Lifting the veil off treatment effect heterogeneity

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Herbert I. Weisberg PhD , Megan Dailey Higgs PhD
{"title":"Lifting the veil off treatment effect heterogeneity","authors":"Herbert I. Weisberg PhD ,&nbsp;Megan Dailey Higgs PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.ahj.2024.04.020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Clinicians often suspect that a treatment effect can vary across individuals. However, they usually lack “evidence-based” guidance regarding potential heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE). Potentially actionable HTE is rarely discovered in clinical trials and is widely believed (or rationalized) by researchers to be rare. Conventional statistical methods to test for possible HTE are extremely conservative and tend to reinforce this belief. In truth, though, there is no realistic way to know whether a common, or average, effect estimated from a clinical trial is relevant for all, or even most, patients. This absence of evidence, misinterpreted as evidence of absence, may be resulting in sub-optimal treatment for many individuals. We first summarize the historical context in which current statistical methods for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were developed, focusing on the conceptual and technical limitations that shaped, and restricted, these methods. In particular, we explain how the common-effect assumption came to be virtually unchallenged. Second, we propose a simple graphical method for exploratory data analysis that can provide useful visual evidence of possible HTE. The basic approach is to display the complete distribution of outcome data rather than relying uncritically on simple summary statistics. Modern graphical methods, unavailable when statistical methods were initially formulated a century ago, now render fine-grained interrogation of the data feasible. We propose comparing observed treatment-group data to “pseudo data” engineered to mimic that which would be expected under a particular HTE model, such as the common-effect model. A clear discrepancy between the distributions of the common-effect pseudo data and the actual treatment-effect data provides prima facie evidence of HTE to motivate additional confirmatory investigation. Artificial data are used to illustrate implications of ignoring heterogeneity in practice and how the graphical method can be useful.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7868,"journal":{"name":"American heart journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American heart journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002870324001145","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Clinicians often suspect that a treatment effect can vary across individuals. However, they usually lack “evidence-based” guidance regarding potential heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE). Potentially actionable HTE is rarely discovered in clinical trials and is widely believed (or rationalized) by researchers to be rare. Conventional statistical methods to test for possible HTE are extremely conservative and tend to reinforce this belief. In truth, though, there is no realistic way to know whether a common, or average, effect estimated from a clinical trial is relevant for all, or even most, patients. This absence of evidence, misinterpreted as evidence of absence, may be resulting in sub-optimal treatment for many individuals. We first summarize the historical context in which current statistical methods for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were developed, focusing on the conceptual and technical limitations that shaped, and restricted, these methods. In particular, we explain how the common-effect assumption came to be virtually unchallenged. Second, we propose a simple graphical method for exploratory data analysis that can provide useful visual evidence of possible HTE. The basic approach is to display the complete distribution of outcome data rather than relying uncritically on simple summary statistics. Modern graphical methods, unavailable when statistical methods were initially formulated a century ago, now render fine-grained interrogation of the data feasible. We propose comparing observed treatment-group data to “pseudo data” engineered to mimic that which would be expected under a particular HTE model, such as the common-effect model. A clear discrepancy between the distributions of the common-effect pseudo data and the actual treatment-effect data provides prima facie evidence of HTE to motivate additional confirmatory investigation. Artificial data are used to illustrate implications of ignoring heterogeneity in practice and how the graphical method can be useful.

揭开治疗效果异质性的面纱。
临床医生经常怀疑治疗效果可能因人而异。然而,他们通常缺乏有关潜在治疗效果异质性(HTE)的 "循证 "指导。临床试验中很少发现潜在的可操作 HTE,研究人员普遍认为(或合理认为)这种情况很少见。检测可能的 HTE 的传统统计方法极其保守,往往会强化这种看法。但事实上,没有现实的方法可以知道临床试验中估算出的常见或平均效应是否与所有甚至大多数患者相关。这种证据的缺失被误解为证据的缺失,可能会导致许多人得不到最佳治疗。我们首先总结了当前随机对照试验(RCT)统计方法发展的历史背景,重点介绍了形成和限制这些方法的概念和技术局限性。特别是,我们解释了共同效应假设是如何变得几乎不受质疑的。其次,我们提出了一种用于探索性数据分析的简单图形方法,它可以为可能的 HTE 提供有用的直观证据。基本方法是显示结果数据的完整分布,而不是不加批判地依赖简单的汇总统计。现代图形方法是一个世纪前最初制定统计方法时所没有的,现在可以对数据进行精细分析。我们建议将观察到的治疗组数据与 "伪数据 "进行比较,"伪数据 "的设计旨在模仿特定 HTE 模型(如共效模型)下的预期数据。共同效应伪数据的分布与实际治疗效果数据之间的明显差异提供了 HTE 的初步证据,促使我们进行更多的确认性调查。人工数据用于说明在实践中忽略异质性的影响,以及图形方法如何发挥作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American heart journal
American heart journal 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
2.10%
发文量
214
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: The American Heart Journal will consider for publication suitable articles on topics pertaining to the broad discipline of cardiovascular disease. Our goal is to provide the reader primary investigation, scholarly review, and opinion concerning the practice of cardiovascular medicine. We especially encourage submission of 3 types of reports that are not frequently seen in cardiovascular journals: negative clinical studies, reports on study designs, and studies involving the organization of medical care. The Journal does not accept individual case reports or original articles involving bench laboratory or animal research.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信