Additive Hazards Models with Latent Treatment Effectiveness Lag Time

In many clinical trials to evaluate treatment efficacy, it is believed that there may exist latent treatment effectiveness lag times after which medical procedure or chemical compound would be in full effect. In this article, semiparametric regression models are proposed and studied to estimate the treatment effect accounting for such latent lag times. The new models take advantage of the invariance property of the additive hazards model in marginalizing over random effects, so parameters in the models are easy to be estimated and interpreted, while the flexibility without specifying baseline hazard function is kept. Monte Carlo simulation studies demonstrate the appropriateness of the proposed semiparametric estimation procedure. Data collected in the actual randomized clinical trial, which evaluates the effectiveness of biodegradable carmustine polymers for treatment of recurrent brain tumors, are analyzed.

MODELING DIFFERENTIATED TREATMENT EFFECTS FOR MULTIPLE OUTCOMES DATA

Multiple outcomes data are commonly used to characterize treatment effects in medical research, for instance, multiple symptoms to characterize potential remission of a psychiatric disorder. Often either a global, i.e. symptom-invariant, treatment effect is evaluated. Such a treatment effect may over generalize the effect across the outcomes. On the other hand individual treatment effects, varying across all outcomes, are complicated to interpret, and their estimation may lose precision relative to a global summary. An effective compromise to summarize the treatment effect may be through patterns of the treatment effects, i.e. "differentiated effects." In this paper we propose a two-category model to differentiate treatment effects into two groups. A model fitting algorithm and simulation study are presented, and several methods are developed to analyze heterogeneity presenting in the treatment effects. The method is illustrated using an analysis of schizophrenia symptom data.

Effectively Selecting a Target Population for a Future Comparative Study

When comparing a new treatment with a control in a randomized clinical study, the treatment effect is generally assessed by evaluating a summary measure over a specific study population. The success of the trial heavily depends on the choice of such a population. In this paper, we show a systematic, effective way to identify a promising population, for which the new treatment is expected to have a desired benefit, using the data from a current study involving similar comparator treatments. Specifically, with the existing data we first create a parametric scoring system using multiple covariates to estimate subject-specific treatment differences. Using this system, we specify a desired level of treatment difference and create a subgroup of patients, defined as those whose estimated scores exceed this threshold. An empirically calibrated group-specific treatment difference curve across a range of threshold values is constructed. The population of patients with any desired level of treatment benefit can then be identified accordingly. To avoid any ``self-serving'' bias, we utilize a cross-training-evaluation method for implementing the above two-step procedure. Lastly, we show how to select the best scoring system among all competing models. The proposals are illustrated with the data from two clinical trials in treating AIDS and cardiovascular diseases. Note that if we are not interested in designing a new study for comparing similar treatments, the new procedure can also be quite useful for the management of future patients who would receive nontrivial benefits to compensate for the risk or cost of the new treatment.