Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:21:04.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bridging the gap between aggregate data and individual patient management: A Bayesian approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2011

Gert Jan van der Wilt ,
Hans Groenewoud  and
Piet van Riel
Gert Jan van der Wilt
Affiliation:
Radboud University Medical Centre
Hans Groenewoud
Affiliation:
Radboud University Medical Centre
Piet van Riel
Affiliation:
Radboud University Medical Centre
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore whether Bayesian reasoning can be applied to therapeutic questions in a way that is similar to its application in diagnostics.

Methods: A clinically relevant, therapeutic question was formulated in accordance with Bayesian reasoning for the clinical management of patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Prior probability estimates of response to drug treatment (methotrexate, MTX) were obtained from the literature. As a marker of treatment response, changes in the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores were assessed after three months of treatment. Likelihood ratios for this marker were calculated on the basis of data from a clinical registry, using changes in the Disease Activity Score (DAS) as gold standard. Using Bayes’ theorem, prior probability and likelihood ratios were combined to estimate posterior probabilities of treatment response in individual patients.

Results: On the basis of the literature, the prior probability of response of RA patients to MTX was estimated 45 percent. At 3 months follow-up, this probability increased to 80 percent or decreased to 23 percent, depending on the changes that were observed in Health Assessment Questionnaire scores.

Conclusions: Bayesian reasoning can be applied to therapeutic issues in a way that is conceptually fully compatible with its use in diagnostics. As such, it can be used to bridge the gap between aggregate data and individual patient management.

Keywords

Evidence-based medicineBayesian reasoningIndividual patient managementRheumatoid arthritisDrug treatment
Type
METHODS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 133 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Avorn, J. Debate about funding comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1927–1929.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Barrera, P, Van Der Maas, A, van Ede, AE, Kiemeney, BA, Laan, RF, van de Putte, LB, van Riel, PL. Drug survival, efficacy and toxicity of monotherapy with a fully human anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha antibody compared with methotrexate in long-standing rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2002;41:430–439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Birnbaum, MH. Bayesian calculator. 1999. http://psych.fullerton.edu/mbirnbaum/bayes/BayesCalc.htm (accessed December 10, 2010).Google Scholar
4. Bruce, B, Fries, JF. The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire: A review of its history, issues, progress, and documentation. J Rheumatol. 2003;30:167–178.Google ScholarPubMed
5. Emery, P, Breedveld, FC, Hall, S, et al. Comparison of methotrexate monotherapy with a combination of methotrexate and etanercept in active, early, moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (COMET): A randomised, double-blind, parallel treatment trial. Lancet. 2008;372:375–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Fransen, J, van Riel, PC. The disease activity score and EULAR response criteria. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005;23 (Suppl 39):S93–S99.Google ScholarPubMed
7. Garber, AM, Tunis, SR. Does comparative-effectiveness research threaten personalized medicine? N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1925–1927.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Gelman, A. Objections to Bayesian statistics. Bayesian Analysis. 2008;3:445–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Goodman, SN. Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 1: The P value fallacy. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:995–1004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Goodman, SN. Introduction to Bayesian methods I: Measuring the strength of evidence. Clin Trials. 2005;2:282–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Greenhalgh, T, Worrall, JG. From EBM to CSM: The evolution of context-sensitive medicine. J Eval Clin Pract. 1997;3:105–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Grimes, DA, Schulz, KF. Refining clinical diagnosis with likelihood ratios. Lancet. 2005;365:1500–1505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Kuper, H, Nicholson, A, Kivimaki, M, et al. Evaluating the causal relevance of diverse risk markers: Horizontal systematic review. BMJ. 2009;339:b4265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Naik, AD, Petersen, LA. The neglected purpose of comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1929–1931.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Sackett, DL, Rosenberg, WM, Gray, JA, et al. Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312:71–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. van Dongen, H, van Aken, J, Lard, LR, et al. Efficacy of methotrexate treatment in patients with probable rheumatoid arthritis: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;56:1424–1432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. van Gestel, A, Prevoo, ML, van ‘t Hoff, MA, et al. Development and validation of the European League Against Rheumatism response criteria for rheumatoid arthritis. Comparison with the preliminary American College of Rheumatology and the World Health Organization/International League Against Rheumatism Criteria. Arthritis Rheum. 1996;39:34–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. van Randen, A, Bipat, S, Zwinderman, AH. Acute appendicitis: Meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of CT and graded compression US related to prevalence of disease. Radiology. 2008;249:97–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Welsing, PM, van Riel, PL. The Nijmegen inception cohort of early rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol Suppl. 2004;69:14–21.Google ScholarPubMed