ArticlePharmaceutical statistics
Use of Composite Priors for Assurance of Sequential Therapy Trials: Practical Experiences Using Binary Endpoint Data.
Article in Pharmaceutical statistics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurately calculating assurance can play an important role in quantifying the confidence in the success of a clinical trial. Formulation of prior distributions and the use of assurance can therefore play a vital part in drug development planning and decision-making. Although approaches in developing priors and calculating probability of success (assurance) have been readily reported, the application for studies incorporating sequential treatment therapy-where multiple medications or therapeutic regimens are administered consecutively to maximise therapeutic efficacy and minimise adverse effects-is less well defined. Challenges relating to eliciting a prior for a single treatment effect across a sequential therapy include reliance on individual experts' subjective beliefs about translating multiple mechanisms of actions into a single overall treatment effect and the inability to capture nuances across and inconsistency in combining individual treatment component effects. In this paper, we outline a comprehensive quantitative framework for developing a composite prior distribution (from individual component priors) and calculating the assurance for study designs involving sequential treatment. We demonstrate how this framework, which employs both prior elicitation and data-driven prior development methods, was applied in two phase 2 study designs with sequential treatment regimens using a binary endpoint. We also discuss the optimal conditions for these methods and compare the benefits and challenges with a conventional holistic prior elicitation and assurance framework.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.