1 / 38

Evaluating Correlates of Risk in HIV Vaccine Trials

Evaluating Correlates of Risk in HIV Vaccine Trials. JoAnna Scott Biostat 578a – Vaccine Efficacy March 7, 2006. Research Questions.

jana
Download Presentation

Evaluating Correlates of Risk in HIV Vaccine Trials

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. Evaluating Correlates of Risk in HIV Vaccine Trials JoAnna Scott Biostat 578a – Vaccine Efficacy March 7, 2006

  2. Research Questions • Within an HIV vaccine trial, there is much interest in determining how a vaccine protects against infection and how long that vaccine will be able to protect against infection before requiring boosting. • I am interested in trying to determine how to answer these questions.

  3. Research Questions • What immune responses seem to be associated with protection from HIV infection? • Is immune response a surrogate of protection? • What is the durability of the vaccine efficacy?

  4. Correlates of Risk (Q1) • Question 1: What immune responses are associated with the rate of infection? • This question attempts to answer which immune responses are correlates of risk (COR). • Correlates of risk: individual level predictors of risk

  5. Correlates of Risk (Q1) • How to find CORS? • Traditionally, examine the immune responses of individuals who recover naturally from the disease. • Not possible as of yet with HIV infection. • Estimate from vaccine trials. • Need a different type of analysis that would require immune response measures collected on more people than in a standard trial design.

  6. Case-Cohort Analysis (Q1) • How to find CORS? • Use a case-cohort analysis. • In April of 1986, Ross Prentice published a paper in Biometrika introducing the case-cohort design (1). • This innovative design uses a sub-sampling technique in survival data for estimating the relative risk of disease in a cohort study without collecting data from the entire cohort.

  7. Case-Cohort Background • This type of study was originally designed to allow efficient analysis of studies where the population size was too large to collect detailed data on all the participants, e.g. large survey studies. • These types of studies have large sample sizes which makes it too expensive and time consuming to analyze all data on all subjects.

  8. Case-Cohort Background • Prentice proposed randomly selecting a subcohort from the original sample at entry and only analyzing data on members of the subcohort and all cases. • Raw data is collected on all subjects, but the data would only be analyzed on cases and subcohort members.

  9. Case-Cohort Background • For example, blood samples would be collected over time for all study participants and frozen for storage. Then, the biochemical analysis for specific covariates would only be performed on participants in the randomly selected subcohort or subjects that developed the disease of interest.

  10. Case-Cohort Design: Time to Event • We are primarily interested in estimating the relative risk (hazard ratio) in the case of time to event data.

  11. Case-Cohort Design: Time to Event

  12. Case-Cohort Design: Time to Event

  13. Case-Cohort Design: Time to Event • Suppose a random subcohort C of size m is selected from the entire cohort and that {Ni , Yi} are available for all cohort members. • However, covariate histories are only available for the members of C and for subjects that fail.

  14. Case-Cohort Design: Time to Event • This pseudo-likelihood differs from the partial likelihood in that the denominator is summing over subjects at risk in R(ti) rather than subjects at risk in the entire cohort

  15. Case-Cohort Design: Time to Event

  16. Case-Cohort Design: Time to Event

  17. Case-Cohort Design: Time to Event

  18. Case-Cohort Design: Time to Event • So asymptotic properties of will derive from those of the score statistic . • Note that one cannot just use theory developed for survival analysis to work through the asymptotic properties of this function. To use that theory we would need to include everyone who was at risk and who died at each time point.

  19. Case-Cohort Design: Time to Event • In the case-cohort pseudo-likelihood, we are not including everyone at risk for each time point. We are adding cases into our dataset later that were not necessarily in earlier risk sets. • This means that the risk sets are not nested.

  20. Case-Cohort Design: Time to Event • In 1988, Self and Prentice (3) developed the asymptotic theory behind the relative risk estimate for the case-cohort design. They produced an estimate that was asymptotically equivalent to . Their variance estimator turned out to be quite algebraically complex.

  21. Case-Cohort Design: Time to Event • In 1998, Therneau and Li (4) published a technical report describing how to obtain these parameter and variance estimates using any proportional hazards regression program that support an offset command, dfbeta residuals, and the (start, stop] notation to describe risk intervals, i.e. the S-plus coxph command and the SAS phreg command.

  22. Case-Cohort Design: Time to Event • They noticed that you could rewrite the variance estimate in a computationally easy manner. • a

  23. Case-Cohort Design: Time to Event • In S-plus, simply use the proportional hazard model to get the parameter estimate. Then fix-up the variance using the previous formula. An example follows: • dfbeta <- resid(fit, type=‘dfbeta’) d2<-dfbeta[data$subcohort==1] fit$naive.var <- fit$var fit$var <- fit$var + (1-alpha)*t(d2)%*%d2

  24. Case-Cohort Design • This case-cohort design that Prentice developed has been modified by several different people resulting in many estimators available for use in finding CORs in an HIV vaccine trial. • Kulich and Lin (6) has divided the estimators into two categories, N-estimators and D-estimators.

