Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Technical advance

Development and evaluating multimarker models for guiding treatment decisions

Authors: Parvin Tajik, Mohammad Hadi Zafarmand, Aeilko H. Zwinderman, Ben W. Mol, Patrick M. Bossuyt

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Despite the growing interest in developing markers for predicting treatment response and optimizing treatment decisions, an appropriate methodology to identify, combine and evaluate such markers has been slow to develop. We propose a step-by-step strategy for analysing data from existing randomised trials with the aim of identifying a multi-marker model for guiding decisions about treatment.

Methods

We start with formulating the treatment selection problem, continue with defining the treatment threshold, prepare a list of candidate markers, develop the model, apply the model to estimate individual treatment effects, and evaluate model performance in the study group of patients who meet the trial eligibility criteria. In this process, we rely on some well-known techniques for multivariable prediction modelling, but focus on predicting benefit from treatment, rather than outcome itself. We present our approach using data from a randomised trial in which 808 women with multiple pregnancy were assigned to cervical pessary or control, to prevent adverse perinatal outcomes. Overall, cervical pessary did not reduce the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes.

Results

The treatment threshold was zero. We had a preselected list of 5 potential markers and developed a logistic model including the markers, treatment and all marker-by-treatment interaction terms. The model was well calibrated and identified 35% (95% confidence interval (CI) 32 to 39%) of the trial participants as benefitting from pessary insertion. We estimated that the risk of adverse outcome could be reduced from 13.5 to 8.1% (5.4% risk reduction; 95% CI 2.1 to 8.6%) through model-based selective pessary insertion. The next step is external validation upon existence of independent trial data.

