1 / 27

David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics

Network meta-analysis in SAS Danish Society of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, Elsinore, May 27, 2014. David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics Visiting Fellow, SHTAC, University of Southampton. Network Meta-Analysis: Software. winBUGS / OpenBUGS /JAGS (DSU series)

yuma
Télécharger la présentation

David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics

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. Network meta-analysis in SASDanish Society of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, Elsinore, May 27, 2014 David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics Visiting Fellow, SHTAC, University of Southampton

  2. Network Meta-Analysis: Software • winBUGS/OpenBUGS/JAGS (DSU series) • R e.g. rmeta, netmeta, mvmeta packages • Statamvmeta • SAS e.g. procglimmix, procmcmc

  3. A brief history of NMA in SAS • Lots of different procedures to implement NMA in SAS • proc mixed, proc mixed, procnlmixed,procgenmod, proc glimmix1-3 • Frequentist techniques • Difficult to fit complex hierarchical models2 • MCMC techniques • procgenmod (using Easy Bayes) -> procmcmc • SAS 9.2 (level 2M3), SAS 9.3 (sas stat 12) 1 Glenny AM et al, Health Technology Assessment 2005; 9(26) 2 Jones B et al, Pharmaceutical Statistics 2011; 10:523-31 3 Piepho HP et al. Biometrics 2012; 68:1269-77

  4. Potential barriers • DSU series winBUGS-focused • SAS not yet used in UK reimbursement submissions • ERG limited experience of SAS • Limited published code/articles • Validation exercise

  5. Illustrative example 1 - binary data

  6. Syntax: load data data smoking; input Study Trt R N narm; datalines; 1 2 11 78 3 #Mothersill 1988 1 3 12 85 3 #Mothersill 1988 1 4 29 170 3 #Mothersill 1988 • 1 75 731 2 #Reid 1974 … run;

  7. Syntax: fixed effects procmcmc data=smoking nmc=20000 seed=246810; random Studyeffect ~general(0) subject=Study init=(0); random Treat ~general(0) subject=Treatment init=(0) zero="No contact" monitor=(Treat); mu= Studyeffect + Treat; P=1-(1/(1+exp(mu))); model R ~ binomial(n=N, p=P); run;

  8. Syntax: random effects procmcmc data=smoking nbi=20000 nmc=200000 thin=10 seed=246810 monitor=(mysd) dic; random Studyeffect ~normal(0, var=10000) subject=Study init=(0) ; random Treat ~normal(0, var=10000) subject=Treatment init=(0) zero="No contact" monitor=(Treat); parmsmysd 0.2; prior mysd ~ uniform(0,1); random RE ~ normal(0,sd=mysd/sqrt(2)) subject=_OBS_ init=(0); mu= Studyeffect + Treat +RE; P=1-(1/(1+exp(mu))); model R ~ binomial(n=N, p=P); run;

  9. Diagnostics • Trace • Density • Autocorrelation • thin= option • DIC (relative model fit) • dic option

  10. Diagnostics in SAS

  11. Practical exercise 1 • Run the code as is • Compare results for each model • Amend the code to generate fewer MCMC samples, how many are sufficient? How much burn-in is needed? Is thinning necessary in the RE model? • Which model is the better fit, fixed or random effects? • Change the baseline from “no contact” to “self help”. Are the results consistent? • Try changing the priors to other vague priors1, does this affect results? 1 Lambert PC et al, Statistics in Medicine, 2005; 24:2401-28

  12. Results from WinBUGS

  13. Illustrative example 2 - continuous data

  14. RQy449hbr123oxout

  15. Syntax: load data data scott; input study trt baseline y SE; datalines; 1 2 8.5 -1.08 0.12 1 3 8.5 -1.13 0.12 1 1 8.5 0.23 0.2 2 2 8.4 -1 0.1 … ; run;

  16. Syntax: fixed effects procmcmc data=scott nmc=200000 nthin=20 seed=246810; random Studyeffect ~general(0) subject=Study init=(0) ; random Treat ~general(0) subject=Treatment init=(0) zero="Placebo" monitor=(Treat); Mu= Studyeffect + Treat ; model Y ~ normal(mean=Mu, var=SE*SE); run;

  17. Syntax: random effects procmcmc data=scott nmc=200000 nthin=20 seed=246810 monitor=(mysd) outpost=outp7 dic; random Studyeffect ~normal(0,var=10000) subject=Study init=(0) ; random Treat ~normal(0,var=10000) subject=Treatment init=(0) zero="Placebo" monitor=(Treat); parmsmysd 0.2; prior mysd ~ uniform(0,1); random RE ~normal(0,sd=mysd/sqrt(2)) subject=_OBS_ init=(0); Mu= Studyeffect + Treat +RE; model Y ~ normal(mean=Mu, sd=SE); run;

  18. Syntax: fixed effects meta-regression procmcmc data=scott nmc=200000 nthin=20 seed=246810; random Studyeffect ~general(0) subject=Study init=(0) ; random Treat ~general(0) subject=Treatment init=(0) zero="Placebo" monitor=(Treat); parms hba1c 0; prior hba1c ~normal(0,var=10000); Mu= Studyeffect + Treat + baseline*hba1c; model Y ~ normal(mean=Mu, var=SE*SE); run;

  19. Practical exercise 2 • Run the code as is • Compare results for each model • Which model is the better fit, fixed or random effects, or meta-regression? • Amend the code to generate fewer MCMC samples, how many are sufficient? How much burn-in is needed? Is thinning necessary in the RE model? • Change the baseline from “Placebo” to “Insulin Glargine”. Are the results consistent? • Compare results to WinBUGS output • Try changing the priors to other vague priors1, does this affect results? 1 Lambert PC et al, Statistics in Medicine, 2005; 24:2401-28

  20. Results from WinBUGS

  21. Random effects from paper

More Related