Motivation Using SMART research designs to improve individualized treatments Alena Scott 1, Janet Levy 3, and Susan Murphy 1,2 Institute for Social Research.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Piloting and Sizing Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trials in Dynamic Treatment Regime Development 2012 Atlantic Causal Inference Conference.
Advertisements

Background: The low retention rates among African Americans in substance abuse treatment (Milligan et al., 2004) combined with the limited number of treatments.
Treatment Effect Heterogeneity & Dynamic Treatment Regime Development S.A. Murphy.
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.:
Comparative Effectiveness Research in the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) CDR Steven Sparenborg, Ph.D., Udi Ghitza, Ph.D.,
1 Developing Dynamic Treatment Regimes for Chronic Disorders S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan RAND: August, 2005.
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.
SMART Designs for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy K. Lynch, J. McKay, D. Oslin & T.Ten Have CPDD June, 2005.
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.
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.
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.
Experiments and Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan Yale: November, 2005.
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.
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 Section IV Study Designs for Investigating Adaptive Treatment Strategies 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.
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.
Variable Selection for Optimal Decision Making Lacey Gunter University of Michigan Statistics Department Michigan Student Symposium for Interdisciplinary.
1 Variable Selection for Tailoring Treatment S.A. Murphy, L. Gunter & J. Zhu May 29, 2008.
Hypothesis Testing and Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy SCT May 2007.
Adaptive Treatment Design and Analysis S.A. Murphy TRC, UPenn April, 2007.
Challenges and Successes Treating Adolescent Substance Use Disorders Janet L. Brody, Ph.D. Center for Family and Adolescent Research (CFAR), Oregon Research.
2013 CTN Web Seminar Series Produced by: NIDA CTN CCC Training Office "This training has been funded in whole or in part with Federal funds from the National.
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.
NIDA Grants: U10DA015831, K24DA022288, U10DA020024, K23DA022297, U10DA Predictors of Outcome in the Multi-Site CTN Prescription Opioid Addiction.
The NIDA Clinical Trials is conducting the Prescription Opioid Addiction Treatment Study (POATS) – a multi- site trial examining different lengths and.
Lack of Association of Cannabis Use with Opioid Outcomes among Opioid-Dependent Youth Kevin P. Hill, M.D., M.H.S. a,b, Heather E. Bennett, B.A. a, Margaret.
Using self report to gather information about drug use can be reasonably reliable and valid in certain situations, especially where there are no contingencies.
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,
Raymond F. Anton, MD for The COMBINE Study Research Group
Adaptive Strategies in Drug Abuse Research Carl Pieper & Janet Levy Steering Committee Conference Steering Committee Conference March 22, 2007.
Table 1. Prediction model for maximum daily dose of buprenorphine-naloxone in a 12-week treatment condition Baseline Predictors Maximum Daily Dose Standardized.
Introduction Sample Size Calculation for Comparing Strategies in Two-Stage Randomizations with Censored Data Zhiguo Li and Susan Murphy Institute for Social.
A SMART Design to Optimize a Palliative Care Intervention for Patient and Family Caregiver Outcomes Mi-Kyung Song, PhD, RN, FAAN University of North Carolina.
1 SMART Designs for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy K. Lynch, J. McKay, D. Oslin & T.Ten Have NDRI April, 2006.
An Experimental Paradigm for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy NIDA Meeting on Treatment and Recovery Processes January, 2004.
Abstract VARIABLE SELECTION FOR DECISION MAKING IN MENTAL HEALTH Lacey Gunter 1,2, Ji Zhu 1, and Susan Murphy 1,2 Departments of Statistics 1 and Institute.
What the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s Clinical Trials Network Can Do for You? Major Findings from Medication Trials and Implications for Community-Based.
SMART Trials for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy Workshop on Adaptive Treatment Designs NCDEU, 2006.