Conclusions

We suggest revisiting existing trials data to explore whether differences in treatment benefit can be explained by differences in baseline characteristics of patients. This could lead to treatment selection tools which, after validation in comparable existing trials, can be introduced into clinical practice for guiding treatment decisions in future patients.
Literature
1.
Spear BB, Heath-Chiozzi M, Huff J. Clinical application of pharmacogenetics. Trends Mol Med. 2001;7(5):201–4.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Sun X, Briel M, Busse JW, You JJ, Akl EA, Mejza F, Bala MM, Bassler D, Mertz D, Diaz-Granados N, et al. Credibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2012;344:e1553.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Kent DM, Rothwell PM, Ioannidis JP, Altman DG, Hayward RA. Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal. Trials. 2010;11:85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Roberts WE, Morrison JC, Hamer C, Wiser WL. The incidence of preterm labor and specific risk factors. Obstet Gynecol. 1990;76(1 Suppl):85S–9S.PubMed
5.
Spellacy WN, Handler A, Ferre CD. A case-control study of 1253 twin pregnancies from a 1982-1987 perinatal data base. Obstet Gynecol. 1990;75(2):168–71.PubMed
6.
Liem S, Schuit E, Hegeman M, Bais J, de Boer K, Bloemenkamp K, Brons J, Duvekot H, Bijvank BN, Franssen M, et al. Cervical pessaries for prevention of preterm birth in women with a multiple pregnancy (ProTWIN): a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013;382(9901):1341–9.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Tajik P, Monfrance M, van 't Hooft J, Liem SM, Schuit E, Bloemenkamp KW, Duvekot JJ, Nij Bijvank B, Franssen MT, Oudijk MA, et al. A multivariable model to guide the decision for pessary placement to prevent preterm birth in women with a multiple pregnancy: a secondary analysis of the ProTWIN trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48(1):48–55.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Janes H, Brown MD, Huang Y, Pepe MS. An approach to evaluating and comparing biomarkers for patient treatment selection. Int J Biostat. 2014;10(1):99–121.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Steyerberg EW. Clinical prediction models: a practical approach to development, validation, and updating. New York: Springer; 2009.CrossRef
10.
Harrell FE. Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York: Springer; 2001.CrossRef
11.
Zhao Y, Zeng D, Rush AJ, Kosorok MR. Estimating individualized treatment rules using outcome weighted learning. J Am Stat Assoc. 2012;107(449):1106–18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
13.
14.
15.
Gunter L, Zhu J, Murphy S. Variable selection for qualitative interactions in personalized medicine while controlling the family-wise error rate. J Biopharm Stat. 2011;21(6):1063–78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Gunter L, Zhu J. Efficient computation and model selection for the support vector regression. Neural Comput. 2007;19(6):1633–55.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Foster JC, Taylor JM, Ruberg SJ. Subgroup identification from randomized clinical trial data. Stat Med. 2011;30(24):2867–80.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Foster JC, Taylor JM, Kaciroti N, Nan B. Simple subgroup approximations to optimal treatment regimes from randomized clinical trial data. Biostatistics. 2015;16(2):368–82.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Cai T, Tian L, Wong PH, Wei LJ. Analysis of randomized comparative clinical trial data for personalized treatment selections. Biostatistics. 2011;12(2):270–82.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Brinkley J, Tsiatis A, Anstrom KJ. A generalized estimator of the attributable benefit of an optimal treatment regime. Biometrics. 2010;66(2):512–22.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Dusseldorp E, Van Mechelen I. Qualitative interaction trees: a tool to identify qualitative treatment-subgroup interactions. Stat Med. 2014;33(2):219–37.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Pepe MS, Cai T, Longton G. Combining predictors for classification using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Biometrics. 2006;62(1):221–9.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Steyerberg EW, Vergouwe Y. Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(29):1925–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Steyerberg EW, Moons KG, van der Windt DA, Hayden JA, Perel P, Schroter S, Riley RD, Hemingway H, Altman DG, Group P. Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 3: prognostic model research. PLoS Med. 2013;10(2):e1001381.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Moons KG, Royston P, Vergouwe Y, Grobbee DE, Altman DG. Prognosis and prognostic research: what, why, and how? BMJ. 2009;338:b375.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Moons KG, Kengne AP, Woodward M, Royston P, Vergouwe Y, Altman DG, Grobbee DE. Risk prediction models: I. Development, internal validation, and assessing the incremental value of a new (bio)marker. Heart. 2012;98(9):683–90.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Moons KG, Kengne AP, Grobbee DE, Royston P, Vergouwe Y, Altman DG, Woodward M. Risk prediction models: II. External validation, model updating, and impact assessment. Heart. 2012;98(9):691–8.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Royston P, Moons KG, Altman DG, Vergouwe Y. Prognosis and prognostic research: developing a prognostic model. BMJ. 2009;338:b604.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Tibshirani R. Regresssion and shrinkage via the Lasso. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1996;58:267–88.
30.
31.
van der Leeuw J, Ridker PM, van der Graaf Y, Visseren FL. Personalized cardiovascular disease prevention by applying individualized prediction of treatment effects. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(13):837–43.CrossRefPubMed
32.
33.
Song X, Pepe MS. Evaluating markers for selecting a patient’s treatment. Biometrics. 2004;60(4):874–83.CrossRefPubMed
34.
35.
Rouse DJ, Caritis SN, Peaceman AM, Sciscione A, Thom EA, Spong CY, Varner M, Malone F, Iams JD, Mercer BM, et al. A trial of 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate to prevent prematurity in twins. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(5):454–61.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Roman AS, Rebarber A, Pereira L, Sfakianaki AK, Mulholland J, Berghella V. The efficacy of sonographically indicated cerclage in multiple gestations. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24(6):763–8. quiz 770-761CrossRefPubMed
37.
Norman JE, Mackenzie F, Owen P, Mactier H, Hanretty K, Cooper S, Calder A, Mires G, Danielian P, Sturgiss S, et al. Progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth in twin pregnancy (STOPPIT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2009;373(9680):2034–40.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Lim AC, Schuit E, Bloemenkamp K, Bernardus RE, Duvekot JJ, Erwich JJ, van Eyck J, Groenwold RH, Hasaart TH, Hummel P, et al. 17alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate for the prevention of adverse neonatal outcome in multiple pregnancies: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(3):513–20.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Crowther CA. Hospitalisation and bed rest for multiple pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2:CD000110.
40.
Schaaf JM, Hof MH, Mol BW, Abu-Hanna A, Ravelli AC. Recurrence risk of preterm birth in subsequent twin pregnancy after preterm singleton delivery. BJOG. 2012;119(13):1624–9.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Esplin MS, O'Brien E, Fraser A, Kerber RA, Clark E, Simonsen SE, Holmgren C, Mineau GP, Varner MW. Estimating recurrence of spontaneous preterm delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(3):516–23.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Sperling L, Kiil C, Larsen LU, Qvist I, Schwartz M, Jorgensen C, Skajaa K, Bang J, Tabor A. Naturally conceived twins with monochorionic placentation have the highest risk of fetal loss. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;28(5):644–52.CrossRefPubMed
43.
American College of O, Gynecologists committee on practice B-O, Society for Maternal-Fetal M, committee AJE. ACOG practice bulletin #56: multiple gestation: complicated twin, triplet, and high-order multifetal pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):869–83.CrossRef
44.
Claggett B, Zhao L, Tian L, Castagno D, Wei LJ. Estimating subject-specific treatment differences for risk-benefit assessment with operating risk event-time data. In: Harvard University Working Paper Series, vol. 125; 2011.
45.
46.
Dorresteijn JA, Visseren FL, Ridker PM, Wassink AM, Paynter NP, Steyerberg EW, van der Graaf Y, Cook NR. Estimating treatment effects for individual patients based on the results of randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5888.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
47.
Vickers AJ, Kattan MW, Daniel S. Method for evaluating prediction models that apply the results of randomized trials to individual patients. Trials. 2007;8:14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Vickers AJ, Van Calster B, Steyerberg EW. Net benefit approaches to the evaluation of prediction models, molecular markers, and diagnostic tests. BMJ. 2016;352:i6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
49.
Vickers AJ. Incorporating clinical considerations into statistical analyses of markers: a quiet revolution in how we think about data. Clin Chem. 2016;62(5):671–2.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Kovalchik SA, Varadhan R, Weiss CO. Assessing heterogeneity of treatment effect in a clinical trial with the proportional interactions model. Stat Med. 2013;32(28):4906–23.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Development and evaluating multimarker models for guiding treatment decisions
Authors
Parvin Tajik
Mohammad Hadi Zafarmand
Aeilko H. Zwinderman
Ben W. Mol
Patrick M. Bossuyt
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-018-0619-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Adherence to standardized assessments through a complexity-based model for categorizing rehabilitation©: design and implementation in an acute hospital

Research article

Development and pilot evaluation of a pregnancy-specific mobile health tool: a qualitative investigation of SmartMoms Canada

Research article

Design and implementation of an m-health data model for improving health information access for reproductive and child health services in low resource settings using a participatory action research approach

Research article

A rank weighted classification for plasma proteomic profiles based on case-based reasoning

Software

Trio-R: a script for assessing maternity and paternity in trio studies performed on Agilent chromosomal microarrays

Research article

Informing evaluation of a smartphone application for people with acquired brain injury: a stakeholder engagement study