使用真实世界数据表征治疗效果异质性。

IF 6.3 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Haedi Thelen, Sean Hennessy
{"title":"使用真实世界数据表征治疗效果异质性。","authors":"Haedi Thelen,&nbsp;Sean Hennessy","doi":"10.1002/cpt.3627","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Characterizing heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) is a fundamental goal of pharmacoepidemiology, addressing why medications work differently across patient populations. This paper reviews state-of-the-art methods for studying HTE using real-world data (RWD), which offer larger study sizes and more diverse patient populations compared to randomized clinical trials. The paper first defines HTE and discusses its measurement. It then examines three leading approaches to studying HTE: subgroup analysis, disease risk score (DRS) methods, and effect modeling methods. Subgroup analyses offer simplicity, transparency, and provide insights into drug mechanisms. However, they face difficulties in resolving which subgroup or combination of characteristics should be the basis for clinical decision making when multiple effect modifiers are present. DRS methods address some of these limitations by incorporating multiple patient characteristics into a summary score of outcome risk but may obscure insights into mechanisms. Effect modeling methods directly predict individual treatment effects, offering potential for precise HTE characterization, but are prone to model misspecification and may not provide mechanistic insights. The methods each have tradeoffs. Subgroup analysis is straightforward but can lead to spurious associations and does not account for multiple characteristics at once. DRS methods are relatively simple to implement and clinically useful, but may not completely describe HTE or provide mechanistic insight. Effect modeling approaches have great potential for characterizing HTE but are still being developed. Understanding HTE is essential for personalizing treatment strategies to improve patient outcomes. Researchers must weigh the strengths and limitations of each approach when using RWD to study HTE.</p>","PeriodicalId":153,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics","volume":"117 5","pages":"1209-1216"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cpt.3627","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Characterizing Treatment Effect Heterogeneity Using Real-World Data\",\"authors\":\"Haedi Thelen,&nbsp;Sean Hennessy\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cpt.3627\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Characterizing heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) is a fundamental goal of pharmacoepidemiology, addressing why medications work differently across patient populations. This paper reviews state-of-the-art methods for studying HTE using real-world data (RWD), which offer larger study sizes and more diverse patient populations compared to randomized clinical trials. The paper first defines HTE and discusses its measurement. It then examines three leading approaches to studying HTE: subgroup analysis, disease risk score (DRS) methods, and effect modeling methods. Subgroup analyses offer simplicity, transparency, and provide insights into drug mechanisms. However, they face difficulties in resolving which subgroup or combination of characteristics should be the basis for clinical decision making when multiple effect modifiers are present. DRS methods address some of these limitations by incorporating multiple patient characteristics into a summary score of outcome risk but may obscure insights into mechanisms. Effect modeling methods directly predict individual treatment effects, offering potential for precise HTE characterization, but are prone to model misspecification and may not provide mechanistic insights. The methods each have tradeoffs. Subgroup analysis is straightforward but can lead to spurious associations and does not account for multiple characteristics at once. DRS methods are relatively simple to implement and clinically useful, but may not completely describe HTE or provide mechanistic insight. Effect modeling approaches have great potential for characterizing HTE but are still being developed. Understanding HTE is essential for personalizing treatment strategies to improve patient outcomes. Researchers must weigh the strengths and limitations of each approach when using RWD to study HTE.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":153,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics\",\"volume\":\"117 5\",\"pages\":\"1209-1216\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cpt.3627\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpt.3627\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpt.3627","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

表征治疗效果的异质性(HTE)是药物流行病学的一个基本目标,解决了为什么药物在不同患者群体中的作用不同。本文回顾了使用真实世界数据(RWD)研究HTE的最新方法,与随机临床试验相比,这些方法提供了更大的研究规模和更多样化的患者群体。本文首先定义了HTE,并讨论了其测量方法。然后,研究了研究HTE的三种主要方法:亚组分析、疾病风险评分(DRS)方法和效果建模方法。亚组分析提供了简单、透明和对药物机制的洞察。然而,当存在多种疗效调节剂时,他们在确定哪个亚组或特征组合应作为临床决策的基础方面面临困难。DRS方法通过将多种患者特征纳入结果风险的综合评分来解决这些局限性,但可能会模糊对机制的了解。效应建模方法直接预测个体治疗效果,为精确表征HTE提供了可能,但容易出现模型错误,并且可能无法提供机制见解。每种方法都有利弊。亚群分析是直接的,但可能导致虚假的联系,并不能一次解释多个特征。DRS方法实施起来相对简单,在临床上也很有用,但可能无法完全描述HTE或提供机制见解。效应建模方法在表征HTE方面具有很大的潜力,但仍在发展中。了解HTE对于个性化治疗策略以改善患者预后至关重要。在使用RWD研究HTE时,研究人员必须权衡每种方法的优势和局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Characterizing Treatment Effect Heterogeneity Using Real-World Data

Characterizing heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) is a fundamental goal of pharmacoepidemiology, addressing why medications work differently across patient populations. This paper reviews state-of-the-art methods for studying HTE using real-world data (RWD), which offer larger study sizes and more diverse patient populations compared to randomized clinical trials. The paper first defines HTE and discusses its measurement. It then examines three leading approaches to studying HTE: subgroup analysis, disease risk score (DRS) methods, and effect modeling methods. Subgroup analyses offer simplicity, transparency, and provide insights into drug mechanisms. However, they face difficulties in resolving which subgroup or combination of characteristics should be the basis for clinical decision making when multiple effect modifiers are present. DRS methods address some of these limitations by incorporating multiple patient characteristics into a summary score of outcome risk but may obscure insights into mechanisms. Effect modeling methods directly predict individual treatment effects, offering potential for precise HTE characterization, but are prone to model misspecification and may not provide mechanistic insights. The methods each have tradeoffs. Subgroup analysis is straightforward but can lead to spurious associations and does not account for multiple characteristics at once. DRS methods are relatively simple to implement and clinically useful, but may not completely describe HTE or provide mechanistic insight. Effect modeling approaches have great potential for characterizing HTE but are still being developed. Understanding HTE is essential for personalizing treatment strategies to improve patient outcomes. Researchers must weigh the strengths and limitations of each approach when using RWD to study HTE.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
7.50%
发文量
290
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (CPT) is the authoritative cross-disciplinary journal in experimental and clinical medicine devoted to publishing advances in the nature, action, efficacy, and evaluation of therapeutics. CPT welcomes original Articles in the emerging areas of translational, predictive and personalized medicine; new therapeutic modalities including gene and cell therapies; pharmacogenomics, proteomics and metabolomics; bioinformation and applied systems biology complementing areas of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, human investigation and clinical trials, pharmacovigilence, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacometrics, and population pharmacology.
×
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