Literature DB >> 29654822

Considerations when assessing heterogeneity of treatment effect in patient-centered outcomes research.

Catherine R Lesko1, Nicholas C Henderson2, Ravi Varadhan3.   

Abstract

When baseline risk of an outcome varies within a population, the effect of a treatment on that outcome will vary on at least one scale (e.g., additive, multiplicative). This treatment effect heterogeneity is of interest in patient-centered outcomes research. Based on a literature review and solicited expert opinion, we assert the following: (1) Treatment effect heterogeneity on the additive scale is most interpretable to health-care providers and patients using effect estimates to guide treatment decision-making; heterogeneity reported on the multiplicative scale may be misleading as to the magnitude or direction of a substantively important interaction. (2) The additive scale may give clues about sufficient-cause interaction, although such interaction is typically not relevant to patients' treatment choices. (3) Statistical modeling need not be conducted on the same scale as results are communicated. (4) Statistical testing is one tool for investigations, provided important subgroups are identified a priori, but test results should be interpreted cautiously given nonequivalence of statistical and clinical significance. (5) Qualitative interactions should be evaluated in a prespecified manner for important subgroups. Principled analytic plans that take into account the purpose of investigation of treatment effect heterogeneity are likely to yield more useful results for guiding treatment decisions.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Effect modification; Interaction; Patient-centered outcomes research; Personalized medicine; Subgroup analysis; Treatment effect heterogeneity

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29654822      PMCID: PMC6467652          DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.04.005

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


  61 in total

1.  Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data.

Authors:  Miguel A Hernán; James M Robins
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.710

2.  Interactions in epidemiology: relevance, identification, and estimation.

Authors:  Sander Greenland
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 4.822

3.  Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication.

Authors:  Angela Fagerlin; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-09-19       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Test for qualitative interaction of clinical significance.

Authors:  G Pan; D A Wolfe
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1997-07-30       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Interpretation of subgroup analyses in randomized trials: heterogeneity versus secondary interventions.

Authors:  Tyler J VanderWeele; Mirjam J Knol
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-05-17       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Synergism and interaction: are they equivalent?

Authors:  W J Blot; N E Day
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1979-07       Impact factor: 4.897

7.  Observational studies analyzed like randomized experiments: an application to postmenopausal hormone therapy and coronary heart disease.

Authors:  Miguel A Hernán; Alvaro Alonso; Roger Logan; Francine Grodstein; Karin B Michels; Walter C Willett; Joann E Manson; James M Robins
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.822

8.  Effect of coronary artery bypass graft surgery on survival: overview of 10-year results from randomised trials by the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Trialists Collaboration.

Authors:  S Yusuf; D Zucker; P Peduzzi; L D Fisher; T Takaro; J W Kennedy; K Davis; T Killip; E Passamani; R Norris
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1994-08-27       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 9.  Generalizing Study Results: A Potential Outcomes Perspective.

Authors:  Catherine R Lesko; Ashley L Buchanan; Daniel Westreich; Jessie K Edwards; Michael G Hudgens; Stephen R Cole
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 4.822

10.  Understanding competing risks: a simulation point of view.

Authors:  Arthur Allignol; Martin Schumacher; Christoph Wanner; Christiane Drechsler; Jan Beyersmann
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-06-03       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  7 in total

1.  How subgroup analyses can miss the trees for the forest plots: A simulation study.

Authors:  Michael Webster-Clark; John A Baron; Michele Jonsson Funk; Daniel Westreich
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2020-06-19       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Quantifying risk stratification provided by diagnostic tests and risk predictions: Comparison to AUC and decision curve analysis.

Authors:  Hormuzd A Katki
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2019-04-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Controversy and Debate : Questionable utility of the relative risk in clinical research: Paper 4 :Odds Ratios are far from "portable" - A call to use realistic models for effect variation in meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mengli Xiao; Haitao Chu; Stephen R Cole; Yong Chen; Richard F MacLehose; David B Richardson; Sander Greenland
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2021-08-11       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  The Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity (PATH) Statement: Explanation and Elaboration.

Authors:  David M Kent; David van Klaveren; Jessica K Paulus; 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

5.  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

6.  Conducting Real-world Evidence Studies on the Clinical Outcomes of Diabetes Treatments.

Authors:  Sebastian Schneeweiss; Elisabetta Patorno
Journal:  Endocr Rev       Date:  2021-09-28       Impact factor: 19.871

7.  On the Need to Revitalize Descriptive Epidemiology.

Authors:  Matthew P Fox; Eleanor J Murray; Catherine R Lesko; Shawnita Sealy-Jefferson
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2022-06-27       Impact factor: 5.363

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.