IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v43y2023i5p553-563.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Constructing Relative Effect Priors for Research Prioritization and Trial Design: A Meta-epidemiological Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • David Glynn

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK)

  • Georgios Nikolaidis

    (IQVIA, London, UK)

  • Dina Jankovic

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK)

  • Nicky J. Welton

    (Bristol Medical School (PHS), University of Bristol, UK)

Abstract

Background Bayesian methods have potential for efficient design of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) by incorporating existing evidence. Furthermore, value of information (VOI) methods estimate the value of reducing decision uncertainty, aiding transparent research prioritization. These methods require a prior distribution describing current uncertainty in key parameters, such as relative treatment effect (RTE). However, at the time of designing and commissioning research, there may be no data to base the prior on. The aim of this article is to present methods to construct priors for RTEs based on a collection of previous RCTs. Methods We developed 2 Bayesian hierarchical models that captured variability in RTE between studies within disease area accounting for study characteristics. We illustrate the methods using a data set of 743 published RCTs across 9 disease areas to obtain predictive distributions for RTEs for a range of disease areas. We illustrate how the priors from such an analysis can be used in a VOI analysis for an RCT in bladder cancer and compare the results with those using an uninformative prior. Results For most disease areas, the predicted RTE favored new interventions over comparators. The predicted effects and uncertainty differed across the 9 disease areas. VOI analysis showed that the expected value of research is much lower with our empirically derived prior compared with an uninformative prior. Conclusions This study demonstrates a novel approach to generating informative priors that can be used to aid research prioritization and trial design. The methods can also be used to combine RCT evidence with expert opinion. Further work is needed to create a rich database of RCT evidence that can be used to form off-the-shelf priors. Highlights Bayesian methods have potential to aid the efficient design of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) by incorporating existing evidence. Value-of-information (VOI) methods can be used to aid research prioritization by calculating the value of current decision uncertainty. These methods require a distribution describing current uncertainty in key parameters, that is, “prior distributions.†This article demonstrates a methodology to estimate prior distributions for relative treatment effects (odds and hazard ratios) estimated from a collection of previous RCTs. These results may be combined with expert elicitation to facilitate 1) value-of-information methods to prioritize research or 2) Bayesian methods for research design.

