Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Christian Röver

Publications and source records attributed to Christian Röver.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
arXiv2022

MetaStan: An R package for Bayesian (model-based) meta-analysis using Stan

Meta-analysis methods are used to combine evidence from multiple studies. Meta-regression as well as model-based meta-analysis are extensions of standard pairwise meta-analysis in which information about study-level covariates and (arm-level) dosing amount or exposure may be taken into account. A Bayesian approach to inference is very attractive in this context, especially when a meta-analysis is based on few studies only or rare events. In this article, we present the R package MetaStan which implements a wide range of pairwise and model-based meta-analysis models. A generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) framework is used to describe the pairwise meta-analysis, meta-regression and model-based meta-analysis models. Within the GLMM framework, the likelihood and link functions are adapted to reflect the nature of the data. For example, a binomial likelihood with a logit link is used to perform a meta-analysis based on datasets with dichotomous endpoints. Bayesian computations are conducted using Stan via the rstan interface. Stan uses a Hamiltonian Monte Carlo sampler which belongs to the family of Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Stan implementations are done by using suitable parametrizations to ease computations. The user-friendly R package MetaStan, available on CRAN, supports a wide range of pairwise and model-based meta-analysis models. MetaStan provides fitting functions for pairwise meta-analysis with the option of including covariates and model-based meta-analysis. The supported outcome types are continuous, binary, and count. Forest plots for the pairwise meta-analysis and dose-response plots for the model-based meta-analysis can be obtained from the package. The use of MetaStan is demonstrated through clinical examples.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2021

On weakly informative prior distributions for the heterogeneity parameter in Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis

The normal-normal hierarchical model (NNHM) constitutes a simple and widely used framework for meta-analysis. In the common case of only few studies contributing to the meta-analysis, standard approaches to inference tend to perform poorly, and Bayesian meta-analysis has been suggested as a potential solution. The Bayesian approach, however, requires the sensible specification of prior distributions. While non-informative priors are commonly used for the overall mean effect, the use of weakly informative priors has been suggested for the heterogeneity parameter, in particular in the setting of (very) few studies. To date, however, a consensus on how to generally specify a weakly informative heterogeneity prior is lacking. Here we investigate the problem more closely and provide some guidance on prior specification.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2020

Bounds for the weight of external data in shrinkage estimation

Shrinkage estimation in a meta-analysis framework may be used to facilitate dynamical borrowing of information. This framework might be used to analyze a new study in the light of previous data, which might differ in their design (e.g., a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a clinical registry). We show how the common study weights arise in effect and shrinkage estimation, and how these may be generalized to the case of Bayesian meta-analysis. Next we develop simple ways to compute bounds on the weights, so that the contribution of the external evidence may be assessed a priori. These considerations are illustrated and discussed using numerical examples, including applications in the treatment of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and in fetal monitoring to prevent the occurrence of metabolic acidosis. The target study's contribution to the resulting estimate is shown to be bounded below. Therefore, concerns of evidence being easily overwhelmed by external data are largely unwarranted.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2019

Decline of COPD exacerbations in clinical trials over two decades -- a systematic review and meta-regression

BACKGROUND: An important goal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment is to reduce the frequency of exacerbations. Some observations suggest a decline in exacerbation rates in clinical trials over time. A more systematic understanding would help to improve the design and interpretation of COPD trials. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-regression of the placebo groups in published randomized controlled trials reporting exacerbations as an outcome. A Bayesian negative binomial model was developed to accommodate results that are reported in different formats; results are reported with credible intervals (CI) and posterior tail probabilities ($p_B$). RESULTS: Of 1114 studies identified by our search, 55 were ultimately included. Exacerbation rates decreased by 6.7% (95% CI (4.4, 9.0); $p_B$ < 0.001) per year, or 50% (95% CI (36, 61)) per decade. Adjusting for available study and baseline characteristics such as forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) did not alter the observed trend considerably. Two subsets of studies, one using a true placebo group and the other allowing inhaled corticosteroids in the "placebo" group, also yielded consistent results. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this meta-regression indicates that the rate of COPD exacerbations decreased over the past two decades to a clinically relevant extent independent of important prognostic factors. This suggests that care is needed in the design of new trials or when comparing results from older trials with more recent ones. Also a considerable effect of adjunct therapy on COPD exacerbations can be assumed.

