Purchase this article with an account.
Catherine Q. Sun, N. Venkatesh Prajna, Tiruvengada Krishnan, Jeena Mascarenhas, Revathi Rajaraman, Muthiah Srinivasan, Anita Raghavan, Kieran S. O'Brien, Kathryn J. Ray, Stephen D. McLeod, Travis C. Porco, Nisha R. Acharya, Thomas M. Lietman; Expert Prior Elicitation and Bayesian Analysis of the Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial I. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(6):4167-4173. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.13-11716.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To perform a Bayesian analysis of the Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial I (MUTT I) using expert opinion as a prior belief.
MUTT I was a randomized clinical trial comparing topical natamycin or voriconazole for treating filamentous fungal keratitis. A questionnaire elicited expert opinion on the best treatment of fungal keratitis before MUTT I results were available. A Bayesian analysis was performed using the questionnaire data as a prior belief and the MUTT I primary outcome (3-month visual acuity) by frequentist analysis as a likelihood.
Corneal experts had a 41.1% prior belief that natamycin improved 3-month visual acuity compared with voriconazole. The Bayesian analysis found a 98.4% belief for natamycin treatment compared with voriconazole treatment for filamentous cases as a group (mean improvement 1.1 Snellen lines, 95% credible interval 0.1–2.1). The Bayesian analysis estimated a smaller treatment effect than the MUTT I frequentist analysis result of 1.8-line improvement with natamycin versus voriconazole (95% confidence interval 0.5–3.0, P = 0.006). For Fusarium cases, the posterior demonstrated a 99.7% belief for natamycin treatment, whereas non-Fusarium cases had a 57.3% belief.
The Bayesian analysis suggests that natamycin is superior to voriconazole when filamentous cases are analyzed as a group. Subgroup analysis of Fusarium cases found improvement with natamycin compared with voriconazole, whereas there was almost no difference between treatments for non-Fusarium cases. These results were consistent with, though smaller in effect size than, the MUTT I primary outcome by frequentist analysis. The accordance between analyses further validates the trial results. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00996736.)
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only