IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/stabio/v11y2019i3d10.1007_s12561-019-09239-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Likelihood-Based Methods for Assessing Principal Surrogate Endpoints in Vaccine Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Ying Huang

    (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center)

  • Shibasish Dasgupta

    (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center)

Abstract

When evaluating principal surrogate biomarkers in vaccine trials, missingness in potential outcomes requires prediction using auxiliary variables and/or augmented study design with a close-out placebo vaccination (CPV) component. The estimated likelihood approach, which separates the estimation of biomarker distribution from the maximization of the estimated likelihood, has often been adopted. Here, we develop a likelihood-based approach that jointly estimates the two parts and describe the methods for selecting auxiliary variables as risk predictors and/or biomarker predictors. Through numerical studies, we observe that in a standard trial design without a CPV component, the two methods achieve similar performance in estimation of the risk model and the marker model. However, for trials augmented with a CPV component, using the likelihood-based method achieves better estimation performance compared to the estimated likelihood method. Moreover, in the presence of a large number of covariates from which to select, the ML method achieves comparable or better performance compared to the EL method in both designs. While the CPV component has not yet been implemented in existing vaccine trials, our results have applications in the planning of future vaccine trials. We illustrate the method using data from a dengue vaccine trial.

Suggested Citation

  • Ying Huang & Shibasish Dasgupta, 2019. "Likelihood-Based Methods for Assessing Principal Surrogate Endpoints in Vaccine Trials," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 11(3), pages 504-523, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:stabio:v:11:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s12561-019-09239-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s12561-019-09239-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12561-019-09239-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12561-019-09239-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zou, Hui, 2006. "The Adaptive Lasso and Its Oracle Properties," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 101, pages 1418-1429, December.
    2. Constantine E. Frangakis & Donald B. Rubin, 2002. "Principal Stratification in Causal Inference," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 58(1), pages 21-29, March.
    3. Hua Chen & Zhi Geng & Jinzhu Jia, 2007. "Criteria for surrogate end points," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 69(5), pages 919-932, November.
    4. Peter B. Gilbert & Michael G. Hudgens, 2008. "Evaluating Candidate Principal Surrogate Endpoints," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 64(4), pages 1146-1154, December.
    5. Ying Huang, 2018. "Evaluating principal surrogate markers in vaccine trials in the presence of multiphase sampling," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 27-39, March.
    6. Yun Li & Jeremy M.G. Taylor & Michael R. Elliott, 2010. "A Bayesian Approach to Surrogacy Assessment Using Principal Stratification in Clinical Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(2), pages 523-531, June.
    7. Ying Huang & Peter B. Gilbert, 2011. "Comparing Biomarkers as Principal Surrogate Endpoints," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(4), pages 1442-1451, December.
    8. Chuan Ju & Zhi Geng, 2010. "Criteria for surrogate end points based on causal distributions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 72(1), pages 129-142, January.
    9. Julian Wolfson & Peter Gilbert, 2010. "Statistical Identifiability and the Surrogate Endpoint Problem, with Application to Vaccine Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(4), pages 1153-1161, December.
    10. Ying Huang & Peter B. Gilbert & Julian Wolfson, 2013. "Design and Estimation for Evaluating Principal Surrogate Markers in Vaccine Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(2), pages 301-309, June.
    11. Tyler J. VanderWeele, 2013. "Surrogate Measures and Consistent Surrogates," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(3), pages 561-565, September.
    12. Dean Follmann, 2006. "Augmented Designs to Assess Immune Response in Vaccine Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 62(4), pages 1161-1169, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Erin E. Gabriel & Michael C. Sachs & Dean A. Follmann & Therese M‐L. Andersson, 2020. "A unified evaluation of differential vaccine efficacy," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 76(4), pages 1053-1063, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tyler J. VanderWeele, 2013. "Surrogate Measures and Consistent Surrogates," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(3), pages 561-565, September.
    2. Zhichao Jiang & Peng Ding & Zhi Geng, 2016. "Principal causal effect identification and surrogate end point evaluation by multiple trials," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 78(4), pages 829-848, September.
    3. Corwin M. Zigler & Thomas R. Belin, 2012. "A Bayesian Approach to Improved Estimation of Causal Effect Predictiveness for a Principal Surrogate Endpoint," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(3), pages 922-932, September.
    4. Ying Huang & Peter B. Gilbert & Julian Wolfson, 2013. "Design and Estimation for Evaluating Principal Surrogate Markers in Vaccine Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(2), pages 301-309, June.
    5. Ying Huang, 2018. "Evaluating principal surrogate markers in vaccine trials in the presence of multiphase sampling," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 27-39, March.
    6. Rui Zhuang & Ying Qing Chen, 2020. "Measuring Surrogacy in Clinical Research," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 12(3), pages 295-323, December.
    7. Erin E. Gabriel & Michael C. Sachs & Dean A. Follmann & Therese M‐L. Andersson, 2020. "A unified evaluation of differential vaccine efficacy," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 76(4), pages 1053-1063, December.
    8. Gilbert Peter B. & Blette Bryan S. & Hudgens Michael G. & Shepherd Bryan E., 2020. "Post-randomization Biomarker Effect Modification Analysis in an HIV Vaccine Clinical Trial," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 54-69, January.
    9. VanderWeele Tyler J, 2011. "Principal Stratification -- Uses and Limitations," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, July.
    10. Gilbert Peter B. & Huang Ying & Gabriel Erin E. & Chan Ivan S.F., 2015. "Surrogate Endpoint Evaluation: Principal Stratification Criteria and the Prentice Definition," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 157-175, September.
    11. Zhichao Jiang & Shu Yang & Peng Ding, 2022. "Multiply robust estimation of causal effects under principal ignorability," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 84(4), pages 1423-1445, September.
    12. Gilbert Peter B. & Blette Bryan S. & Hudgens Michael G. & Shepherd Bryan E., 2020. "Post-randomization Biomarker Effect Modification Analysis in an HIV Vaccine Clinical Trial," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 54-69, January.
    13. Ying Huang & Peter B. Gilbert, 2011. "Comparing Biomarkers as Principal Surrogate Endpoints," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(4), pages 1442-1451, December.
    14. Emily K. Roberts & Michael R. Elliott & Jeremy M. G. Taylor, 2023. "Solutions for surrogacy validation with longitudinal outcomes for a gene therapy," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 1840-1852, September.
    15. Marshall M. Joffe, 2013. "Discussion on “Surrogate Measures and Consistent Surrogates”," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(3), pages 569-573, September.
    16. Michael R. Elliott & Anna Conlon & Yun Li, 2013. "Discussion on “Surrogate Measures and Consistent Surrogates”," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(3), pages 565-569, September.
    17. Layla Parast & Tianxi Cai & Lu Tian, 2023. "Testing for heterogeneity in the utility of a surrogate marker," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(2), pages 799-810, June.
    18. Fatema Shafie Khorassani & Jeremy M. G. Taylor & Niko Kaciroti & Michael R. Elliott, 2023. "Incorporating Covariates into Measures of Surrogate Paradox Risk," Stats, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-23, February.
    19. Ying Huang & Aliasghar Tarkhan, 2020. "Methods for Feature Selection in Down-Selection of Vaccine Regimens Based on Multivariate Immune Response Endpoints," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 12(3), pages 353-375, December.
    20. Gilbert Peter B. & Hudgens Michael G. & Wolfson Julian, 2011. "Commentary on "Principal Stratification -- a Goal or a Tool?" by Judea Pearl," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-15, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:stabio:v:11:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s12561-019-09239-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.