Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

For personalized medicine, we propose a general method of evaluating the potential performance of an individualized treatment rule in future clinical applications with new patients. We focus on rules that choose the most beneficial treatment for the patient out of two active (nonplacebo) treatments, which the clinician will prescribe regularly to the patient after the decision. We develop a measure of the individualization potential (IP) of a rule. The IP compares the expected effectiveness of the rule in a future clinical individualization setting versus the effectiveness of not trying individualization. We illustrate our evaluation method by explaining how to measure the IP of a useful type of individualized rules calculated through a new parametric interaction model of data from parallel-group clinical trials with continuous responses. Our interaction model implies a structural equation model we use to estimate the rule and its IP. We examine the IP both theoretically and with simulations when the estimated individualized rule is put into practice in new patients. Our individualization approach was superior to outcome-weighted machine learning according to simulations. We also show connections with crossover and N-of-1 trials. As a real data application, we estimate a rule for the individualization of treatments for diabetic macular edema and evaluate its IP.

Keywords

Latent variables personalized medicine random effects structural equation models treatment-covariate interaction

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Zhao

Zeng

Rush

, et al. Estimating individualized treatment rules using outcome weighted learning. J Am Stat Assoc 2012; 107: 1106–1118.

Zhang

Zeng

. Variable selection for optimal treatment decision. Stat Methods Med Res 2013; 22: 493–504.

Zhao

, et al. Regularized outcome weighted subgroup identification for differential treatment effects. Biometrics 2015; 71: 645–653.

Shi

Song

. Robust learning for optimal treatment decision with NP-dimensionality. Electron J Stat 2016; 10: 2894–2921.

Chen

Tian

Cai

, et al. A general statistical framework for subgroup identification and comparative treatment scoring. Biometrics 2017; 73: 1199–1209.

Liang

. A semiparametric approach to model effect modification. J Am Stat Assoc 2022; 117: 752–764.

Murphy

. Optimal dynamic treatment regimes. J R Stat Soc Series B 2003; 65: 331–355.

Robins

. Optimal structural nested models for optimal sequential decisions. In: Lin

Heagerty

(eds) Proceedings of the second Seattle symposium in biostatistics. New York. Springer, 2004, pp.189–326.

Tsiatis

Davidian

Holloway

, et al. Dynamic treatment regimes: Statistical methods for precision medicine. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2006.

10.

Diaz

Cogollo

Spina

, et al. Drug dosage individualization based on a random-effects linear model. J Biopharm Stat 2012; 22: 463–484.

11.

Cho

Wang

. Personalized treatment for longitudinal data using unspecified random-effects model. Stat Sin 2017; 27: 187–205.

12.

Diaz

. Using population crossover trials to improve the decision process regarding treatment individualization in N-of-1 trials. Stat Med 2021; 40: 4345–4361.

13.

Aiken

West

Reno

. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. New York, NY: Sage, 1991.

14.

Laubender

Mansmann

Lauseker

. Estimating the distribution of heterogeneous treatment effects from treatment responses and from a predictive biomarker in a parallel-group RCT: a structural model approach. Biom J 2020; 62: 697–711.

15.

Wager

Athey

. Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests. J Am Stat Assoc 2018; 113: 1228–1242.

16.

Mayer

. Causal effects based on latent variable models. Methodology (Gott) 2019; 15: 15–28.

17.

Mayer

Dietzfelbinger

Rosseel

, et al. The EffectLiteR approach for analyzing average and conditional effects. Multivar Behav Res 2016; 51: 374–391.

18.

Mayer

Zimmermann

Hoyer

, et al. Interindividual differences in treatment effects based on structural equation models with latent variables: an EffectLiteR tutorial. Struct Equ Model 2020; 27: 798–816.

19.

Diaz

. Measuring the individual benefit of a medical or behavioral treatment using generalized linear mixed-effects models. Stat Med 2016; 35: 4077–4092.

20.

Diaz

. Estimating individual benefits of medical or behavioral treatments in severely ill patients. Stat Methods Med Res 2019; 28: 911–927.

21.

Zhang

Crespo-Facorro

de Leon

, et al. Measuring individual benefits of psychiatric treatment using longitudinal binary outcomes: application to antipsychotic benefits in non-cannabis and cannabis users. J Biopharm Stat 2020; 30: 916–940.

22.