stat.AP↗
arXiv2019

Random-effects meta-analysis of phase I dose-finding studies using stochastic process priors

Phase I dose-finding studies aim at identifying the maximal tolerated dose (MTD). It is not uncommon that several dose-finding studies are conducted, although often with some variation in the administration mode or dose panel. For instance, sorafenib (BAY 43-900) was used as monotherapy in at least 29 phase I trials according to a recent search in clinicaltrials.gov. Since the toxicity may not be directly related to the specific indication, synthesizing the information from several studies might be worthwhile. However, this is rarely done in practice and only a fixed-effect meta-analysis framework was proposed to date. We developed a Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis methodology to pool several phase I trials and suggest the MTD. A curve free hierarchical model on the logistic scale with random effects, accounting for between-trial heterogeneity, is used to model the probability of toxicity across the investigated doses. An Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Gaussian process is adopted for the random effects structure. Prior distributions for the curve free model are based on a latent Gamma process. An extensive simulation study showed good performance of the proposed method also under model deviations. Sharing information between phase I studies can improve the precision of MTD selection, at least when the number of trials is reasonably large.

q-bio.QM↗
arXiv2018

Dynamically borrowing strength from another study through shrinkage estimation

Meta-analytic methods may be used to combine evidence from different sources of information. Quite commonly, the normal-normal hierarchical model (NNHM) including a random-effect to account for between-study heterogeneity is utilized for such analyses. The same modeling framework may also be used to not only derive a combined estimate, but also to borrow strength for a particular study from another by deriving a shrinkage estimate. For instance, a small-scale randomized controlled trial could be supported by a non-randomized study, e.g. a clinical registry. This would be particularly attractive in the context of rare diseases. We demonstrate that a meta-analysis still makes sense in this extreme two-study setup, as illustrated using a recent trial and a clinical registry in Creutzfeld-Jakob disease. Derivation of a shrinkage estimate within a Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis may substantially improve a given estimate even based on only a single additional estimate while accounting for potential effect heterogeneity between the studies. Alternatively, inference may equivalently be motivated via a model specification that does not require a common overall mean parameter but considers the treatment effect in one study, and the difference in effects between the studies. The proposed approach is quite generally applicable to combine different types of evidence originating e.g. from meta-analyses or individual studies. An application of this more general setup is provided in immunosuppression following liver transplantation in children.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2018

Likelihood-based meta-analysis with few studies: Empirical and simulation studies

Standard random-effects meta-analysis methods perform poorly when applied to few studies only. Such settings however are commonly encountered in practice. It is unclear, whether or to what extent small-sample-size behaviour can be improved by more sophisticated modeling. We consider several likelihood-based inference methods. Confidence intervals are based on normal or Student-t approximations. We extract an empirical data set of 40 meta-analyses from recent reviews published by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). Methods are then compared empirically as well as in a simulation study, considering odds-ratio and risk ratio effect sizes. Empirically, a majority of the identified meta-analyses include only 2 studies. In the simulation study, coverage probability is, in the presence of heterogeneity and few studies, below the nominal level for all frequentist methods based on normal approximation, in particular when sizes in meta-analyses are not balanced, but improve when confidence intervals are adjusted. Bayesian methods result in better coverage than the frequentist methods with normal approximation in all scenarios. Credible intervals are empirically and in the simulation study wider than unadjusted confidence intervals, but considerably narrower than adjusted ones. Confidence intervals based on the generalized linear mixed models are in general, slightly narrower than those from other frequentist methods. Certain methods turned out impractical due to frequent numerical problems. In the presence of between-study heterogeneity, especially with unbalanced study sizes, caution is needed in applying meta-analytical methods to few studies, as either coverage probabilities might be compromised, or intervals are inconclusively wide. Bayesian estimation with a sensibly chosen prior for between-trial heterogeneity may offer a promising compromise.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2018

Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis using the bayesmeta R package

The random-effects or normal-normal hierarchical model is commonly utilized in a wide range of meta-analysis applications. A Bayesian approach to inference is very attractive in this context, especially when a meta-analysis is based only on few studies. The bayesmeta R package provides readily accessible tools to perform Bayesian meta-analyses and generate plots and summaries, without having to worry about computational details. It allows for flexible prior specification and instant access to the resulting posterior distributions, including prediction and shrinkage estimation, and facilitating for example quick sensitivity checks. The present paper introduces the underlying theory and showcases its usage.

stat.CO↗
arXiv2018

Model averaging for robust extrapolation in evidence synthesis

Extrapolation from a source to a target, e.g., from adults to children, is a promising approach to utilizing external information when data are sparse. In the context of meta-analysis, one is commonly faced with a small number of studies, while potentially relevant additional information may also be available. Here we describe a simple extrapolation strategy using heavy-tailed mixture priors for effect estimation in meta-analysis, which effectively results in a model-averaging technique. The described method is robust in the sense that a potential prior-data conflict, i.e., a discrepancy between source and target data, is explicitly anticipated. The aim of this paper to develop a solution for this particular application, to showcase the ease of implementation by providing R code, and to demonstrate the robustness of the general approach in simulations.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2018

Meta-analysis of few studies involving rare events

Meta-analyses of clinical trials targeting rare events face particular challenges when the data lack adequate numbers of events for all treatment arms. Especially when the number of studies is low, standard meta-analysis methods can lead to serious distortions because of such data sparsity. To overcome this, we suggest the use of weakly informative priors (WIP) for the treatment effect parameter of a Bayesian meta-analysis model, which may also be seen as a form of penalization. As a data model, we use a binomial-normal hierarchical model (BNHM) which does not require continuity corrections in case of zero counts in one or both arms. We suggest a normal prior for the log odds ratio with mean 0 and standard deviation 2.82, which is motivated (1) as a symmetric prior centred around unity and constraining the odds ratio to within a range from 1/250 to 250 with 95 % probability, and (2) as consistent with empirically observed effect estimates from a set of $\mbox{$37\,773$}$ meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. In a simulation study with rare events and few studies, our BNHM with a WIP outperformed a Bayesian method without a WIP and a maximum likelihood estimator in terms of smaller bias and shorter interval estimates with similar coverage. Furthermore, the methods are illustrated by a systematic review in immunosuppression of rare safety events following paediatric transplantation. A publicly available $\textbf{R}$ package, $\texttt{MetaStan}$, is developed to automate the $\textbf{Stan}$ implementation of meta-analysis models using WIPs.

stat.AP↗
arXiv2017

Discrete approximation of a mixture distribution via restricted divergence

Mixture distributions arise in many application areas, for example as marginal distributions or convolutions of distributions. We present a method of constructing an easily tractable discrete mixture distribution as an approximation to a mixture distribution with a large to infinite number, discrete or continuous, of components. The proposed DIRECT (Divergence Restricting Conditional Tesselation) algorithm is set up such that a pre-specified precision, defined in terms of Kullback-Leibler divergence between true distribution and approximation, is guaranteed. Application of the algorithm is demonstrated in two examples.

