Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Multiple Sclerosis | Research article

Defining responders to therapies by a statistical modeling approach applied to randomized clinical trial data

Authors: Francesca Bovis, Luca Carmisciano, Alessio Signori, Matteo Pardini, Joshua R. Steinerman, Thomas Li, Aaron P. Tansy, Maria Pia Sormani

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Personalized medicine is the tailoring of treatment to the individual characteristics of patients. Once a treatment has been tested in a clinical trial and its effect overall quantified, it would be of great value to be able to use the baseline patients’ characteristics to identify patients with larger/lower benefits from treatment, for a more personalized approach to therapy.

Methods

We show here a previously published statistical method, aimed at identifying patients’ profiles associated to larger treatment benefits applied to three identical randomized clinical trials in multiple sclerosis, testing laquinimod vs placebo (ALLEGRO, BRAVO, and CONCERTO). We identified on the ALLEGRO patients’ specific linear combinations of baseline variables, predicting heterogeneous response to treatment on disability progression. We choose the best score on the BRAVO, based on its ability to identify responders to treatment in this dataset. We finally got an external validation on the CONCERTO, testing on this new dataset the performance of the score in defining responders and non-responders.

Results

The best response score defined on the ALLEGRO and the BRAVO was a linear combination of age, sex, previous relapses, brain volume, and MRI lesion activity. Splitting patients into responders and non-responders according to the score distribution, in the ALLEGRO, the hazard ratio (HR) for disability progression of laquinimod vs placebo was 0.38 for responders, HR = 1.31 for non-responders (interaction p = 0.0007). In the BRAVO, we had similar results: HR = 0.40 for responders and HR = 1.24 for non-responders (interaction p = 0.006). These findings were successfully replicated in the CONCERTO study, with HR = 0.44 for responders and HR=1.08 for non-responders (interaction p = 0.033).

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the possibility to refine and personalize the treatment effect estimated in randomized studies by using the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of the included patients. The method can be applied to any randomized trial in any medical condition to create a treatment-specific score associated to different levels of response to the treatment tested in the trial. This is an easy and affordable method toward therapy personalization, indicating patient profiles related to a larger benefit from a specific drug, which may have implications for taking clinical decisions in everyday clinical practice.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Zhao L, Tian L, Cai T, Clagget B, Wei LJ. Effectively selecting a target population for a future comparative study. J Am Stat Assoc. 2013;108:527–39.CrossRef Zhao L, Tian L, Cai T, Clagget B, Wei LJ. Effectively selecting a target population for a future comparative study. J Am Stat Assoc. 2013;108:527–39.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Song X, Pepe MS. Evaluating markers for selecting a patient’s treatment. Biometrics. 2004;60(4):874–83.CrossRef Song X, Pepe MS. Evaluating markers for selecting a patient’s treatment. Biometrics. 2004;60(4):874–83.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Song X, Zhou XH. Evaluating markers for treatment selection based on survival time. Stat Med. 2011;30(18):2251–64.CrossRef Song X, Zhou XH. Evaluating markers for treatment selection based on survival time. Stat Med. 2011;30(18):2251–64.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Janes H, Pepe MS, Bossuyt PM, Barlow WE. Measuring the performance of markers for guiding treatment decisions. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:253–9.CrossRef Janes H, Pepe MS, Bossuyt PM, Barlow WE. Measuring the performance of markers for guiding treatment decisions. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:253–9.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Bonetti M, Gelber RD. A graphical method to assess treatment-covariate interactions using the Cox model on subsets of the data. Stat Med. 2000;19(19):2595–609.CrossRef Bonetti M, Gelber RD. A graphical method to assess treatment-covariate interactions using the Cox model on subsets of the data. Stat Med. 2000;19(19):2595–609.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Cai T, Tian L, Wong PH, Wei LJ. Analysis of randomized comparative clinical trial data for personalized treatment selections. Biostatistics. 2011;12:270–82.CrossRef Cai T, Tian L, Wong PH, Wei LJ. Analysis of randomized comparative clinical trial data for personalized treatment selections. Biostatistics. 2011;12:270–82.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Comi G, Jeffery D, Kappos L, Montalban X, Boyko A, Rocca MA, et al. Placebo-controlled trial of oral laquinimod for multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1000–9.CrossRef Comi G, Jeffery D, Kappos L, Montalban X, Boyko A, Rocca MA, et al. Placebo-controlled trial of oral laquinimod for multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1000–9.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Vollmer TL, Sorensen PS, Selmaj K, Zipp F, Havrdova E, Cohen JA, et al. A randomized placebo-controlled phase III trial of oral laquinimod for multiple sclerosis. J Neurol. 2014;261:773–83.CrossRef Vollmer TL, Sorensen PS, Selmaj K, Zipp F, Havrdova E, Cohen JA, et al. A randomized placebo-controlled phase III trial of oral laquinimod for multiple sclerosis. J Neurol. 2014;261:773–83.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Comi G. CONCERTO: a placebo-controlled trial of oral laquinimod in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. ECTRIMS Online Library; 2017. p. 202596. Comi G. CONCERTO: a placebo-controlled trial of oral laquinimod in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. ECTRIMS Online Library; 2017. p. 202596.
10.
go back to reference Polman CH, Reingold SC, Edan G, Filippi M, Hartung HP, Kappos L, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald Criteria”. Ann Neurol. 2005;58:840–6.CrossRef Polman CH, Reingold SC, Edan G, Filippi M, Hartung HP, Kappos L, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald Criteria”. Ann Neurol. 2005;58:840–6.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Steyerberg EW. Clinical prediction models. A practical approach to development, validation and updating. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2009. Steyerberg EW. Clinical prediction models. A practical approach to development, validation and updating. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2009.
12.
go back to reference Signori A, Schiavetti I, Gallo F, Sormani MP. Subgroups of multiple sclerosis patients with larger treatment benefits: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur J Neurol. 2015;22:960–6.CrossRef Signori A, Schiavetti I, Gallo F, Sormani MP. Subgroups of multiple sclerosis patients with larger treatment benefits: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur J Neurol. 2015;22:960–6.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Defining responders to therapies by a statistical modeling approach applied to randomized clinical trial data
Authors
Francesca Bovis
Luca Carmisciano
Alessio Signori
Matteo Pardini
Joshua R. Steinerman
Thomas Li
Aaron P. Tansy
Maria Pia Sormani
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1345-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Medicine 1/2019 Go to the issue