Extending Inferences from a Randomized Trial to Trial-eligible and Treatment-candidate Target Populations: Examples of Generalizability and Transportability.

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Epidemiology Pub Date : 2026-09-01 Epub Date: 2026-05-04 DOI:10.1097/EDE.0000000000001994
Jessica C Young, Issa J Dahabreh, Stefan James, David Erlinge, Ole Fröbert, Anita Berglund, Rebecca Rylance, Miguel A Hernán, Anthony A Matthews
{"title":"Extending Inferences from a Randomized Trial to Trial-eligible and Treatment-candidate Target Populations: Examples of Generalizability and Transportability.","authors":"Jessica C Young, Issa J Dahabreh, Stefan James, David Erlinge, Ole Fröbert, Anita Berglund, Rebecca Rylance, Miguel A Hernán, Anthony A Matthews","doi":"10.1097/EDE.0000000000001994","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>When decision makers use evidence from a randomized trial to inform population-level decisions, the target population they envision rarely aligns with the population of individuals who enrolled in the trial. Here, we extend inferences from the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART randomized trial (hereafter, the index trial), which compared the effects of bivalirudin and heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention on the risk of death, reinfarction, and bleeding, to two clinically relevant target populations: first, the trial-eligible population of individuals eligible for the index trial regardless of enrollment, and second, the treatment-candidate population of individuals who are considered candidates for bivalirudin and heparin under routine care, regardless of eligibility for the index trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using data from the index trial, we fit logistic regression models for the outcome at 180 days in each group based on assigned treatment. We then standardized risk estimates to the baseline covariate distribution of the trial-eligible and treatment-candidate target populations, which were characterized using data from Swedish healthcare registries.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The estimated risk difference comparing bivalirudin versus heparin was -1.1% (-3.1%, 0.9%) in the trial-eligible population and -1.0% (-3.0%, 1.0%) in the treatment-candidate population. The corresponding risk ratios were 0.92 (0.80, 1.07) and 0.93 (0.80, 1.07), respectively, aligning closely with estimates from the index trial. Absolute risks in each treatment group were, however, between 0.8 and 1.2 percentage points higher in comparison with the index trial.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Estimated risk ratios for the broader trial-eligible and treatment-candidate populations generally align with the findings from the index trial. While trials provide essential evidence for healthcare, questions often arise about wider, clinically relevant populations beyond the population of trial participants. By leveraging data from trials and observational data sources, we can attempt to address questions in these wider target populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":11779,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"603-611"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13390982/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001994","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/5/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: When decision makers use evidence from a randomized trial to inform population-level decisions, the target population they envision rarely aligns with the population of individuals who enrolled in the trial. Here, we extend inferences from the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART randomized trial (hereafter, the index trial), which compared the effects of bivalirudin and heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention on the risk of death, reinfarction, and bleeding, to two clinically relevant target populations: first, the trial-eligible population of individuals eligible for the index trial regardless of enrollment, and second, the treatment-candidate population of individuals who are considered candidates for bivalirudin and heparin under routine care, regardless of eligibility for the index trial.

Methods: Using data from the index trial, we fit logistic regression models for the outcome at 180 days in each group based on assigned treatment. We then standardized risk estimates to the baseline covariate distribution of the trial-eligible and treatment-candidate target populations, which were characterized using data from Swedish healthcare registries.

Results: The estimated risk difference comparing bivalirudin versus heparin was -1.1% (-3.1%, 0.9%) in the trial-eligible population and -1.0% (-3.0%, 1.0%) in the treatment-candidate population. The corresponding risk ratios were 0.92 (0.80, 1.07) and 0.93 (0.80, 1.07), respectively, aligning closely with estimates from the index trial. Absolute risks in each treatment group were, however, between 0.8 and 1.2 percentage points higher in comparison with the index trial.

Conclusions: Estimated risk ratios for the broader trial-eligible and treatment-candidate populations generally align with the findings from the index trial. While trials provide essential evidence for healthcare, questions often arise about wider, clinically relevant populations beyond the population of trial participants. By leveraging data from trials and observational data sources, we can attempt to address questions in these wider target populations.

将随机试验的推论扩展到符合试验条件和候选治疗的目标人群:普遍性和可移植性的例子。
背景:当决策者使用随机试验的证据来为人群水平的决策提供信息时,他们设想的目标人群很少与参加试验的个体人群一致。在这里,我们将VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART随机试验(以下简称指数试验)的推论扩展到两个临床相关的目标人群,该试验比较了经皮冠状动脉介入治疗期间比伐鲁定和肝素对死亡、再梗死和出血风险的影响:首先,无论入组情况如何,均有资格参加指标试验的符合试验条件的个体;其次,无论是否有资格参加指标试验,在常规护理下被认为是比伐鲁定和肝素候选治疗人群。方法:使用指数试验的数据,我们根据指定的治疗方法对每组180天的结果拟合逻辑回归模型。然后,我们将风险估计标准化为符合试验条件和治疗候选目标人群的基线协变量分布,这些人群使用来自瑞典医疗保健登记处的数据进行表征。结果:在符合试验条件的人群中,比伐鲁定与肝素的估计风险差异为-1.1%(-3.1%,0.9%),在候选治疗人群中为-1.0%(-3.0%,1.0%)。相应的风险比分别为0.92(0.80,1.07)和0.93(0.80,1.07),与指数试验的估计值非常接近。然而,与指数试验相比,每个治疗组的绝对风险高出0.8至1.2个百分点。结论:更广泛的符合试验条件和治疗候选人群的估计风险比总体上与指数试验的结果一致。虽然试验为医疗保健提供了必要的证据,但在试验参与者之外的更广泛的临床相关人群中经常出现问题。通过利用来自试验和观察数据源的数据,我们可以尝试在这些更广泛的目标人群中解决问题。
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
Epidemiology
Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
177
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Epidemiology publishes original research from all fields of epidemiology. The journal also welcomes review articles and meta-analyses, novel hypotheses, descriptions and applications of new methods, and discussions of research theory or public health policy. We give special consideration to papers from developing countries.
×
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