stat.CO↗
arXiv2016

Gender differences in appropriate shocks and mortality among patients with primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Some but not all prior studies have shown that women receiving a primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) have a lower risk of death and appropriate shocks than men. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of gender on the risk of appropriate shock, all-cause mortality and inappropriate shock in contemporary studies of patients receiving a primary prophylactic ICD. DATA SOURCE: PubMed, LIVIVO, Cochrane CENTRAL between 2010 and 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Studies providing at least 1 gender-specific risk estimate for the outcomes of interest. DATA EXTRACTION: Abstracts were screened independently for potentially eligible studies for inclusion. Thereby each abstract was reviewed by at least two authors. DATA SYNTHESIS: Out of 680 abstracts retained by our search strategy, 20 studies including 46'657 patients had gender-specific information on at least one of the relevant endpoints. Mean age across the individual studies varied between 58 and 69 years. The proportion of women enrolled ranged from 10% to 30%. Across 6 available studies, women had a significantly lower risk of first appropriate shock compared with men (pooled multivariable adjusted hazard ratio 0.62 (95% CI [0.44; 0.88]). Across 14 studies reporting multivariable adjusted gender-specific hazard ratio estimates for all-cause mortality, women had a lower risk of death than men (pooled hazard ratio 0.75 (95% CI [0.66; 0.86]). There was no statistically significant difference for the incidence of first inappropriate shocks (3 studies, pooled hazard ratio 0.99 (95% CI [0.56; 1.73]). CONCLUSION: In this large contemporary meta-analysis, women had a significantly lower risk of appropriate shocks and death than men, but a similar risk of inappropriate shocks. These data may help to select patients who benefit from primary prophylactic ICD implantation.

physics.med-ph↗
arXiv2016

Using phase II data for the analysis of phase III studies: an application in rare diseases

Clinical research and drug development in orphan diseases is challenging, since large-scale randomized studies are difficult to conduct. Formally synthesizing the evidence is therefore of great value, yet this is rarely done in the drug approval process. Phase III designs that make better use of phase II data can facilitate drug development in orphan diseases. A Bayesian meta-analytic approach is used to inform the phase III study with phase II data. It is particularly attractive, since uncertainty of between-trial heterogeneity can be dealt with probabilistically, which is critical if the number of studies is small. Furthermore, it allows quantifying and discounting the phase II data through the predictive distribution relevant for phase III. A phase III design is proposed which uses the phase II data and considers approval based on a phase III interim analysis. The design is illustrated with a non-inferiority case study from an FDA approval in herpetic keratitis (an orphan disease). Design operating characteristics are compared to those of a traditional design, which ignores the phase II data. An analysis of the phase II data reveals good but insufficient evidence for non-inferiority, highlighting the need for a phase III study. For the phase III study supported by phase II data, the interim analysis is based on half of the patients. For this design, the meta-analytic interim results are conclusive and would justify approval. In contrast, based on the phase III data only, interim results are inconclusive and would require further evidence. To accelerate drug development for orphan diseases, innovative study designs and appropriate methodology are needed. Taking advantage of randomized phase II data when analyzing phase III studies looks promising because the evidence from phase II supports informed decision making. The implementation of the Bayesian design is straightforward.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2016

Meta-analysis of two studies in the presence of heterogeneity with applications in rare diseases

Random-effects meta-analyses are used to combine evidence of treatment effects from multiple studies. Since treatment effects may vary across trials due to differences in study characteristics, heterogeneity in treatment effects between studies must be accounted for to achieve valid inference. The standard model for random-effects meta-analysis assumes approximately normal effect estimates and a normal random-effects model. However, standard methods based on this model ignore the uncertainty in estimating the between-trial heterogeneity. In the special setting of only two studies and in the presence of heterogeneity we investigate here alternatives such as the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method (HKSJ), the modified Knapp-Hartung method (mKH, a variation of the HKSJ method) and Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses with priors covering plausible heterogeneity values. The properties of these methods are assessed by applying them to five examples from various rare diseases and by a simulation study. Whereas the standard method based on normal quantiles has poor coverage, the HKSJ and mKH generally lead to very long, and therefore inconclusive, confidence intervals. The Bayesian intervals on the whole show satisfying properties and offer a reasonable compromise between these two extremes.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2016

