BACKGROUND/AIMS: Secondary analyses of randomized clinical trials often seek to identify subgroups with differential treatment effects. These discoveries can help guide individual treatment decisions based on patient characteristics and identify populations for which additional treatments are needed. Traditional analyses require researchers to pre-specify potential subgroups to reduce the risk of reporting spurious results. There is a need for methods that can detect such subgroups without a priori specification while allowing researchers to control the probability of falsely detecting heterogeneous subgroups when treatment effects are uniform across the study population. METHODS: We propose a permutation procedure for tuning parameter selection that allows for type I error control when testing for heterogeneous treatment effects framed within the Virtual Twins procedure for subgroup identification. We verify that the type I error rate can be controlled at the nominal rate and investigate the power for detecting heterogeneous effects when present through extensive simulation studies. We apply our method to a secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial of very low nicotine content cigarettes. RESULTS: In the absence of type I error control, the observed type I error rate for Virtual Twins was between 99% and 100%. In contrast, models tuned via the proposed permutation were able to control the type I error rate and detect heterogeneous effects when present. An application of our approach to a recently completed trial of very low nicotine content cigarettes identified several variables with potentially heterogeneous treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed permutation procedure allows researchers to engage in secondary analyses of clinical trials for treatment effect heterogeneity while maintaining the type I error rate without pre-specifying subgroups.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Secondary analyses of randomized clinical trials often seek to identify subgroups with differential treatment effects. These discoveries can help guide individual treatment decisions based on patient characteristics and identify populations for which additional treatments are needed. Traditional analyses require researchers to pre-specify potential subgroups to reduce the risk of reporting spurious results. There is a need for methods that can detect such subgroups without a priori specification while allowing researchers to control the probability of falsely detecting heterogeneous subgroups when treatment effects are uniform across the study population. METHODS: We propose a permutation procedure for tuning parameter selection that allows for type I error control when testing for heterogeneous treatment effects framed within the Virtual Twins procedure for subgroup identification. We verify that the type I error rate can be controlled at the nominal rate and investigate the power for detecting heterogeneous effects when present through extensive simulation studies. We apply our method to a secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial of very low nicotine content cigarettes. RESULTS: In the absence of type I error control, the observed type I error rate for Virtual Twins was between 99% and 100%. In contrast, models tuned via the proposed permutation were able to control the type I error rate and detect heterogeneous effects when present. An application of our approach to a recently completed trial of very low nicotine content cigarettes identified several variables with potentially heterogeneous treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed permutation procedure allows researchers to engage in secondary analyses of clinical trials for treatment effect heterogeneity while maintaining the type I error rate without pre-specifying subgroups.
Entities:
Keywords:
Permutation test; subgroup identification; treatment effect heterogeneity; type I error; virtual twins
Authors: Dorothy K Hatsukami; Xianghua Luo; Joni A Jensen; Mustafa al'Absi; Sharon S Allen; Steven G Carmella; Menglan Chen; Paul M Cinciripini; Rachel Denlinger-Apte; David J Drobes; Joseph S Koopmeiners; Tonya Lane; Chap T Le; Scott Leischow; Kai Luo; F Joseph McClernon; Sharon E Murphy; Viviana Paiano; Jason D Robinson; Herbert Severson; Christopher Sipe; Andrew A Strasser; Lori G Strayer; Mei Kuen Tang; Ryan Vandrey; Stephen S Hecht; Neal L Benowitz; Eric C Donny Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Dorothy K Hatsukami; Louise A Hertsgaard; Rachel I Vogel; Joni A Jensen; Sharon E Murphy; Stephen S Hecht; Steven G Carmella; Mustafa al'Absi; Anne M Joseph; Sharon S Allen Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-04-19 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Dorothy K Hatsukami; Michael Kotlyar; Louise A Hertsgaard; Yan Zhang; Steven G Carmella; Joni A Jensen; Sharon S Allen; Peter G Shields; Sharon E Murphy; Irina Stepanov; Stephen S Hecht Journal: Addiction Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Ralph van Hoorn; Marcia Tummers; Andrew Booth; Ansgar Gerhardus; Eva Rehfuess; Daniel Hind; Patrick M Bossuyt; Vivian Welch; Thomas P A Debray; Martin Underwood; Pim Cuijpers; Helena Kraemer; Gert Jan van der Wilt; Wietkse Kievit Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Benjamin Kasenda; Stefan Schandelmaier; Xin Sun; Erik von Elm; John You; Anette Blümle; Yuki Tomonaga; Ramon Saccilotto; Alain Amstutz; Theresa Bengough; Joerg J Meerpohl; Mihaela Stegert; Kelechi K Olu; Kari A O Tikkinen; Ignacio Neumann; Alonso Carrasco-Labra; Markus Faulhaber; Sohail M Mulla; Dominik Mertz; Elie A Akl; Dirk Bassler; Jason W Busse; Ignacio Ferreira-González; Francois Lamontagne; Alain Nordmann; Viktoria Gloy; Heike Raatz; Lorenzo Moja; Rachel Rosenthal; Shanil Ebrahim; Per O Vandvik; Bradley C Johnston; Martin A Walter; Bernard Burnand; Matthias Schwenkglenks; Lars G Hemkens; Heiner C Bucher; Gordon H Guyatt; Matthias Briel Journal: BMJ Date: 2014-07-16
Authors: Kim C M Bul; Lisa L Doove; Ingmar H A Franken; Saskia Van der Oord; Pamela M Kato; Athanasios Maras Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 3.240