 ’) = E(T| A’B 1 ’B 2 ) = E(T| A’B 1 ’B 2 ’ ) = 12 Best Regime for the patient

In Reality… Problems: 1. E(T|. ) are not known (need to estimate) 2. How can one accurately and efficiently estimate E(T|. )?

How to estimate the expected outcome? Three study designs: 1. A clinical trial with 8 treatments 2. Combine existing trials 3. SMART (Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trials)

Design 1: A clinical trial with 8 Treatment Policies AB 1 B 2 AB 1 B 2 ’ AB 1 ’B 2 AB 1 ’B 2 ’ Sample = Randomization A’B 1 B 2 A’B 1 B 2 ’ A’B 1 ’B 2 A’B 1 ’B 2 ’

Design 2: Combining Existing Trials A A’ B1B1 B1’B1’ + Trial 1Trial 5Trial 3Trial 2Trial Responder to A only Responder to A’ only Non Responder to A only Non Responder to A’ only B1B1 B1’B1’ B2B2 B2’B2’ B2B2 B2’B2’

Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trials (SMART) proposed by Dr. Murphy The SMART designs were adapted to: - Cancer (Thall 2000) - CATIE (Schneider 2001) – Alzheimer's Disease - STAR*D (Rush 2003) – Depression Design 3: SMART

A A’ B1B1 B 1 ’ B2B2 B 2 ’ B2B2 B 1 ’ B1B1 Non Responder Non Responder Sample = Randomization

Comparisons of 3 Study Designs Question: A Trial with 8 Trts Combined Trial SMART 1. Does it serve the purpose of finding the best strategy? 2. Is it feasible? 3.Can we assess the trt effects using a standard statistical method? Yes Maybe No Maybe No

Sequenced Treatment Alternatives To Relieve Depression (STAR*D) 1.What is STAR*D? 2.The Study Design

What is STAR*D? Multi-center clinical trial for depression Largest and longest study to evaluate depression N=4,041 7 years study period Age between Referred by their doctors 4 stages (3 randomizations)

STAR*D Study Design: Level 1 Non Responder Eligible Subjects CIT Go to Level 2

STAR*D Study Design: Level 2 CIT+CT BUP CT VEN SER Switch Add on Lev 1 Non Responder = Subject’s Choice = Randomization CIT+BUS CIT+BUP

STAR*D Study Design: Level 3 Lev3 Med+Li NTP MIRT Switch Add on Lev 2 Non Responder = Subject’s Choice = Randomization

STAR*D Study Design: Level 4 VEN+MIRT TCP Lev 3 Non Responder = Randomization

Details on Inference from SMART Remember the goal is to estimate E(T|AB 1 B 2 ) First, how can we construct an unbiased estimator for E(T|AB 1 B 2 )?

Details on Inference from SMART Let us ask ourselves, what would we have done if everyone in the sample were treated according to the strategy AB 1 B 2 ? A B1B1 B2B2 Non Responder Patient

What would we have done if everyone in the sample were treated according to the strategy AB 1 B 2 ? Answer: E(T|AB 1 B 2 ) = ΣT i /n Details on Inference from SMART Applies to 8-arm randomization trial

But in SMART, we have not treated everyone with AB 1 B 2 Details on Inference from SMART A B1B1 B 1 ’ B2B2 B 2 ’ Non Responder Sample

Let C(AB 1 B 2 ) be the set of patients who are treated according to the policy AB 1 B 2 Details on Inference from SMART A B1B1 B 1 ’ B2B2 B 2 ’ Non Responder Sample

We define R = Response indicator (1/0) Z 1 = Treatment B 1 indicator (1/0) Z 2 = Treatment B 2 indicator (1/0) Then C(AB 1 B 2 ) = {i: [R i Z 1i + (1-R i )Z 2i ]=1} Details on Inference from SMART

One would define E(T|AB 1 B 2 ) = Σ[R i Z 1i + (1-R i )Z 2i ]T i /n ’ Where n ’ is the number of patients in C(AB 1 B 2 ). This estimator would be biased as it ignores the second randomization.

There are two types of patients in the set C(AB 1 B 2 ) who were treated according to the policy AB 1 B 2 A responder who received B 1 and A nonresponder who received B 2 Details on Inference from SMART

A B1B1 B 1 ’ B2B2 B 2 ’ Non Responder Sample

Assuming equal randomization, A responder who received B 1 was equally eligible to receive B 1 ’ A responder who received B 2 was equally eligible to receive B 2 ’ Details on Inference from SMART

Thus A responder who received B 1 in C(AB 1 B 2 ) is representative of another patient who received B 1 ’ and A non-responder who received B 2 in C(AB 1 B 2 ) is representative of another patient who received B 2 ’ Details on Inference from SMART

We define weights as follows A responder who received B 1 in C(AB 1 B 2 ) receives a weight of 2 [1/(1/2)], also A non-responder who received B 2 in C(AB 1 B 2 ) receives a weight of 2 [1/(1/2)] While everyone else receives a weight of zero. Details on Inference from SMART

Unbiased estimator E(T|AB 1 B 2 ) = Σ[R i Z 1i + (1-R i )Z 2i ]T i /(n/2) And, in general, E(T|AB 1 B 2 ) = Σ[R i Z 1i /π 1 + (1-R i )Z 2i /π 2 ]T i /n This estimator is unbiased under certain assumptions

Issues Compare treatment strategies Wald test possible but needs to derive covariance between estimators (which may not be independent of each other) In survival analysis setting, how to derive formal tests to compare survival curves under different strategies Is log-rank test applicable? Can the proportional hazard model be applied here?

Issues Efficiency issues How can one improve efficiency of the proposed estimator How to handle missing data (missing response information, censoring, etc.) How to adjust for covariates when comparing treatment strategies And most importantly,

Issues Is it possible to tailor the best treatment strategy decisions to individual characteristics? For instance, could we one day hand over an algorithm to a nurse (not physician) which would provide decisions like “If the patient is a caucacian female, age 50 or over, have normal HGB levels, bla bla bla…the best strategy for maintaining her chronic disease would be……..”

ATSRG link