Systematic reviews in paediatric multiple sclerosis and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease exemplify shortcomings in methods used to evaluate therapies in rare conditions

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard design of clinical research to assess interventions. However, RCTs cannot always be applied for practical or ethical reasons. To investigate the current practices in rare diseases, we review evaluations of therapeutic interventions in paediatric multiple sclerosis (MS) and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). In particular, we shed light on the endpoints used, the study designs implemented and the statistical methodologies applied. METHODS: We conducted literature searches to identify relevant primary studies. Data on study design, objectives, endpoints, patient characteristics, randomization and masking, type of intervention, control, withdrawals and statistical methodology were extracted from the selected studies. The risk of bias and the quality of the studies were assessed. RESULTS: Twelve (seven) primary studies on paediatric MS (CJD) were included in the qualitative synthesis. No double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial for evaluating interventions in paediatric MS has been published yet. Evidence from one open-label RCT is available. The observational studies are before-after studies or controlled studies. Three of the seven selected studies on CJD are RCTs, of which two received the maximum mark on the Oxford Quality Scale. Four trials are controlled observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from double-blind RCTs on the efficacy of treatments appears to be variable between rare diseases. With regard to paediatric conditions it remains to be seen what impact regulators will have through e.g., paediatric investigation plans. Overall, there is space for improvement by using innovative trial designs and data analysis techniques.

q-bio.QM↗
arXiv2016

Meta-analysis of few small studies in orphan diseases

Meta-analyses in orphan diseases and small populations generally face particular problems including small numbers of studies, small study sizes, and heterogeneity of results. However, the heterogeneity is difficult to estimate if only very few studies are included. Motivated by a systematic review in immunosuppression following liver transplantation in children we investigate the properties of a range of commonly used frequentist and Bayesian procedures in extensive simulation studies. Furthermore, the consequences for interval estimation of the common treatment effect in random effects meta-analysis are assessed. The Bayesian credibility intervals using weakly informative priors for the between-trial heterogeneity exhibited coverage probabilities in excess of the nominal level for a range of scenarios considered. However, they tended to be shorter than those obtained by the Knapp-Hartung method, which were also conservative. In contrast, methods based on normal quantiles exhibited coverages well below the nominal levels in many scenarios. With very few studies, the performance of the Bayesian credibility intervals is of course sensitive to the specification of the prior for the between trial heterogeneity. In conclusion, the use of weakly informative priors as exemplified by half-normal priors (with scale 0.5 or 1.0) for log odds ratios is recommended for applications in rare diseases.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2015

Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman approach and its modification for random-effects meta-analysis with few studies

BACKGROUND: Random-effects meta-analysis is commonly performed by first deriving an estimate of the between-study variation, the heterogeneity, and subsequently using this as the basis for combining results, i.e., for estimating the effect, the figure of primary interest. The heterogeneity variance estimate however is commonly associated with substantial uncertainty, especially in contexts where there are only few studies available, such as in small populations and rare diseases. METHODS: Confidence intervals and tests for the effect may be constructed via a simple normal approximation, or via a Student-t distribution, using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) approach, which additionally uses a refined estimator of variance of the effect estimator. The modified Knapp-Hartung method (mKH) applies an ad hoc correction and has been proposed to prevent counterintuitive effects and to yield more conservative inference. We performed a simulation study to investigate the behaviour of the standard HKSJ and modified mKH procedures in a range of circumstances, with a focus on the common case of meta-analysis based on only a few studies. RESULTS: The standard HKSJ procedure works well when the treatment effect estimates to be combined are of comparable precision, but nominal error levels are exceeded when standard errors vary considerably between studies (e.g. due to variations in study size). Application of the modification on the other hand yields more conservative results with error rates closer to the nominal level. Differences are most pronounced in the common case of few studies of varying size or precision. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the modified mKH procedure is recommended, especially when only a few studies contribute to the meta-analysis and the involved studies' precisions (standard errors) vary.

stat.ME↗