  25. Q1: Correlates of Risk • The Borgan estimator II (a D-estimator) appears to be the estimator that I would choose for answering question 1. • Advantage: Tends to be more efficient, allows prospective and retrospective sampling, can account for time dependency of covariates. • Disadvantage: To get unbiased estimates, you need the entire covariate history of the cases. • Need to plan for in trial design.

  26. Q2: Surrogates of Protection • Q2: What immune responses are surrogates of protection? • Surrogates of Protection: individual or group level predictors of vaccine efficacy (i.e. surrogate endpoints). • Essentially, we are interested in determining if causal vaccine effects on immune response predict causal vaccine effects on risk.

  27. Q2: Surrogates of Protection • Traditionally, use a meta-analysis to compare hazard ratios of immune response on HIV infection rates across several different trials. • However, multiple trials on individual vaccines typically don’t happen.

  28. Q3: Durability of VE • To examine the durability of vaccine efficacy, we will need to be able to examine VE over time. • The methods I am interested in using to look at the question is a Stepped Wedge Design (7) trial.

  29. Stepped Wedge Design Time • Cluster Randomized Trial • Multiple time points • Time of cross-over is randomized • Cross-over only occurs in one direction Cluster

  30. Stepped Wedge Design • Allows for a model based analysis • Has reduced sensitivity to between-cluster variation • Controls for temporal trends • Can be useful in a Phase III trial to support licensure and after licensure in Phase IV trials. • Allows for measuring durability of vaccine efficacy over long term follow-up.

  31. Research Questions • The most efficient way to look at these questions is with one trial. • I.e., Performing a case-cohort analysis within a stepped wedge trial. • This would need to be accounted for during the trial design.

  32. Research Questions (Q1) • Using a case-cohort analysis within a stepped wedge trial requires some additional research. • The case-cohort analysis would result in a log-hazard ratio for each the clusters. Hence we would need to perform a test of homogeneity. • What test would you use? • If the test result was that the log-hazard ratios were homogeneous, how would you combine them into one log hazard ratio?

  33. Research Questions (Q2) • Using a stepped wedge design is a novel way to design a mock meta-analysis. • We need to perform a meta-analysis to determine if immune response is a causal surrogate of protection. • First to determine causation, we would like to create a random intervention to get a contrast in a potential surrogate.

  34. Research Questions (Q2) • So basically we want to randomly introduce different levels of immune response. • One way this could be done is to have a high and low dose of vaccine, which should introduce a high and low level of immune response in the participants. • For example, use a 3 arm trial: high and low dose and a placebo arm. • Set the 3 arm trial within a stepped wedge trial

  35. Research Questions (Q2) • Can treat the different clusters comparisons from a stepped wedge design trial as a meta-analysis. • For example, suppose that there are 9 clusters, 3 for each arm, then comparing all low dose hazard ratios to each other, all high dose, and all placebo to come up with what simulates 3 trials to compare in a meta-analysis.

  36. Research Questions (Q3) • The stepped wedge design at present does not account for time effects across the steps, which is necessary to be able to measure durability of the vaccine efficacy. • How could the method be updated to account for these time effects?

  37. Acknowledgements • Much thanks to Pamela Shaw, Jim Hughes, and Peter Gilbert for all their help.

  38. References • Prentice R.L., “A case-cohort design for epidemiologic cohort studies and disease prevention trials” Biometrika: 73(1), 1986 pgs 1-11. • Prentice R.L, Pyke R., “Logistic disease incidence models and case-control studies”. Biometrika: 66(3), 1979 pgs 403-11. • Self S.G., Prentice R.L., “Asymptotic distribution theory and efficiency results for case-cohort studies”. The Ann. of Stat.: 16(1), 1988 pgs 64-81. • Therneau T.M., Li H., “Computing the Cox Model for Case Cohort Designs”. Technical Report Series Section of Biostatistics: 62, June 1998. • Gilbert P.B, et al., “Correlation between Immunologic Responses to a Recombinant Glycoprotein 120 Vaccine and Incidence of HIV-1 Infection in a Phase 3 HIV-1 Preventive Vaccine Trial”. Journ. Infect. Dis.: 191 March 1, 2005 pgs. 666-77. • Kulich, M. and Lin, D.Y., “Improving the Efficiency of Relative Risk Estimation in Case-Cohort Studies”. JASA: 99(467), Sept. 2004. pgs. 832 – 844. • Hussey M. and Hughes J. “Cluster Randomized Crossover Designs: Design and Analysis of the Stepped Wedge Design”, Biostat 578 Website -- http://faculty.washington.edu/peterg/Vaccine2006/articles/HusseyHughes.pdf

More Related