Research Article

Bayesian Meta-Analysis to Validate Correlate of Protection for High Vaccine Efficacy Clinical Trials

Igwebuike Enweonye
Biometrica Igwebuike Enweonye BV, Belgium
* Corresponding author
Edith Uzoma Umeh
Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Nigeria
DOI icon 10.24018/compute.2022.2.1.34

Read Counter
234

Downloads
225

Citations

Share

Article Sidebar

Submitted 2021-10-12
Published 2022-02-26

Read counter = 234 times

Table of Contents

Article Main Content

In clinical trials, a correlate (surrogate) of protection (CoP) endpoint must be properly validated through rigorous sound methods before it may be approved for use. The validation of surrogate in the context of high vaccine efficacy trials, however, poses great challenge due to sparse data; and conventional methods for statistical validation of surrogate are no longer adequate. Although idea of surrogacy was developed in the context of a single trial, the meta-analytic approach, which allows both individual and trial level surrogacy, has become well accepted. However, the meta-analytic joint bivariate full models suffer computational issues. To ease the challenge, aggregate data may be used but it leads to loss of information. In this manuscript the direct application of individual level (instead of aggregate) data in a Bayesian Hierarchical Modelling framework was proposed. The proposed method uses reduced bivariate models with trial specific random effects of treatment on the endpoints and no correlated residuals. Simulated data consist several scenarios, each of which has 5000 participants data, 50 subgroups (used as trials) characterised by size of 100 participants per trial randomised in the ratio 1:1 to vaccinated and unvaccinated treatment groups. The meta-analysis showed improved quality of the CoP compared to literature based on aggregate data. There were no computational issues with the proposed hierarchical model.

2.11.0.0
Keywords: Validation, Surrogate, clinical endpoint, Bayesian, Hierarchical Modelling

References

  1. M. Voysey, M. Sadarangani, A. J. Pollard, and T. R. Fanshawe, “Com-puting threshold antibody levels of protection in vaccine clinical trials: An assessment of methodological bias,” PloS one, vol. 13, no. 9, 2018.
     Google Scholar
  2. A. Callegaro and F. Tibaldi, “Assessing correlates of protection in vac-cine trials: statistical solutions in the context of high vaccine efficacy,” BMC medical research methodology, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 47, 2019.
     Google Scholar
  3. M. Buyse and G. Molenberghs, “Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments,” Biometrics, pp. 1014–1029, 1998.
     Google Scholar
  4. S. S. Ellenberg and J. M. Hamilton, “Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: cancer,” Statistics in medicine, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 405–413, 1989.
     Google Scholar
  5. T. Burzykowski, G. Molenberghs, and M. Buyse, The evaluation of surrogate endpoints. Springer Science & Business Media, 2006.
     Google Scholar
  6. FDA et al., “Surrogate endpoint resources for drug and biologic development,” 2018.
     Google Scholar
  7. R. L. Prentice, “Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria,” Statistics in medicine, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 431–440, 1989.
     Google Scholar
  8. M. Buyse, G. Molenberghs, T. Burzykowski, D. Renard, and H. Geys, “The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments,” Biostatistics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 49–67, 2000.
     Google Scholar
  9. T. R. Fleming, R. L. Prentice, M. S. Pepe, and D. Glidden, “Surrogate and auxiliary endpoints in clinical trials, with potential applications in cancer and aids research,” Statistics in medicine, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 955–
     Google Scholar
  10. , 1994.
     Google Scholar
  11. G. Molenberghs, M. Buyse, and T. Burzykowski, “The history of surrogate endpoint validation,” in The evaluation of surrogate endpoints, pp. 67–82, Springer, 2005.
     Google Scholar
  12. M. J. Daniels and M. D. Hughes, “Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers,” Statistics in medicine, vol. 16, no. 17, pp. 1965–1982, 1997.
     Google Scholar
  13. M. H. Gail, R. Pfeiffer, H. C. Van Houwelingen, and R. J. Carroll, “On meta-analytic assessment of surrogate outcomes,” Biostatistics, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 231–246, 2000.
     Google Scholar
  14. Z. Shkedy and F. T. Barbosa, “Bayesian evaluation of surrogate endpoints,” in The Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints, pp. 253–270, Springer, 2005.
     Google Scholar
  15. L. Qin, P. B. Gilbert, L. Corey, M. J. McElrath, and S. G. Self, “A framework for assessing immunological correlates of protection in vaccine trials,” The Journal of infectious diseases, vol. 196, no. 9, pp. 1304–1312, 2007.
     Google Scholar
  16. A. Alonso, W. Van der Elst, G. Molenberghs, M. Buyse, and T. Burzykowski, “On the relationship between the causal-inference and meta-analytic paradigms for the validation of surrogate endpoints,” Biometrics, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 15–24, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  17. D. Renard and H. Geys, “Meta-analytic validation with binary out-comes,” in The Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints, pp. 153–162, Springer, 2005.
     Google Scholar
  18. A. Gelman, J. B. Carlin, H. S. Stern, D. B. Dunson, A. Vehtari, and D. B. Rubin, Bayesian data analysis. CRC press, 2013.
     Google Scholar
  19. A. Gelman and C. R. Shalizi, “Philosophy and the practice of bayesian statistics,” British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 8–38, 2013.
     Google Scholar
  20. R.G.Gallager,Stochasticprocesses:theoryforapplications.Cambridge University Press, 2013.
     Google Scholar
  21. P. Congdon, Applied bayesian modelling, vol. 595. John Wiley & Sons, 2014.
     Google Scholar
  22. W. R. Gilks and P. Wild, “Adaptive rejection sampling for gibbs sampling,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 337–348, 1992.
     Google Scholar
  23. S. P. Brooks, E. A. Catchpole, and B. J. Morgan, “Bayesian animal survival estimation,” Statistical Science, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 357–376, 2000.
     Google Scholar