1 / 21

Biostatistics in Practice

Biostatistics in Practice. Session 6: Case Study. Peter D. Christenson Biostatistician http://gcrc.LABioMed.org/Biostat. Case Study. Hall S et al: A comparative study of Carvedilol, slow release Nifedipine, and Atenolol in the management of essential hypertension.

osanna
Télécharger la présentation

Biostatistics in Practice

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Biostatistics in Practice Session 6: Case Study Peter D. Christenson Biostatistician http://gcrc.LABioMed.org/Biostat

  2. Case Study Hall S et al: A comparative study of Carvedilol, slow release Nifedipine, and Atenolol in the management of essential hypertension. J of Cardiovascular Pharmacology 1991;18(4)S35-38. Data is available at the class website: http://gcrc.LABioMed.org/Biostat Select Courses > Biostatistics in Practice 2005 > Session 6 > Data

  3. Case Study Outline Subjects randomized to one of 3 drugs for controlling hypertension: A: Carvedilol (new) B: Nifedipine (standard) C: Atenolol (standard) Blood pressure and HR measured at baseline and 5 post-treatment periods. Primary analysis ? “The present study compares … A, B, and C for the management of … hypertension.”

  4. Data Collected for Sitting dbp * 1 hour after 1st dose. We do not have data for this visit.

  5. Sitting dbp from Figure 2 of the Paper Baseline A: Carvedilol B: Nifedipine C: Atenolol A 2 Weeks B C

  6. Question #1 Describe dbp at baseline for the study population. Give an appropriate graphical display, and summarize dbp with just a few numbers. Is the mean appropriate? Would the median be better? Is a transformation necessary?

  7. Answer #1 N = 255 Mean = 102.68 SD = 4.63 SEM = 0.29 Min = 92 Max =117 Median = 102. Log-transformation gives geometric mean = 102.58. No transformation is necessary. Mean is best. 95% of subjects between ~ 102.68 ± 2(4.63) = 93.42 to 111.94

  8. Question #2 It appears that group B may have had lower dbp at baseline than group A, on the average. Is there evidence for this? Is the lower group B mean dbp lower (relative to A) than expected by chance? Write out a formal test for this question, and use software to perform the test.

  9. Answer #2, Part 1 Drug Mean ± SD A 102.9 ± 4.8 B 102.2 ± 4.3 C 103.0 ± 4.8 So, the mean for B is low, as in the earlier figure, but the overall distribution is similar to that for A and C, so this is entirely due to chance, but we will formally test B vs. A on the next slide. [Would use ANOVA to include C.]

  10. Answer #2, Part 2 We are formally testing, where μx represents the mean baseline dbp among those who eventually receive treatment x: H0: μA = μB vs. HA: μA≠μB Since μA – μB is estimated by 0.75 with a SE of 0.71 , tc = 0.75/0.71 = 1.05 is not larger (~ >2) than expected by random fluctuation (p=0.29), so there is not sufficient evidence that the A and B groups differed in their baseline dbp. Note that we do not expect A and B to differ at baseline due to the randomization in the study design.

  11. Question #3 How much can a patient’s dbp be expected to be lowered after 2 weeks of therapy with A? We are 95% sure that this lowering will be between what two values? Repeat for drug C. Do the intervals for A and for C overlap considerably? Can this overlapping be used to compare A and C in their dbp lowering ability?

  12. Answer #3 How much can a patient’s dbp be expected to be lowered after 2 weeks of therapy with A? with C? We are 95% sure that this lowering will be between what two values? Ans: Drug Estimated Δ ~95% Prediction Interval A 8.13 8.13 ± 2*9.1 = -10.1 to 26.3 C 11.5 11.5 ± 2*8.7 = - 5.9 to 28.9 The intervals for A and for C do overlap considerably. However, to compare A and C, we need to examine not these expected intervals for individuals, but rather the precision of ΔC – ΔA estimated from this study, which incorporates the Ns.

  13. Question #4 Is there evidence that A and C differ in their dbp lowering ability at 2 weeks post-therapy? Formally test for this. Give a 95% confidence interval for the C-A difference in change in dbp after 2 weeks.

  14. Answer #4 Is there evidence that A and C differ in their dbp lowering ability at 2 weeks post-therapy? Ans: Test H0: ΔA-ΔC = 0 vs. HA: ΔA-ΔC ≠ 0with t-test: Estimate ΔA-ΔC with 3.39, with SE of 1.36. Since tc = 3.39/1.36 = 2.50 exceeds ~2, choose HA. 95% CI for ΔA-ΔC is 3.39±2*1.36 = 0.67 to 6.11, which does not include 0, so choose HA.

  15. Question #5 Is there evidence that B and A differ in their dbp lowering ability at 2 weeks post-therapy? We want to examine whether the study was large enough to detect a difference in 2 week changes in dbp between B and A. To do so, we need the SD of these changes among subjects receiving B and among subjects receiving A. Find these SDs.

  16. Answer #5 Is there evidence that B and A differ in their dbp lowering ability at 2 weeks post-therapy? Ans: Test H0: ΔB-ΔA = 0 vs. HA: ΔB-ΔA ≠ 0with t-test: From software: Estimate ΔB-ΔA by 0.96, with SE = 1.35. Since tc = 0.96/1.35 = 0.71 < ~2, choose H0 (p=0.48). SD for B is 8.29 and SD for A is 9.08.

  17. Question #6 • Estimate the true minimal difference in 2 week changes in dbp between B and A that this study was able to detect. • Use the conventional risks of making incorrect conclusions that the FDA typically requires. • Set both risks of an incorrect conclusion at ≤5%.

  18. Typical Statistical Power Software

  19. Answer #6 • Use the conventional risks of making incorrect conclusions that the FDA typically requires. • Use α=0.05, power=0.80, NA=83, NB=82, SDA=9.08, SDB=8.29. Find Δ from a power calculation to be 3.8. • 2. Set both risks of an incorrect conclusion at ≤5%. • Use α=0.05, power=0.95, NA=83, NB=82, SDA=9.08, SDB=8.29. Find Δ from a power calculation to be 4.9.

  20. Question #7 Suppose that differences in 2 week changes in dbp between B and C of <2 mmHg is clinically irrelevant, but we would like to detect larger differences with 80% certainty. How large should such a study be?

  21. Answer #7 Suppose that differences in 2 week changes in dbp between B and C of <2 mmHg is clinically irrelevant, but we would like to detect larger differences with 80% certainty. How large should such a study be? Ans: Use α=0.05, power=0.80, SDA=9.08, SDB=8.29, Δ=2. From a power calculation , NA = NB = 298.

More Related