Evaluation of clinical utility in emulated clinical trials.

IF 5.9 1区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Johannes Hruza, Arvid Sjölander, Erin E Gabriel, Samir Bhatt, Michael C Sachs
{"title":"Evaluation of clinical utility in emulated clinical trials.","authors":"Johannes Hruza, Arvid Sjölander, Erin E Gabriel, Samir Bhatt, Michael C Sachs","doi":"10.1007/s10654-026-01385-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Dynamic treatment regimes have been proposed to personalize treatment decisions by utilizing historical patient data, but they may not always improve on the current standard of care. It is thus meaningful to integrate the standard of care into the evaluation of treatment strategies, and previous works have suggested doing so through the concept of clinical utility. Here we will focus on the comparative component of clinical utility as the average outcome had the full population received treatment based on the proposed dynamic treatment regime in comparison to the full population receiving the \"standard\" treatment assignment mechanism, such as a physician's choice. Clinical trials to evaluate clinical utility are rarely conducted, and thus, previous works have proposed an emulated clinical trial framework using observational data. However, only one simple estimator was previously suggested, and the practical details of how one would conduct this emulated trial were not detailed. Here, we illuminate these details and propose several estimators of clinical utility based on estimators proposed in the dynamic treatment regime literature. We illustrate the considerations and the estimators in a real data example investigating treatment rules for rheumatoid arthritis, where we highlight that in addition to the standard of care, the current medical guidelines should also be compared to any estimated \"optimal\" decision rule.</p>","PeriodicalId":11907,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-026-01385-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Dynamic treatment regimes have been proposed to personalize treatment decisions by utilizing historical patient data, but they may not always improve on the current standard of care. It is thus meaningful to integrate the standard of care into the evaluation of treatment strategies, and previous works have suggested doing so through the concept of clinical utility. Here we will focus on the comparative component of clinical utility as the average outcome had the full population received treatment based on the proposed dynamic treatment regime in comparison to the full population receiving the "standard" treatment assignment mechanism, such as a physician's choice. Clinical trials to evaluate clinical utility are rarely conducted, and thus, previous works have proposed an emulated clinical trial framework using observational data. However, only one simple estimator was previously suggested, and the practical details of how one would conduct this emulated trial were not detailed. Here, we illuminate these details and propose several estimators of clinical utility based on estimators proposed in the dynamic treatment regime literature. We illustrate the considerations and the estimators in a real data example investigating treatment rules for rheumatoid arthritis, where we highlight that in addition to the standard of care, the current medical guidelines should also be compared to any estimated "optimal" decision rule.

模拟临床试验中临床效用的评价。
动态治疗方案已经提出了个性化的治疗决策,利用历史病人的数据,但他们可能并不总是提高目前的护理标准。因此,将护理标准纳入治疗策略的评估是有意义的,以前的工作已经建议通过临床效用的概念来这样做。在这里,我们将重点关注临床效用的比较组成部分,因为根据拟议的动态治疗方案,与接受“标准”治疗分配机制(如医生的选择)的全体人群相比,全体人群接受治疗的平均结果。评估临床效用的临床试验很少进行,因此,以前的工作已经提出了一个使用观察数据的模拟临床试验框架。然而,以前只提出了一个简单的估计器,并且如何进行这个模拟试验的实际细节没有详细说明。在这里,我们阐明了这些细节,并提出了几个基于动态治疗方案文献中提出的估计量的临床效用估计量。我们通过一个调查类风湿关节炎治疗规则的真实数据示例说明了考虑因素和估计器,其中我们强调,除了护理标准之外,当前的医疗指南也应该与任何估计的“最佳”决策规则进行比较。
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
European Journal of Epidemiology
European Journal of Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
21.40
自引率
1.50%
发文量
109
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Epidemiology, established in 1985, is a peer-reviewed publication that provides a platform for discussions on epidemiology in its broadest sense. It covers various aspects of epidemiologic research and statistical methods. The journal facilitates communication between researchers, educators, and practitioners in epidemiology, including those in clinical and community medicine. Contributions from diverse fields such as public health, preventive medicine, clinical medicine, health economics, and computational biology and data science, in relation to health and disease, are encouraged. While accepting submissions from all over the world, the journal particularly emphasizes European topics relevant to epidemiology. The published articles consist of empirical research findings, developments in methodology, and opinion pieces.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书