Dataset Information

Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal.

ABSTRACT: Mounting evidence suggests that there is frequently considerable variation in the risk of the outcome of interest in clinical trial populations. These differences in risk will often cause clinically important heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE) across the trial population, such that the balance between treatment risks and benefits may differ substantially between large identifiable patient subgroups; the "average" benefit observed in the summary result may even be non-representative of the treatment effect for a typical patient in the trial. Conventional subgroup analyses, which examine whether specific patient characteristics modify the effects of treatment, are usually unable to detect even large variations in treatment benefit (and harm) across risk groups because they do not account for the fact that patients have multiple characteristics simultaneously that affect the likelihood of treatment benefit. Based upon recent evidence on optimal statistical approaches to assessing HTE, we propose a framework that prioritizes the analysis and reporting of multivariate risk-based HTE and suggests that other subgroup analyses should be explicitly labeled either as primary subgroup analyses (well-motivated by prior evidence and intended to produce clinically actionable results) or secondary (exploratory) subgroup analyses (performed to inform future research). A standardized and transparent approach to HTE assessment and reporting could substantially improve clinical trial utility and interpretability.

SUBMITTER: Kent DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2928211 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal.

Kent David M DM Rothwell Peter M PM Ioannidis John P A JP Altman Doug G DG Hayward Rodney A RA

Trials 20100812

Mounting evidence suggests that there is frequently considerable variation in the risk of the outcome of interest in clinical trial populations. These differences in risk will often cause clinically important heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE) across the trial population, such that the balance between treatment risks and benefits may differ substantially between large identifiable patient subgroups; the "average" benefit observed in the summary result may even be non-representative of the ...[more]

PMID: 20704705

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAdoption of rigorous standards for reporting treatment fidelity is essential for advancing discovery, validation, and implementation of behavioral treatments. Whereas the NIH Behavior Change Consortium (BCC) developed an assessment tool to assess the quality of reporting and monitoring of treatment fidelity across health behavior change interventions, it has not yet been applied specifically to treatment fidelity in behavioral tobacco treatment trials.Aims and methodsWe conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed, clinical trials of behavioral adult tobacco treatment interventions published in English between 2006 and 2018. Using the BCC treatment fidelity checklist, articles were coded for the presence or absence of various treatment fidelity strategies within each of 5 domains: Design, Training, Delivery, Receipt, and Enactment. Eligible articles (N = 755) were coded by two independent coders.ResultsThe proportion of reporting strategies varied within the fidelity domains, ranging from 5.2% to 96.3% in Design, 1.9% to 24.9% in Training, 2.6% to 32.3% in Delivery, 5.2% to 44.3% in Receipt, and 6.7% to 43.2% in Enactment. The mean proportion of adherence to treatment fidelity strategies within each domain was: Design (68%), Training (14%), Delivery (15%), Receipt (16%), and Enactment (25%). Only 11 studies achieved ≥80% reporting across >1 fidelity domain. There was no evidence for improvement in fidelity reporting across the 13-year time frame from the initial BCC publication to the present.ConclusionsThese findings illustrate the lack of consistency in fidelity reporting in tobacco treatment trials and underscore the challenges faced in evaluating rigor and reproducibility, as well as interpretation and dissemination of findings. Recommendations are made for improving fidelity reporting in tobacco treatment trials.ImplicationsThe SRNT Treatment Research Network sponsored a scoping review to summarize the current state of reporting treatment fidelity and make recommendations for best practices in reporting fidelity in tobacco treatment trials. The review identified a lack of consistency in fidelity reporting, illustrating the challenges faced in evaluating rigor, and reproducibility, as well as interpretation and dissemination of findings.

Project description:BackgroundCluster-randomized trials (CRTs) are being increasingly used to test a range of interventions, including medical interventions commonly used in clinical practice. Policies created by the NIH and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) require the reporting of demographics and the examination of demographic heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) for individually randomized trials. Little is known about how frequent demographics are reported and HTE analyses are conducted in CRTs.ObjectivesWe sought to understand the prevalence of HTE analyses and the statistical methods used to conduct them in CRTs focused on treating cardiovascular disease, cancer, and chronic lower respiratory diseases. Additionally, we also report on the proportion of CRTs that reported on baseline demographics of its populations and conducted demographic HTE analyses.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed and Embase for CRTs published between 1/1/2010 and 3/29/2016 that focused on treating the top 3 Center for Disease Control causes of death (cardiovascular disease, chronic lower respiratory disease, and cancer). Evidence Screening And Review: Of 1,682 unique titles, 117 abstracts were screened. After excluding 53 articles, we included 64 CRT publications and abstracted information on study characteristics and demographic information, statistical analysis, HTE analysis, and study quality.ResultsAge and sex were reported in greater than 95.3% of CRTs, while race and ethnicity were reported in only 20.3% of CRTs. HTE analyses were conducted in 28.1% (n = 18) of included CRTs and 77.8% (n = 12) were prespecified analyses. Four CRTs conducted a demographic subgroup analysis. Only 6/18 CRTs used interaction testing to determine whether HTE existed.ConclusionsBaseline demographic reporting was high for age and sex in CRTs, but was uncommon for race and ethnicity. HTE analyses were uncommon and was rare for demographic subgroups, which limits the ability to examine the extent of benefits or risks for treatments tested with CRT designs.

Dataset Information

Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal.

Publications

Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets