Literature DB >> 23651763

A framework for the analysis of heterogeneity of treatment effect in patient-centered outcomes research.

Ravi Varadhan1, Jodi B Segal, Cynthia M Boyd, Albert W Wu, Carlos O Weiss.   

Abstract

Individuals vary in their response to a treatment. Understanding this heterogeneity of treatment effect is critical for evaluating how well a treatment can be expected to work for an individual or a subgroup of individuals. An overemphasis on hypothesis testing has resulted in a dichotomy of all heterogeneity of treatment effect analyses into confirmatory (hypothesis testing) and exploratory (hypothesis finding) analyses. This limited view of heterogeneity of treatment effect is inadequate for creating evidence that is useful for informing patient-centered decisions. An expanded framework for heterogeneity of treatment effect assessment is proposed. It recognizes four distinct goals of heterogeneity of treatment effect analyses: hypothesis testing, hypothesis finding, reporting subgroup effects for meta-analysis, and individual-level prediction. Accordingly, two new types of heterogeneity of treatment effect analyses are proposed: descriptive and predictive. Descriptive heterogeneity of treatment effect analyses report treatment effects for prespecified subgroups in accordance with prospectively specified analytic strategy. They need not be powered to detect heterogeneity of treatment effect. They emphasize estimation and reporting of subgroup effects rather than hypothesis testing. Sampling properties (e.g., standard error) of descriptive analysis can be characterized, thus facilitating meta-analysis of subgroup effects. Predictive heterogeneity of treatment effect analyses estimate probabilities of beneficial and adverse responses of individuals to treatments and facilitates optimal treatment decisions for different types of individuals. Procedures are also suggested to improve reliability of heterogeneity of treatment effect assessment from observational studies. Heterogeneity of treatment effect analysis should be identified as confirmatory, descriptive, exploratory, or predictive analysis. Evidence should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the analytic goal.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23651763      PMCID: PMC4450361          DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  20 in total

1.  Journal to encourage analysis by sex/ethnicity.

Authors:  K Arnold
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-10-04       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Treating individuals 2. Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation.

Authors:  Peter M Rothwell
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005 Jan 8-14       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  How FDA currently makes decisions on clinical studies.

Authors:  Robert Temple
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.486

4.  Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease.

Authors: 
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1996-07-25       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Statistics in medicine--reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials.

Authors:  Rui Wang; Stephen W Lagakos; James H Ware; David J Hunter; Jeffrey M Drazen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-11-22       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  A randomized trial of the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan in chronic heart failure.

Authors:  J N Cohn; G Tognoni
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2001-12-06       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Assessing apparent treatment--covariate interactions in randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  D P Byar
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1985 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Why data bases should not replace randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  D P Byar
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1980-06       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  S Yusuf; J Wittes; J Probstfield; H A Tyroler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1991-07-03       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Christos S Karapetis; Shirin Khambata-Ford; Derek J Jonker; Chris J O'Callaghan; Dongsheng Tu; Niall C Tebbutt; R John Simes; Haji Chalchal; Jeremy D Shapiro; Sonia Robitaille; Timothy J Price; Lois Shepherd; Heather-Jane Au; Christiane Langer; Malcolm J Moore; John R Zalcberg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-10-23       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  31 in total

Review 1.  Personalized evidence based medicine: predictive approaches to heterogeneous treatment effects.

Authors:  David M Kent; Ewout Steyerberg; David van Klaveren
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2018-12-10

2.  Multimorbidity in randomized controlled trials of behavioral interventions: A systematic review.

Authors:  Carolyn R T Stoll; Sonya Izadi; Susan Fowler; Sydney Philpott-Streiff; Paige Green; Jerry Suls; Anke C Winter; Graham A Colditz
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2019-05-02       Impact factor: 4.267

3.  Aromatase inhibitors, tamoxifen, and endometrial cancer in breast cancer survivors.

Authors:  Rowan T Chlebowski; Joanne E Schottinger; Jiaxiao Shi; Joanie Chung; Reina Haque
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-03-10       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 4.  Multimorbidity and evidence generation.

Authors:  Carlos O Weiss; Ravi Varadhan; Milo A Puhan; Andrew Vickers; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Cynthia M Boyd; David M Kent
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2014-01-18       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapy Based on Genetically-Informed Biomarkers: What is the Evidence?

Authors:  Orestis A Panagiotou; Ewoud Schuit; Marcus R Munafò; Derrick A Bennett; Andrew W Bergen; Sean P David
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 4.244

6.  Regularized outcome weighted subgroup identification for differential treatment effects.

Authors:  Yaoyao Xu; Menggang Yu; Ying-Qi Zhao; Quefeng Li; Sijian Wang; Jun Shao
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2015-05-11       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Using group data to treat individuals: understanding heterogeneous treatment effects in the age of precision medicine and patient-centred evidence.

Authors:  Issa J Dahabreh; Rodney Hayward; David M Kent
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 7.196

8.  Balancing Long-Term Risks of Ischemic and Bleeding Complications After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Eluting Stents.

Authors:  Alexis Matteau; Robert W Yeh; Edoardo Camenzind; P Gabriel Steg; William Wijns; Joseph Mills; Anthony Gershlick; Mark de Belder; Gregory Ducrocq; Laura Mauri
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 2.778

Review 9.  Management of Cancer in the Older Age Person: An Approach to Complex Medical Decisions.

Authors:  María Vallet-Regí; Miguel Manzano; Leocadio Rodriguez-Mañas; Marta Checa López; Matti Aapro; Lodovico Balducci
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2017-02-20

Review 10.  Clinical Prediction Models for Cardiovascular Disease: Tufts Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Clinical Prediction Model Database.

Authors:  Benjamin S Wessler; Lana Lai Yh; Whitney Kramer; Michael Cangelosi; Gowri Raman; Jennifer S Lutz; David M Kent
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2015-07-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.