Andrew J Admon1,2, John P Donnelly2,3,4, Jonathan D Casey5, David R Janz6, Derek W Russell7, Aaron M Joffe8, Derek J Vonderhaar9,10, Kevin M Dischert9, Susan B Stempek11, James M Dargin11, Todd W Rice5, Theodore J Iwashyna1,2,12,4, Matthew W Semler5. 1. 1Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine. 2. 2Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation. 3. 3Department of Learning Health Sciences, and. 4. 4Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Health Services Research and Development Center of Innovation, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 5. 5Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 6. 6Section of Pulmonary/Critical Care & Allergy/Immunology, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana. 7. 7Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, & Critical Care Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 8. 8Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 9. 9Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Ochsner Health System New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana. 10. 10Department of Medicine, Section of Emergency Medicine, Louisiana State University School of Medicine-New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana; and. 11. 11Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts. 12. 12Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
Rationale: "Target trial emulation" has been proposed as an observational method to answer comparative effectiveness questions, but it has rarely been attempted concurrently with a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Objectives: We tested the hypothesis that blinded analysts applying target trial emulation to existing observational data could predict the results of an RCT. Methods: PreVent (Preventing Hypoxemia with Manual Ventilation during Endotracheal Intubation) was a multicenter RCT examining the effects of positive-pressure ventilation during tracheal intubation on oxygen saturation and severe hypoxemia. Analysts unaware of PreVent's results used patient-level data from three previous trials evaluating airway management interventions to emulate PreVent's eligibility criteria, randomization procedure, and statistical analysis. After PreVent's release, results of this blinded observational analysis were compared with those of the RCT. Difference-in-differences estimates for comparison of treatment effects between the observational analysis and the PreVent trial are reported on the absolute scale. Results: Using observational data, we were able to emulate PreVent's randomization procedure to produce balanced groups for comparison. The lowest oxygen saturation during intubation was higher in the positive-pressure ventilation group than the no positive-pressure ventilation group in the observational analysis (n = 360; mean difference = 1.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.0 to 4.6) and in the PreVent trial (n = 401; mean difference = 3.9%; 95% CI = 1.4 to 6.4), though the observational analysis could not exclude no difference. Difference-in-differences estimates comparing treatment effects showed reasonable agreement for lowest oxygen saturation between the observational analysis and the PreVent trial (mean difference = -2.1%; 95% CI = -5.9 to 1.7). Positive-pressure ventilation resulted in lower rates of severe hypoxemia in both the observational analysis (risk ratio = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.38 to 0.93) and in the PreVent trial (risk ratio = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.77). The absolute reduction in the incidence of severe hypoxemia with positive-pressure ventilation was similar in the observational analysis (9.4%) and the PreVent trial (12.0%), though the difference between these estimates had wide CIs (mean difference = 2.5%; 95% CI = -8.0 to 13.6%).Conclusions: Applying target trial emulation methods to existing observational data for the evaluation of a novel intervention produced results similar to those of a randomized trial. These findings support the use of target trial emulation for comparative effectiveness research.
Rationale: "Target trial emulation" has been proposed as an observational method to answer comparative effectiveness questions, but it has rarely been attempted concurrently with a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Objectives: We tested the hypothesis that blinded analysts applying target trial emulation to existing observational data could predict the results of an RCT. Methods: PreVent (Preventing Hypoxemia with Manual Ventilation during Endotracheal Intubation) was a multicenter RCT examining the effects of positive-pressure ventilation during tracheal intubation on oxygen saturation and severe hypoxemia. Analysts unaware of PreVent's results used patient-level data from three previous trials evaluating airway management interventions to emulate PreVent's eligibility criteria, randomization procedure, and statistical analysis. After PreVent's release, results of this blinded observational analysis were compared with those of the RCT. Difference-in-differences estimates for comparison of treatment effects between the observational analysis and the PreVent trial are reported on the absolute scale. Results: Using observational data, we were able to emulate PreVent's randomization procedure to produce balanced groups for comparison. The lowest oxygen saturation during intubation was higher in the positive-pressure ventilation group than the no positive-pressure ventilation group in the observational analysis (n = 360; mean difference = 1.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.0 to 4.6) and in the PreVent trial (n = 401; mean difference = 3.9%; 95% CI = 1.4 to 6.4), though the observational analysis could not exclude no difference. Difference-in-differences estimates comparing treatment effects showed reasonable agreement for lowest oxygen saturation between the observational analysis and the PreVent trial (mean difference = -2.1%; 95% CI = -5.9 to 1.7). Positive-pressure ventilation resulted in lower rates of severe hypoxemia in both the observational analysis (risk ratio = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.38 to 0.93) and in the PreVent trial (risk ratio = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.77). The absolute reduction in the incidence of severe hypoxemia with positive-pressure ventilation was similar in the observational analysis (9.4%) and the PreVent trial (12.0%), though the difference between these estimates had wide CIs (mean difference = 2.5%; 95% CI = -8.0 to 13.6%).Conclusions: Applying target trial emulation methods to existing observational data for the evaluation of a novel intervention produced results similar to those of a randomized trial. These findings support the use of target trial emulation for comparative effectiveness research.
