» Articles » PMID: 37417836

Using Bayesian Hierarchical Models for Controlled Post Hoc Subgroup Analysis of Clinical Trials: Application to Smoking Cessation Treatment in American Indians and Alaska Natives

Overview
Journal J Biopharm Stat
Date 2023 Jul 7
PMID 37417836
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Clinical trials powered to detect subgroup effects provide the most reliable data on heterogeneity of treatment effect among different subpopulations. However, pre-specified subgroup analysis is not always practical and post hoc analysis results should be examined cautiously. Bayesian hierarchical modelling provides grounds for defining a controlled post hoc analysis plan that is developed after seeing outcome data for the population but before unblinding the outcome by subgroup. Using simulation based on the results from a tobacco cessation clinical trial conducted among the general population, we defined an analysis plan to assess treatment effect among American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) enrolled in the study. Patients were randomized into two arms using Bayesian adaptive design. For the opt-in arm, clinicians offered a cessation treatment plan after verifying that a patient was ready to quit. For the opt-out arm, clinicians provided all participants with free cessation medications and referred them to a Quitline. The study was powered to test a hypothesis of significantly higher quit rates for the opt-out arm at one-month post randomization. Overall, one-month abstinence rates were 15.9% and 21.5% (opt-in and opt-out arm, respectively). For AI/AN, one-month abstinence rates were 10.2% and 22.0% (opt-in and opt-out arm, respectively). The posterior probability that the abstinence rate in the treatment arm is higher is 0.96, indicating that AI/AN demonstrate response to treatment at almost the same probability as the whole population.

References
1.
Brookes S, Whitely E, Egger M, Davey Smith G, Mulheran P, Peters T . Subgroup analyses in randomized trials: risks of subgroup-specific analyses; power and sample size for the interaction test. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004; 57(3):229-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.08.009. View

2.
Hartmann-Boyce J, Chepkin S, Ye W, Bullen C, Lancaster T . Nicotine replacement therapy versus control for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; 5:CD000146. PMC: 6353172. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000146.pub5. View

3.
Schuhlen H . Pre-specified vs. post-hoc subgroup analyses: are we wiser before or after a trial has been performed?. Eur Heart J. 2014; 35(31):2055-7. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu202. View

4.
Faseru B, Ellerbeck E, Catley D, Gajewski B, Scheuermann T, Shireman T . Changing the default for tobacco-cessation treatment in an inpatient setting: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2017; 18(1):379. PMC: 5556365. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-017-2119-9. View

5.
Yusuf S, Wittes J, Probstfield J, Tyroler H . Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized clinical trials. JAMA. 1991; 266(1):93-8. View