Literature DB >> 31711134

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

David M Kent1, Jessica K Paulus1, David van Klaveren2, Ralph D'Agostino3, Steve Goodman4, Rodney Hayward5, John P A Ioannidis4, Bray Patrick-Lake6, Sally Morton7, Michael Pencina6, Gowri Raman8, Joseph S Ross9, Harry P Selker10, Ravi Varadhan11, Andrew Vickers12, John B Wong1, Ewout W Steyerberg13.   

Abstract

Heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) refers to the nonrandom variation in the magnitude or direction of a treatment effect across levels of a covariate, as measured on a selected scale, against a clinical outcome. In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), HTE is typically examined through a subgroup analysis that contrasts effects in groups of patients defined "1 variable at a time" (for example, male vs. female or old vs. young). The authors of this statement present guidance on an alternative approach to HTE analysis, "predictive HTE analysis." The goal of predictive HTE analysis is to provide patient-centered estimates of outcome risks with versus without the intervention, taking into account all relevant patient attributes simultaneously. The PATH (Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity) Statement was developed using a multidisciplinary technical expert panel, targeted literature reviews, simulations to characterize potential problems with predictive approaches, and a deliberative process engaging the expert panel. The authors distinguish 2 categories of predictive HTE approaches: a "risk-modeling" approach, wherein a multivariable model predicts the risk for an outcome and is applied to disaggregate patients within RCTs to define risk-based variation in benefit, and an "effect-modeling" approach, wherein a model is developed on RCT data by incorporating a term for treatment assignment and interactions between treatment and baseline covariates. Both approaches can be used to predict differential absolute treatment effects, the most relevant scale for clinical decision making. The authors developed 4 sets of guidance: criteria to determine when risk-modeling approaches are likely to identify clinically important HTE, methodological aspects of risk-modeling methods, considerations for translation to clinical practice, and considerations and caveats in the use of effect-modeling approaches. The PATH Statement, together with its explanation and elaboration document, may guide future analyses and reporting of RCTs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31711134      PMCID: PMC7531587          DOI: 10.7326/M18-3667

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  67 in total

1.  Subgroups, treatment effects, and baseline risks: some lessons from major cardiovascular trials.

Authors:  A B Parker; C D Naylor
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 4.749

Review 2.  Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives.

Authors:  S T Brookes; E Whitley; T J Peters; P A Mulheran; M Egger; G Davey Smith
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.014

3.  Probability at the bedside: the knowing of chances or the chances of knowing?

Authors:  S N Goodman
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1999-04-06       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Reporting clinical trial results to inform providers, payers, and consumers.

Authors:  Rodney A Hayward; David M Kent; Sandeep Vijan; Timothy P Hofer
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2005 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 6.301

5.  Subgroup analyses in therapeutic cardiovascular clinical trials: are most of them misleading?

Authors:  Adrián V Hernández; Eric Boersma; Gordon D Murray; J Dik F Habbema; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.749

6.  Can the learning health care system be educated with observational data?

Authors:  Issa J Dahabreh; David M Kent
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 7.  Integrating Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Research with Patient Care.

Authors:  Louis D Fiore; Philip W Lavori
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't.

Authors:  D L Sackett; W M Rosenberg; J A Gray; R B Haynes; W S Richardson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-01-13

9.  Detecting treatment-covariate interactions using permutation methods.

Authors:  Rui Wang; David A Schoenfeld; Bettina Hoeppner; A Eden Evins
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-03-02       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Telmisartan to prevent recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events.

Authors:  Salim Yusuf; Hans-Christoph Diener; Ralph L Sacco; Daniel Cotton; Stephanie Ounpuu; William A Lawton; Yuko Palesch; Reneé H Martin; Gregory W Albers; Philip Bath; Natan Bornstein; Bernard P L Chan; Sien-Tsong Chen; Luis Cunha; Björn Dahlöf; Jacques De Keyser; Geoffrey A Donnan; Conrado Estol; Philip Gorelick; Vivian Gu; Karin Hermansson; Lutz Hilbrich; Markku Kaste; Chuanzhen Lu; Thomas Machnig; Prem Pais; Robin Roberts; Veronika Skvortsova; Philip Teal; Danilo Toni; Cam VanderMaelen; Thor Voigt; Michael Weber; Byung-Woo Yoon
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-08-27       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  42 in total

1.  Evidence generation, decision making, and consequent growth in health disparities.

Authors:  Anirban Basu; Kritee Gujral
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-06-08       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Targeting of the diabetes prevention program leads to substantial benefits when capacity is constrained.

Authors:  Natalia Olchanski; David van Klaveren; Joshua T Cohen; John B Wong; Robin Ruthazer; David M Kent
Journal:  Acta Diabetol       Date:  2021-01-30       Impact factor: 4.280

3.  Optimizing opioid use disorder treatment with naltrexone or buprenorphine.

Authors:  Kara E Rudolph; Iván Díaz; Sean X Luo; John Rotrosen; Edward V Nunes
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2021-09-11       Impact factor: 4.492

4.  Personalizing the decision of dabigatran versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation: A secondary analysis of the Randomized Evaluation of Long-term anticoagulation therapY (RE-LY) trial.

Authors:  Samuel W Reinhardt; Nihar R Desai; Yuanyuan Tang; Philip G Jones; Jeremy Ader; John A Spertus
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-08-19       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  D-Dimer Enhances Risk-Targeted Thromboprophylaxis in Ambulatory Patients with Cancer.

Authors:  Vaibhav Kumar; Joseph R Shaw; Nigel S Key; Anton Ilich; Ranjeeta Mallick; Philip S Wells; Marc Carrier
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2020-10-12

6.  Single case designs for early phase behavioral translational research in health psychology.

Authors:  Leonard H Epstein; Warren K Bickel; Susan M Czajkowski; Rocco A Paluch; Mariola Moeyaert; Karina W Davidson
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2021-08-09       Impact factor: 4.267

7.  Patient Selection for Intensive Blood Pressure Management Based on Benefit and Adverse Events.

Authors:  Adam P Bress; Tom Greene; Catherine G Derington; Jincheng Shen; Yizhe Xu; Yiyi Zhang; Jian Ying; Brandon K Bellows; William C Cushman; Paul K Whelton; Nicholas M Pajewski; David Reboussin; Srinivasan Beddu; Rachel Hess; Jennifer S Herrick; Zugui Zhang; Paul Kolm; Robert W Yeh; Sanjay Basu; William S Weintraub; Andrew E Moran
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2021-04-27       Impact factor: 24.094

Review 8.  Decision Making in Older Adults With Cancer.

Authors:  Clark DuMontier; Kah Poh Loh; Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis; William Dale
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 50.717

Review 9.  Supervised Resistance Training on Functional Capacity, Muscle Strength and Vascular Function in Peripheral Artery Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Elizabeth E Blears; Jessica K Elias; Christian Tapking; Craig Porter; Victoria G Rontoyanni
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 4.241

10.  Identifying adults with acute rhinosinusitis in primary care that benefit most from antibiotics: protocol of an individual patient data meta-analysis using multivariable risk prediction modelling.

Authors:  Roderick P Venekamp; Jeroen Hoogland; Maarten van Smeden; Maroeska M Rovers; An I De Sutter; Daniel Merenstein; Gerrit A van Essen; Laurent Kaiser; Helena Liira; Paul Little; Heiner Cc Bucher; Johannes B Reitsma
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.