Literature DB >> 27864403

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

Issa J Dahabreh1,2, Rodney Hayward3, David M Kent4.   

Abstract

Although often conflated, determining the best treatment for an individual (the task of a doctor) is fundamentally different from determining the average effect of treatment in a population (the purpose of a trial). In this paper, we review concepts of heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) essential in providing the evidence base for precision medicine and patient-centred care, and explore some inherent limitations of using group data (e.g. from a randomized trial) to guide treatment decisions for individuals. We distinguish between person-level HTE (i.e. that individuals experience different effects from a treatment) and group-level HTE (i.e. that subgroups have different average treatment effects), and discuss the reference class problem, engendered by the large number of potentially informative subgroupings of a study population (each of which may lead to applying a different estimated effect to the same patient), and the scale dependence of group-level HTE. We also review the limitations of conventional 'one-variable-at-a-time' subgroup analyses and discuss the potential benefits of using more comprehensive subgrouping schemes that incorporate information on multiple variables, such as those based on predicted outcome risk. Understanding the conceptual underpinnings of HTE is critical for understanding how studies can be designed, analysed, and interpreted to better inform individualized clinical decisions.
© The Author 2016; all rights reserved. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Heterogeneity of treatment effects; effect measure modification; statistical interaction; subgroup analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27864403      PMCID: PMC5841616          DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyw125

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0300-5771            Impact factor:   7.196


  64 in total

1.  Prediction of benefit from carotid endarterectomy in individual patients: a risk-modelling study. European Carotid Surgery Trialists' Collaborative Group.

Authors:  P M Rothwell; C P Warlow
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-06-19       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  A multivariate test of interaction for use in clinical trials.

Authors:  D A Follmann; M A Proschan
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 3.  Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 1. Relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat.

Authors:  Alexandra Barratt; Peter C Wyer; Rose Hatala; Thomas McGinn; Antonio L Dans; Sheri Keitz; Virginia Moyer; Gordon Guyatt For
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-08-17       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Risk models and patient-centered evidence: should physicians expect one right answer?

Authors:  David M Kent; Nilay D Shah
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-04-18       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Heterogeneity is not always noise: lessons from improvement.

Authors:  Frank Davidoff
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-12-16       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Who benefits from medical interventions?

Authors:  G D Smith; M Egger
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-01-08

7.  An independently derived and validated predictive model for selecting patients with myocardial infarction who are likely to benefit from tissue plasminogen activator compared with streptokinase.

Authors:  David M Kent; Rodney A Hayward; John L Griffith; Sandeep Vijan; Joni R Beshansky; Robert M Califf; Harry P Selker
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2002-08-01       Impact factor: 4.965

Review 8.  Basic problems in interaction assessment.

Authors:  S Greenland
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 9.031

9.  A counterfactual approach to bias and effect modification in terms of response types.

Authors:  Etsuji Suzuki; Toshiharu Mitsuhashi; Toshihide Tsuda; Eiji Yamamoto
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-07-31       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  A regression model for risk difference estimation in population-based case-control studies clarifies gender differences in lung cancer risk of smokers and never smokers.

Authors:  Stephanie A Kovalchik; Sara De Matteis; Maria Teresa Landi; Neil E Caporaso; Ravi Varadhan; Dario Consonni; Andrew W Bergen; Hormuzd A Katki; Sholom Wacholder
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  29 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.  Preterm neonates benefit from low prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold despite varying risk of bleeding or death.

Authors:  Susanna F Fustolo-Gunnink; Karin Fijnvandraat; David van Klaveren; Simon J Stanworth; Anna Curley; Wes Onland; Ewout W Steyerberg; Ellen de Kort; Esther J d'Haens; Christian V Hulzebos; Elise J Huisman; Willem P de Boode; Enrico Lopriore; Johanna G van der Bom
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2019-12-26       Impact factor: 22.113

3.  When will individuals meet their personalized probabilities? A philosophical note on risk prediction.

Authors:  Olaf M Dekkers; Jesse M Mulder
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2020-11-28       Impact factor: 8.082

4.  Development of the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses.

Authors:  Stefan Schandelmaier; Matthias Briel; Ravi Varadhan; Christopher H Schmid; Niveditha Devasenapathy; Rodney A Hayward; Joel Gagnier; Michael Borenstein; Geert J M G van der Heijden; Issa J Dahabreh; Xin Sun; Willi Sauerbrei; Michael Walsh; John P A Ioannidis; Lehana Thabane; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2020-08-10       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Could stress ulcer prophylaxis increase mortality in high-acuity patients?

Authors:  Michael O Harhay; Paul J Young; Manu Shankar-Hari
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2020-02-19       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 6.  Patient Variability Seldom Assessed in Cost-effectiveness Studies.

Authors:  Tara A Lavelle; David M Kent; Christine M Lundquist; Teja Thorat; Joshua T Cohen; John B Wong; Natalia Olchanski; Peter J Neumann
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-01-19       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Heterogeneous Exposure Associations in Observational Cohort Studies: The Example of Blood Pressure in Older Adults.

Authors:  Michelle C Odden; Andreea M Rawlings; Abtin Khodadadi; Xiaoli Fern; Michael G Shlipak; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; Kenneth Covinsky; Alka M Kanaya; Anne Lee; Mary N Haan; Anne B Newman; Bruce M Psaty; Carmen A Peralta
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2020-01-31       Impact factor: 4.897

8.  Using the Causal Inference Framework to Support Individualized Drug Treatment Decisions Based on Observational Healthcare Data.

Authors:  Andreas D Meid; Carmen Ruff; Lucas Wirbka; Felicitas Stoll; Hanna M Seidling; Andreas Groll; Walter E Haefeli
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2020-11-02       Impact factor: 4.790

Review 9.  Using Real-World Data to Extrapolate Evidence From Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Shirley V Wang; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Joshua J Gagne; Thomas Evers; Christoph Gerlinger; Rishi Desai; Mehdi Najafzadeh
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2018-09-24       Impact factor: 6.875

10.  The Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity (PATH) Statement.

Authors:  David M Kent; Jessica K Paulus; David van Klaveren; Ralph D'Agostino; Steve Goodman; Rodney Hayward; John P A Ioannidis; Bray Patrick-Lake; Sally Morton; Michael Pencina; Gowri Raman; Joseph S Ross; Harry P Selker; Ravi Varadhan; Andrew Vickers; John B Wong; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 25.391

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.