We propose a novel recursive partitioning method for identifying subgroups of subjects with enhanced treatment effects based on a differential effect search algorithm. The idea is to build a collection of subgroups by recursively partitioning a database into two subgroups at each parent group, such that the treatment effect within one of the two subgroups is maximized compared with the other subgroup. The process of data splitting continues until a predefined stopping condition has been satisfied. The method is similar to 'interaction tree' approaches that allow incorporation of a treatment-by-split interaction in the splitting criterion. However, unlike other tree-based methods, this method searches only within specific regions of the covariate space and generates multiple subgroups of potential interest. We develop this method and provide guidance on key topics of interest that include generating multiple promising subgroups using different splitting criteria, choosing optimal values of complexity parameters via cross-validation, and addressing Type I error rate inflation inherent in data mining applications using a resampling-based method. We evaluate the operating characteristics of the procedure using a simulation study and illustrate the method with a clinical trial example.

It is well known that both the direction and magnitude of the treatment effect in clinical trials are often affected by baseline patient characteristics (generally referred to as biomarkers). Characterization of treatment effect heterogeneity plays a central role in the field of personalized medicine and facilitates the development of tailored therapies. This tutorial focuses on a general class of problems arising in data-driven subgroup analysis, namely, identification of biomarkers with strong predictive properties and patient subgroups with desirable characteristics such as improved benefit and/or safety. Limitations of ad-hoc approaches to biomarker exploration and subgroup identification in clinical trials are discussed, and the ad-hoc approaches are contrasted with principled approaches to exploratory subgroup analysis based on recent advances in machine learning and data mining. A general framework for evaluating predictive biomarkers and identification of associated subgroups is introduced. The tutorial provides a review of a broad class of statistical methods used in subgroup discovery, including global outcome modeling methods, global treatment effect modeling methods, optimal treatment regimes, and local modeling methods. Commonly used subgroup identification methods are illustrated using two case studies based on clinical trials with binary and survival endpoints. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Propensity scores have been used widely as a bias reduction method to estimate the treatment effect in nonrandomized studies. Since many covariates are generally included in the model for estimating the propensity scores, the proportion of subjects with at least one missing covariate could be large. While many methods have been proposed for propensity score-based estimation in the presence of missing covariates, little has been published comparing the performance of these methods. In this article we propose a novel method called multiple imputation missingness pattern (MIMP) and compare it with the naive estimator (ignoring propensity score) and three commonly used methods of handling missing covariates in propensity score-based estimation (separate estimation of propensity scores within each pattern of missing data, multiple imputation and discarding missing data) under different mechanisms of missing data and degree of correlation among covariates. Simulation shows that all adjusted estimators are much less biased than the naive estimator. Under certain conditions MIMP provides benefits (smaller bias and mean-squared error) compared with existing alternatives.

Several approaches to identification of predictive biomarkers and subgroups of patients with enhanced treatment effect have been proposed in the literature. The SIDES method introduced in Lipkovich et al. (2011) adopts a recursive partitioning algorithm for screening treatment-by-biomarker interactions. This article introduces an improved biomarker discovery/subgroup search method (SIDEScreen). The SIDEScreen method relies on a two-stage procedure that first selects a small number of biomarkers with the highest predictive ability based on an appropriate variable importance score and then identifies subgroups with enhanced treatment effect based on the selected biomarkers. The two-stage approach helps increase the signal-to-noise ratio by screening out noninformative biomarkers. We evaluate operating characteristics of the standard SIDES method and two SIDEScreen procedures based on fixed and adaptive screens. Our main finding is that the adaptive SIDEScreen method is a more flexible biomarker discovery tool than SIDES and it better handles multiplicity in complex subgroup search problems. The methods presented in the article are illustrated using a clinical trial example.

For 24 weeks, olanzapine-treated patients had greater and more sustained participation in treatment, during which time significantly greater improvements were observed in depressive symptoms and GAF scores, along with increases in weight and certain metabolic parameters as compared with ziprasidone-treated patients.

The biplot display is a graph of row and column markers obtained from data that forms a twoway table. The markers are calculated from the singular value decomposition of the data matrix. The biplot display may be used with many multivariate methods to display relationships between variables and objects. It is commonly used in ecological applications to plot relationships between species and sites. This paper describes a set of Excel  macros that may be used to draw a biplot display based on results from principal components analysis, correspondence analysis, canonical discriminant analysis, metric multidimensional scaling, redundancy analysis, canonical correlation analysis or canonical correspondence analysis. The macros allow for a variety of transformations of the data prior to the singular value decomposition and scaling of the markers following the decomposition.

This article focuses on a broad class of statistical and clinical considerations related to the assessment of treatment effects across patient subgroups in late-stage clinical trials. This article begins with a comprehensive review of clinical trial literature and regulatory guidelines to help define scientifically sound approaches to evaluating subgroup effects in clinical trials. All commonly used types of subgroup analysis are considered in the article, including different variations of prospectively defined and post-hoc subgroup investigations. In the context of confirmatory subgroup analysis, key design and analysis options are presented, which includes conventional and innovative trial designs that support multi-population tailoring approaches. A detailed summary of exploratory subgroup analysis (with the purpose of either consistency assessment or subgroup identification) is also provided. The article promotes a more disciplined approach to post-hoc subgroup identification and formulates key principles that support reliable evaluation of subgroup effects in this setting.

An important evolution in the missing data arena has been the recognition of need for clarity in objectives. The objectives of primary focus in clinical trials can often be categorized as assessing efficacy or effectiveness. The present investigation illustrated a structured framework for choosing estimands and estimators when testing investigational drugs to treat the symptoms of chronic illnesses. Key issues were discussed and illustrated using a reanalysis of the confirmatory trials from a new drug application in depression. The primary analysis used a likelihood-based approach to assess efficacy: mean change to the planned endpoint of the trial assuming patients stayed on drug. Secondarily, effectiveness was assessed using a multiple imputation approach. The imputation model-derived solely from the placebo group-was used to impute missing values for both the drug and placebo groups. Therefore, this so-called placebo multiple imputation (a.k.a. controlled imputation) approach assumed patients had reduced benefit from the drug after discontinuing it. Results from the example data provided clear evidence of efficacy for the experimental drug and characterized its effectiveness. Data after discontinuation of study medication were not required for these analyses. Given the idiosyncratic nature of drug development, no estimand or approach is universally appropriate. However, the general practice of pairing efficacy and effectiveness estimands may often be useful in understanding the overall risks and benefits of a drug. Controlled imputation approaches, such as placebo multiple imputation, can be a flexible and transparent framework for formulating primary analyses of effectiveness estimands and sensitivity analyses for efficacy estimands.