Authors: Issa J Dahabreh; Radley C Sheldrick; Jessica K Paulus; Mei Chung; Vasileia Varvarigou; Haseeb Jafri; Jeremy A Rassen; Thomas A Trikalinos; Georgios D Kitsios Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2012-06-17 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Matthew W Semler; David R Janz; Derek W Russell; Jonathan D Casey; Robert J Lentz; Aline N Zouk; Bennett P deBoisblanc; Jairo I Santanilla; Yasin A Khan; Aaron M Joffe; William S Stigler; Todd W Rice Journal: Chest Date: 2017-05-06 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Matthew W Semler; David R Janz; Robert J Lentz; Daniel T Matthews; Brett C Norman; Tufik R Assad; Raj D Keriwala; Benjamin A Ferrell; Michael J Noto; Andrew C McKown; Emily G Kocurek; Melissa A Warren; Luis E Huerta; Todd W Rice Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2016-02-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Melissa M Garrido; Amy S Kelley; Julia Paris; Katherine Roza; Diane E Meier; R Sean Morrison; Melissa D Aldridge Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Andrew C McKown; Jonathan D Casey; Derek W Russell; Aaron M Joffe; David R Janz; Todd W Rice; Matthew W Semler Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2018-11
Authors: Michael O Harhay; Jonathan D Casey; Marina Clement; Sean P Collins; Étienne Gayat; Michelle Ng Gong; Samir Jaber; Pierre-François Laterre; John C Marshall; Michael A Matthay; Rhonda E Monroe; Todd W Rice; Eileen Rubin; Wesley H Self; Alexandre Mebazaa Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Kusum S Mathews; Howard Soh; Shahzad Shaefi; Wei Wang; Sonali Bose; Steven Coca; Shruti Gupta; Salim S Hayek; Anand Srivastava; Samantha K Brenner; Jared Radbel; Adam Green; Anne Sutherland; Amanda Leonberg-Yoo; Alexandre Shehata; Edward J Schenck; Samuel A P Short; Miguel A Hernán; Lili Chan; David E Leaf Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Zhaoyi Chen; Hansi Zhang; Yi Guo; Thomas J George; Mattia Prosperi; William R Hogan; Zhe He; Elizabeth A Shenkman; Fei Wang; Jiang Bian Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2021-05-14
Authors: Shahzad Shaefi; Samantha K Brenner; Shruti Gupta; Ariel L Mueller; Wei Wang; David E Leaf; Brian P O'Gara; Megan L Krajewski; David M Charytan; Sobaata Chaudhry; Sara H Mirza; Vasil Peev; Mark Anderson; Anip Bansal; Salim S Hayek; Anand Srivastava; Kusum S Mathews; Tanya S Johns; Amanda Leonberg-Yoo; Adam Green; Justin Arunthamakun; Keith M Wille; Tanveer Shaukat; Harkarandeep Singh; Andrew J Admon; Matthew W Semler; Miguel A Hernán Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Shruti Gupta; Wei Wang; Salim S Hayek; Lili Chan; Kusum S Mathews; Michal L Melamed; Samantha K Brenner; Amanda Leonberg-Yoo; Edward J Schenck; Jared Radbel; Jochen Reiser; Anip Bansal; Anand Srivastava; Yan Zhou; Diana Finkel; Adam Green; Mary Mallappallil; Anthony J Faugno; Jingjing Zhang; Juan Carlos Q Velez; Shahzad Shaefi; Chirag R Parikh; David M Charytan; Ambarish M Athavale; Allon N Friedman; Roberta E Redfern; Samuel A P Short; Simon Correa; Kapil K Pokharel; Andrew J Admon; John P Donnelly; Hayley B Gershengorn; David J Douin; Matthew W Semler; Miguel A Hernán; David E Leaf Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 21.873