Group Response Analysis: Clinically Interpretable Longitudinal Responder Analysis Methods Developed Using FDA Data
DeLorey, I.; Bilker, W.; Chudnovskaya, D.; Conroy, A.; McWilliams, T.; Miller, C.; Argoff, C. E.; Barnett, I.; Bell, R.; Haythornthwaite, J.; Gewandter, J.; Gilron, I.; Katz, N. P.; Theken, K. N.; Farrar, J. T.
Show abstract
1Responder analyses for the evaluation of randomized clinical trial (RCT) data have become more common in the recent past, since they can provide the medical community with results that are more directly applicable to clinical care. For pain studies, the predominant responder analysis compares the change in the individual participants pain level at baseline to their value at the end of the study period and uses a predetermined clinically important change cut-off value to define a response. While useful, this method substantially reduces the efficiency of the RCT by dichotomizing the results and is limited to comparing the baseline to the end of the study only. In this paper, we introduce a novel approach to the patient response over time with a focus on single dose post-operative studies. This technique provides graphical presentations and statistical approaches to understand the onset of any specified level of response, the maximum proportion of patients with a response at any point in time, and the duration of that response over time. In addition, each outcome can be summarized to examine the result across all possible cut-off points for clinically important differences (CID). We accomplish this by introducing three interrelated, longitudinal efficacy statistics: ROOT, GRO, and GROOT. The response outcome over time (ROOT) estimates the total proportion of a study period an individual patient spends as a responder. The group response outcome (GRO) estimates the instantaneous proportion of responders at all time points across the study period. The group response outcome over time (GROOT) summarizes total efficacy in a cohort, and can be calculated as the area under the GRO curve, or as the mean ROOT; they are identical. This novel method provides a clinically interpretable responder analysis over the full period of the study and, by using every data point across time, mitigates the loss of statistical power typically associated with dichotomized responder outcomes. Group response analysis is based upon repeated assessments of categorical or continuous measures categorizing each participants status as a treatment responder or non-responder at every timepoint based on the prespecified clinically important difference. Both the visual and statistical comparison of any two or more curves provide a comparison of the overall efficacy, which can be statistically tested using a standard asymptotic hypothesis test (such as Wald (Johnson & Romer, 2016)). The method allows for an integrated evaluation of three main components of drug efficacy: the proportion of participants achieving a CID over time (effect), the time to achieve that response (onset), and the length of the response (duration). In this paper, we present the group response analysis methodology and then illustrate it using data from a placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial (RCT) for postoperative pain after third molar extraction treated with meloxicam and ibuprofen as an active comparator (Christensen et al., 2018). Our approach yields similar effect sizes as the sum of pain intensity differences (SPID) commonly used for pain study analyses while providing superior clinical interpretability and a more complete evaluation of drug therapies beyond just efficacy. We propose that this method can be used as a primary or secondary analysis of pain RCTs to answer the question of the patient response to treatment and provide suitable data to compare efficacies across treatment groups.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Supporting Respiratory Epithelia and Lowering Inflammation to Effectively Treat Common Cold Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial 94%
- Can a specific biobehavioral based therapeutic education program lead to changes in pain perception and brain plasticity biomarkers in chronic pain patients? A study protocol for a randomized clinical trial 93%
- Using numerical modelling and simulation to assess the ethical burden in clinical trials and how it relates to the proportion of responders in a trial sample 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Cannabidivarin for the treatment of HIV-associated neuropathic pain: a randomized, blinded, controlled clinical trial 89%
- MTXPK.org: A clinical decision support tool evaluating high-dose methotrexate pharmacokinetics to inform post-infusion care and use of glucarpidase 88%
- DrugWAS: Leveraging drug-wide association studies to facilitate drug repurposing for COVID-19 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- Endogenous modulation of pain relief: evidence for dopaminergic but not opioidergic involvement 91%
- Data-driven methodology for discovery and response to pulmonary symptomology in hypertension through AI and machine learning: Application to COVID-19 related pharmacovigilance 89%
- Cortico-spinal coupling along descending pain system differentiates between opioid and saline treatment in healthy participants 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Improving Power and Accuracy in Randomized Controlled Trials of Pain Treatments by Accounting for Concurrent Analgesic Use 96%
- Real Bodies Not Required? Placebo Analgesia and Pain Perception in Immersive Virtual and Augmented Reality 93%
- Management of Central Post-Stroke Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.