Wells

Glassman

Ayala

, et al. Aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema. N Engl J Med 2015; 26: 1193–1203.

23.

Shi

Song

. A sparse random projection-based test for overall qualitative treatment effects. J Am Stat Assoc 2020; 115: 1201–1213.

24.

Foster

Taylor

Ruberg

. Subgroup identification from randomized clinical trial data. Stat Med 2011; 30: 2867–2880.

25.

Steyer

. Analyzing individual and average causal effects via structural equation models. Methodology (Gott) 2005; 1: 39–54.

26.

Frees

. Longitudinal and panel data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

27.

Cheung

. Implementing restricted maximum likelihood estimation in structural equation models. Struct Equ Model 2013; 20: 157–167.

28.

Dhaene

Rosseel

. Resampling based bias correction for small sample SEM. Struct Equ Model 2022; 29: 755–771.

29.

Senn

. Cross-over trials in clinical research. West Sussex: Wiley, 2002.

30.

Senn

. Mastering variation: variance components and personalized medicine. Stat Med 2016; 35: 966–977.

31.

Zucker

Schmid

McIntosh

, et al. Combining single patient (N-of-1) trials to estimate population treatment effects and to evaluate individual patient responses to treatment. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 401–410.

32.

Qian

Cheng

, et al. Personalized policy learning using longitudinal mobile health data. J Am Stat Assoc 2021; 116: 410–420.

33.

Stunnenberg

Raaphorst

Groenewoud

, et al. Effect of mexiletine on muscle stiffness in patients with nondystrophic myotonia evaluated using aggregated N-of-1 trials. JAMA 2018; 320: 2344–2353.

34.

Wang

Diaz

. A graphical approach to assess the goodness-of-fit of random-effects linear models when the goal is to measure individual benefits of medical treatments in severely ill patients. BMC Med Res Methodol 2020; 20: 193.

35.

Diaz

Berg

Krebill

, et al. Random-effects linear modeling and sample size tables for two special cross-over designs of average bioequivalence studies: the 4-period, 2-sequence, 2-formulation and 6-period, 3-sequence, 3-formulation designs. Clin Pharmacokinet 2013; 52: 1033–1043.

36.

Woodward

. Epidemiology, study design and data analysis. 3rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2014.

37.

Lindholm

Wahlstrom

Lindsten

, et al. Machine learning: A first course for engineers and scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022.

38.

James

Witten

Hastie

, et al. An introduction to statistical learning: With applications in R. New York: Springer, 2013.

39.

Verplancke

Van Looy

Benoit

, et al. Support vector machine versus logistic regression modeling for prediction of hospital mortality in critically ill patients with haematological malignancies. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008; 8: 56.

40.

Schauwvlieghe

Dijkman

Hooymans

, et al. Comparing the effectiveness of bevacizumab to ranibizumab in patients with exudative age-related macular degeneration. The BRAMD study. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0153052.

41.

Kline

. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. New York: Guilford Press, 2016.

42.

Castillo

Hadi

Balakrishnan

, et al. Extreme value and related models with applications in engineering and science. New York: Wiley, 2004.

43.

Zhang

Pantazis

de Leon

, et al. Measuring individual benefits of medical treatments using longitudinal hospital data with non-ignorable missing responses caused by patient discharge: application to the study of benefits of pain management post spinal fusion. Rev Colomb Estad 2022; 45: 275–300.

44.

Gail

Simon

. Testing for qualitative interactions between treatment effects and patient subsets. Biometrics 1985; 41: 361–372.

45.

Gunter

Zhu

Murphy

. Variable selection for qualitative interactions. Stat Methodol 2011; 8: 42–55.

46.

Chang

Lee

Whang

. Nonparametric tests of conditional treatment effects with an application to single-sex schooling on academic achievements. Econom J 2015; 18: 307–346.

47.

Hsu

. Consistent tests for conditional treatment effects. Econom J. 2017; 20: 1–22.

48.

Dusseldorp

Van Mechelen

. Qualitative interaction trees: a tool to identify qualitative treatment—subgroup interactions. Stat Med. 2014; 33: 219–237.

49.

Rubin

. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J Educ Psychol 1974; 66: 688–701.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.19 MB

0.00 MB

0.35 MB

0.14 MB

Measuring the individualization potential of treatment individualization rules: Application to rules built with a new parametric interaction model for parallel-group clinical trials

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material