Source author record

Julie A. Simpson

Julie A. Simpson appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A model for malaria treatment evaluation in the presence of multiple species

Plasmodium (P.) falciparum and P. vivax are the two most common causes of malaria. While the majority of deaths and severe morbidity are due to P. falciparum, P. vivax poses a greater challenge to eliminating malaria outside of Africa due to its ability to form latent liver stage parasites (hypnozoites), which can cause relapsing episodes within an individual patient. In areas where P. falciparum and P. vivax are co-endemic, individuals can carry parasites of both species simultaneously. These mixed infections complicate dynamics in several ways; treatment of mixed infections will simultaneously affect both species, P. falciparum can mask the detection of P. vivax, and it has been hypothesised that clearing P. falciparum may trigger a relapse of dormant P. vivax. When mixed infections are treated for only blood-stage parasites, patients are at risk of relapse infections due to P. vivax hypnozoites. We present a stochastic mathematical model that captures interactions between P. falciparum and P. vivax, and incorporates both standard schizontocidal treatment (which targets blood-stage parasites) and radical treatment (which additionally targets liver-stage parasites). We apply this model to assess the implications of different treatment coverage of radical cure for mixed and P. vivax infections and a so-called "unified radical cure" treatment strategy for P. falciparum, P. vivax and mixed infections. We find that a unified radical cure strategy, with G6PD screening, leads to a substantially lower incidence of malaria cases and deaths overall. We perform a one-way sensitivity analysis to highlight important model parameters.

preprint2022arXiv

Making SMART decisions in prophylaxis and treatment studies

The optimal prophylaxis, and treatment if the prophylaxis fails, for a disease may be best evaluated using a sequential multiple assignment randomised trial (SMART). A SMART is a multi-stage study that randomises a participant to an initial treatment, observes some response to that treatment and then, depending on their observed response, randomises the same participant to an alternative treatment. Response adaptive randomisation may, in some settings, improve the trial participants' outcomes and expedite trial conclusions, compared to fixed randomisation. But 'myopic' response adaptive randomisation strategies, blind to multistage dynamics, may also result in suboptimal treatment assignments. We propose a 'dynamic' response adaptive randomisation strategy based on Q-learning, an approximate dynamic programming algorithm. Q-learning uses stage-wise statistical models and backward induction to incorporate late-stage 'payoffs' (i.e. clinical outcomes) into early-stage 'actions' (i.e. treatments). Our real-world example consists of a COVID-19 prophylaxis and treatment SMART with qualitatively different binary endpoints at each stage. Standard Q-learning does not work with such data because it cannot be used for sequences of binary endpoints. Sequences of qualitatively distinct endpoints may also require different weightings to ensure that the design guides participants to regimens with the highest utility. We describe how a simple decision-theoretic extension to Q-learning can be used to handle sequential binary endpoints with distinct utilities. Using simulation we show that, under a set of binary utilities, the 'dynamic' approach increases expected participant utility compared to the fixed approach, sometimes markedly, for all model parameters, whereas the 'myopic' approach can actually decrease utility.