Müller Peter, Xu Yanxun, Thall Peter F
Dept. of Mathematics, University of Texas at Austin.
Dept. of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, Johns Hopkins University.
Appl Stoch Models Bus Ind. 2017 May-Jun;33(3):296-301. doi: 10.1002/asmb.2222. Epub 2017 Jan 13.
The intent of this discussion is to highlight opportunities and limitations of utility-based and decision theoretic arguments in clinical trial design. The discussion is based on a specific case study, but the arguments and principles remain valid in general. The example concerns the design of a randomized clinical trial to compare a gel sealant versus standard care for resolving air leaks after pulmonary resection. The design follows a principled approach to optimal decision making, including a probability model for the unknown distributions of time to resolution of air leaks under the two treatment arms, and an explicit utility function that quantifies clinical preferences for alternative outcomes. As is typical for any real application, the final implementation includes some compromises from the initial principled setup. In particular, we use the formal decision problem only for the final decision, but use reasonable decision boundaries for making interim group sequential decisions that stop the trial early. Beyond the discussion of the particular study, we review more general considerations of using a decision theoretic approach for clinical trial design and summarize some of the reasons why such approaches are not commonly used.
本次讨论的目的是强调基于效用和决策理论的论据在临床试验设计中的机遇与局限。该讨论基于一个具体的案例研究,但其中的论据和原则总体上仍然有效。该案例涉及一项随机临床试验的设计,旨在比较一种凝胶密封剂与标准护理措施在解决肺切除术后漏气问题方面的效果。该设计遵循一种用于优化决策的原则性方法,包括针对两种治疗方案下漏气解决时间未知分布的概率模型,以及一个明确的效用函数,该函数量化了对不同结果的临床偏好。正如任何实际应用的典型情况一样,最终实施包括了对初始原则性设置的一些折衷。特别是,我们仅将正式的决策问题用于最终决策,但在做出提前终止试验的中期成组序贯决策时使用合理的决策边界。除了对该特定研究的讨论之外,我们还回顾了使用决策理论方法进行临床试验设计的更一般考虑因素,并总结了此类方法不常用的一些原因。