Suggested Citation

  • David Glynn & Georgios Nikolaidis & Dina Jankovic & Nicky J. Welton, 2023. "Constructing Relative Effect Priors for Research Prioritization and Trial Design: A Meta-epidemiological Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(5), pages 553-563, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:5:p:553-563
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231165985
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231165985
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X231165985?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Caroline S. Bennette & David L. Veenstra & Anirban Basu & Laurence H. Baker & Scott D. Ramsey & Josh J. Carlson, 2016. "Development and Evaluation of an Approach to Using Value of Information Analyses for Real-Time Prioritization Decisions Within SWOG, a Large Cancer Clinical Trials Cooperative Group," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(5), pages 641-651, July.
    2. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    3. A. E. Ades & G. Lu & K. Claxton, 2004. "Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations in Medical Decision Modeling," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(2), pages 207-227, March.
    4. Josh J. Carlson & Rahber Thariani & Josh Roth & Julie Gralow & N. Lynn Henry & Laura Esmail & Pat Deverka & Scott D. Ramsey & Laurence Baker & David L. Veenstra, 2013. "Value-of-Information Analysis within a Stakeholder-Driven Research Prioritization Process in a US Setting: An Application in Cancer Genomics," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(4), pages 463-471, May.
    5. Karl Claxton & John Posnett, "undated". "An Economic Approach to Clinical Trial Design and Research Priority Setting," Discussion Papers 96/19, Department of Economics, University of York.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mathyn Vervaart & Mark Strong & Karl P. Claxton & Nicky J. Welton & Torbjørn Wisløff & Eline Aas, 2022. "An Efficient Method for Computing Expected Value of Sample Information for Survival Data from an Ongoing Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 612-625, July.
    2. A C Bouman & A J ten Cate-Hoek & B L T Ramaekers & M A Joore, 2015. "Sample Size Estimation for Non-Inferiority Trials: Frequentist Approach versus Decision Theory Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, June.
    3. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    4. Wei Fang & Zhenru Wang & Michael B. Giles & Chris H. Jackson & Nicky J. Welton & Christophe Andrieu & Howard Thom, 2022. "Multilevel and Quasi Monte Carlo Methods for the Calculation of the Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(2), pages 168-181, February.
    5. Rachael L. Fleurence, 2007. "Setting priorities for research: a practical application of 'payback' and expected value of information," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1345-1357.
    6. Oakley, Jeremy E. & Brennan, Alan & Tappenden, Paul & Chilcott, Jim, 2010. "Simulation sample sizes for Monte Carlo partial EVPI calculations," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 468-477, May.
    7. Eric Jutkowitz & Fernando Alarid-Escudero & Hyon K. Choi & Karen M. Kuntz & Hawre Jalal, 2017. "Prioritizing Future Research on Allopurinol and Febuxostat for the Management of Gout: Value of Information Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(10), pages 1073-1085, October.
    8. Stefano Conti & Karl Claxton, 2008. "Dimensions of design space: a decision-theoretic approach to optimal research design," Working Papers 038cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    9. Mathyn Vervaart & Eline Aas & Karl P. Claxton & Mark Strong & Nicky J. Welton & Torbjørn Wisløff & Anna Heath, 2023. "General-Purpose Methods for Simulating Survival Data for Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(5), pages 595-609, July.
    10. Andrija S Grustam & Nasuh Buyukkaramikli & Ron Koymans & Hubertus J M Vrijhoef & Johan L Severens, 2019. "Value of information analysis in telehealth for chronic heart failure management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, June.
    11. Anna Heath & Mark Strong & David Glynn & Natalia Kunst & Nicky J. Welton & Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert, 2022. "Simulating Study Data to Support Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations: A Tutorial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(2), pages 143-155, February.
    12. Josh J. Carlson & Rahber Thariani & Josh Roth & Julie Gralow & N. Lynn Henry & Laura Esmail & Pat Deverka & Scott D. Ramsey & Laurence Baker & David L. Veenstra, 2013. "Value-of-Information Analysis within a Stakeholder-Driven Research Prioritization Process in a US Setting: An Application in Cancer Genomics," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(4), pages 463-471, May.
    13. Bas Groot Koerkamp & M. G. Myriam Hunink & Theo Stijnen & Milton C. Weinstein, 2006. "Identifying key parameters in cost‐effectiveness analysis using value of information: a comparison of methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 383-392, April.
    14. Daniele Bregantini, 2014. "Don’t Stop ’Til You Get Enough: a quickest detection approach to HTA," Discussion Papers 14/04, Department of Economics, University of York.
    15. Hawre Jalal & Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert & Karen M. Kuntz, 2015. "Computing Expected Value of Partial Sample Information from Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Using Linear Regression Metamodeling," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 584-595, July.
    16. Alan Brennan & Samer A. Kharroubi, 2007. "Expected value of sample information for Weibull survival data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1205-1225, November.
    17. Anna Heath, 2022. "Calculating Expected Value of Sample Information Adjusting for Imperfect Implementation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 626-636, July.
    18. G. Ramos & Antoinette Asselt & Sandra Kuiper & Johan Severens & Tanja Maas & Edward Dompeling & J. Knottnerus & Onno Schayck, 2014. "Cost-effectiveness of primary prevention of paediatric asthma: a decision-analytic model," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(8), pages 869-883, November.
    19. Jennifer Uyei & R. Scott Braithwaite, 2016. "Are There Scenarios When the Use of Non–Placebo-Control Groups in Experimental Trial Designs Increase Expected Value to Society?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(1), pages 20-30, January.
    20. Manuel A. Espinoza & Andrea Manca & Karl Claxton & Mark J. Sculpher, 2014. "The Value of Heterogeneity for Cost-Effectiveness Subgroup Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(8), pages 951-964, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:5:p:553-563. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.