Presentation transcript:

Motivation Using SMART research designs to improve individualized treatments Alena Scott 1, Janet Levy 3, and Susan Murphy 1,2 Institute for Social Research 1 and Departments of Statistics 2, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Center for Clinical Trials Network 3, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Bethesda, Maryland Example of a SMART design Drug dependence and mental illnesses present a challenge to the clinician for a number of reasons:  heterogeneity of patient response  chronic nature of the disease  high rate of relapse As a result, clinicians typically must make many treatment decisions at sequential points in time. An important challenge for clinical research lies in developing adaptive treatment strategies, evidence-based rules to assist in customizing the sequencing and timing of treatments to the patient. Adaptive Treatment Strategy: A treatment strategy shaped by the patient’s individual characteristics or the patient’s responses to prior treatments. Example: An adaptive treatment strategy for opioid dependence, modeled after a trial currently in progress within the Clinical Trials Network of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (3) Conclusion SMART designs can be used to answer research questions about both individual components of an adaptive treatment strategy as well as the treatment strategies as a whole. We have developed statistical methodology, including sample size formulae, to guide the design and analysis of a SMART trial. Future work includes extending these results for a binary final outcome. References (1)Scott AI, Levy JA, Murphy SA. Statistical Methodology for a SMART Design in the Development of Adaptive Treatment Strategies. (Tech. Rep. No ). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, The Methodology Center (2)Scott AI, Levy JA, Murphy SA. Evaluation of Sample Size Formulae for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies Using a SMART Design. (Tech. Rep. No ). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, The Methodology Center (3)Weiss R, Sharpe JP, Ling W. A Two-Phase Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Buprenorphine/Naloxone Treatment Plus Individual Drug Counseling for Opioid Analgesic Dependence. National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network week detox with buprenorphine/naloxone + Individual Drug Counseling Not abstinent 12 week detox with buprenorphine/naloxone + Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) Abstinent No pharmacotherapy + Monitoring for Relapse Prevention R R R Example of a SMART Design R = randomization Final outcome: days of drug use over 16 week trial Advantages of a SMART design  sequential assignment allows evaluation of effectiveness of one component (i.e. treatment given at a particular decision point ) in the presence of either preceding or subsequent treatments  randomization supports causal inferences about effectiveness of a component to produce different long term outcomes The same SMART design can be used to answer many different kinds of research questions:  about components of an adaptive treatment strategy: What is the effect of initial treatment assignment on long term outcome given specified treatments provided in the interim? Considering only patients who did not respond to the initial treatment, what is the best subsequent psychosocial treatment in the context of a 12 week buprenorphine/naloxone detoxification: IDC vs. CBT?  about entire strategies: What is the difference in long term outcomes between two strategies that begin with a different treatment? Which of the four possible strategies is the best strategy (i.e. results in highest average long term outcome)? Research questions about individual components of strategies use standard sample size formula and hypothesis tests for the comparison of two groups. Research question concerning strategies require new statistical methodology. Acknowledgements: We wish to acknowledge financial support from NIH grants NIH grants: R21 DA019800, K02 DA15674, and P50 DA We also want to thank Dr. Jennifer Sharpe Potter and Dr. Roger Weiss for their input on the components of the example adaptive treatment strategies. In Scott et al (1), we present estimators for strategy means and new sample size formulae for  testing the difference between two strategies  chosing the best strategy with high probability 1. New sample size formulae for testing the difference between two strategies a.user inputs: desired effect size to detect, desired power and size of the test b.two versions i.dependent on intermediate non-response rate (here, the non-abstinent rate); requires user to input “guess” for intermediate non-response rate ii.invariant to intermediate non-response rate (gives a conservative sample size); assumes intermediate non-response rate is 1 2. New sample size formula for choosing the best strategies This is an estimation problem: instead of power, the user specifies the desired probability of correctly choosing the best strategy Standardized Effect Size (Cohen) Non-abstinent rate (after 1 st treatment) Choosing the best strategy a Comparison of two strategies b (sample size varies by non-abstinent rate) Comparison of two strategies b (sample size invariant to non-abstinent rate) Examples of required sample sizes for answering questions about strategies given prespecified effect sizes and non-abstinent rates a probability of choosing the correct best strategy is 0.80 b size of the test is α = 0.05 and power of the test is 1−β = 0.80 The results for the sample size formula for choosing the strategy with the highest mean outcome are particularly promising – if sizing for testing the difference between two strategies, then we will be able to perform a secondary analysis of choosing the best overall strategy with high probability. Traditional randomized clinical trials typically evaluate a single treatment with no specification and/or control of preceding or subsequent treatments. New experimental designs as well as statistical methodolgy are needed that support the investigation of sequences of treatments in a principled way. Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART): a new clinical trial design that sequentially randomizes patients to treatments in order to operationalize clinical practice; the goal is to develop Examples of precursors to the SMART design:  CATIE trial for antipsychotic medications in patients with Alzheimer's  STAR*D for treatment of depression Sample size requirements A new trial design