Dataset Information

Estimating treatment effects for individual patients based on the results of randomised clinical trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To predict treatment effects for individual patients based on data from randomised trials, taking rosuvastatin treatment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease as an example, and to evaluate the net benefit of making treatment decisions for individual patients based on a predicted absolute treatment effect.

Setting

As an example, data were used from the Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention (JUPITER) trial, a randomised controlled trial evaluating the effect of rosuvastatin 20 mg daily versus placebo on the occurrence of cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, arterial revascularisation, admission to hospital for unstable angina, or death from cardiovascular causes). Population 17,802 healthy men and women who had low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels of less than 3.4 mmol/L and high sensitivity C reactive protein levels of 2.0 mg/L or more.

Methods

Data from the Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention trial were used to predict rosuvastatin treatment effect for individual patients based on existing risk scores (Framingham and Reynolds) and on a newly developed prediction model. We compared the net benefit of prediction based rosuvastatin treatment (selective treatment of patients whose predicted treatment effect exceeds a decision threshold) with the net benefit of treating either everyone or no one.

Results

The median predicted 10 year absolute risk reduction for cardiovascular events was 4.4% (interquartile range 2.6-7.0%) based on the Framingham risk score, 4.2% (2.5-7.1%) based on the Reynolds score, and 3.9% (2.5-6.1%) based on the newly developed model (optimal fit model). Prediction based treatment was associated with more net benefit than treating everyone or no one, provided that the decision threshold was between 2% and 7%, and thus that the number willing to treat (NWT) to prevent one cardiovascular event over 10 years was between 15 and 50.

Conclusions

Data from randomised trials can be used to predict treatment effect in terms of absolute risk reduction for individual patients, based on a newly developed model or, if available, existing risk scores. The value of such prediction of treatment effect for medical decision making is conditional on the NWT to prevent one outcome event. Trial registration number Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00239681.

SUBMITTER: Dorresteijn JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3184644 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are often considered as the gold standard for assessing new health interventions. Patients are randomly assigned to receive an intervention or control. The effect of the intervention can be estimated by comparing outcomes between groups, whose prognostic factors are expected to balance by randomisation. However, patients' non-compliance with their assigned treatment will undermine randomisation and potentially bias the estimate of treatment effect. Through simulation, we aim to compare common approaches in analysing non-compliant data under different non-compliant scenarios.SettingsBased on a real study, we simulated hypothetical trials by varying three non-compliant factors: the type, randomness and degree of non-compliance. We compared the intention-to-treat (ITT), as-treated (AT), per-protocol (PP), instrumental variable (IV) and complier average casual effect (CACE) analyses to estimate large (50% improvement over the control), moderate (25% improvement) and null (same as the control) treatment effects. Different approaches were compared by the bias of estimate, mean square error (MSE) and 95% coverage of the true value.ResultsFor a large or moderate treatment effect, the ITT estimate was considerably biased in all scenarios. The AT, PP, IV and CACE estimates were unbiased when non-compliant behaviours were random. The IV estimate was unbiased when non-compliant behaviours were symmetrically dependent on patients' conditions. The PP estimate was mostly unbiased when patients in the control group did not have access to the intervention. When the intervention was not different from the control, the ITT was less biased than the other approaches. Similar results were found when comparing the MSE and 95% coverage.ConclusionsThe standard ITT analysis under non-compliance is biased when the intervention has a moderate or large effect. Alternative analyses can provide unbiased or less biased estimates. Based on the results, we make some suggestions on choosing optimal approaches for analysing specific non-compliant scenarios.

Project description:BackgroundThe cardiovascular effects of treating older adults with subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) are uncertain. Although concerns have been raised regarding a potential increase in cardiovascular side effects from thyroid hormone replacement, undertreatment may also increase the risk of cardiovascular events, especially for patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD).ObjectiveTo determine the effects of levothyroxine treatment on cardiovascular outcomes in older adults with SCH.MethodsCombined data of two parallel randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trials TRUST (Thyroid hormone Replacement for Untreated older adults with Subclinical hypothyroidism - a randomised placebo controlled Trial) and IEMO80+ (the Institute for Evidence-Based Medicine in Old Age 80-plus thyroid trial) were analysed as one-stage individual participant data. Participants aged ≥65 years for TRUST (n=737) and ≥80 years for IEMO80+ (n=105) with SCH, defined by elevated TSH with fT4 within the reference range, were included. Participants were randomly assigned to receive placebo or levothyroxine, with titration of the dose until TSH level was within the reference range. Cardiovascular events and cardiovascular side effects of overtreatment (new-onset atrial fibrillation and heart failure) were investigated, including stratified analyses according to CVD history and age.ResultsThe median [IQR] age was 75.0 [69.7-81.1] years, and 448 participants (53.2%) were women. The mean TSH was 6.38± SD 5.7 mIU/L at baseline and decreased at 1 year to 5.66 ± 3.3 mIU/L in the placebo group, compared with 3.66 ± 2.1 mIU/L in the levothyroxine group (p<0.001), at a median dose of 50 μg. Levothyroxine did not significantly change the risk of any of the prespecified cardiovascular outcomes, including cardiovascular events (HR 0.74 [0.41-1.25]), atrial fibrillation (HR 0.69 [0.32-1.52]), or heart failure (0.41 [0.13-1.35]), or all-cause mortality (HR 1.28 [0.54-3.03]), irrespective of history of CVD and age.ConclusionTreatment with levothyroxine did not significantly change the risk of cardiovascular outcomes in older adults with subclinical hypothyroidism, irrespective of a history of cardiovascular disease and age.Clinical trial registration[ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [NCT01660126] (TRUST); Netherlands Trial Register: NTR3851 (IEMO80+).

Project description:ObjectivesTo study the impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects, and their variation between trials; differentiating between blinding of patients, healthcare providers, and observers; detection bias and performance bias; and types of outcome (the MetaBLIND study).DesignMeta-epidemiological study.Data sourceCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2013-14).Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesMeta-analyses with both blinded and non-blinded trials on any topic.Review methodsBlinding status was retrieved from trial publications and authors, and results retrieved automatically from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Bayesian hierarchical models estimated the average ratio of odds ratios (ROR), and estimated the increases in heterogeneity between trials, for non-blinded trials (or of unclear status) versus blinded trials. Secondary analyses adjusted for adequacy of concealment of allocation, attrition, and trial size, and explored the association between outcome subjectivity (high, moderate, low) and average bias. An ROR lower than 1 indicated exaggerated effect estimates in trials without blinding.ResultsThe study included 142 meta-analyses (1153 trials). The ROR for lack of blinding of patients was 0.91 (95% credible interval 0.61 to 1.34) in 18 meta-analyses with patient reported outcomes, and 0.98 (0.69 to 1.39) in 14 meta-analyses with outcomes reported by blinded observers. The ROR for lack of blinding of healthcare providers was 1.01 (0.84 to 1.19) in 29 meta-analyses with healthcare provider decision outcomes (eg, readmissions), and 0.97 (0.64 to 1.45) in 13 meta-analyses with outcomes reported by blinded patients or observers. The ROR for lack of blinding of observers was 1.01 (0.86 to 1.18) in 46 meta-analyses with subjective observer reported outcomes, with no clear impact of degree of subjectivity. Information was insufficient to determine whether lack of blinding was associated with increased heterogeneity between trials. The ROR for trials not reported as double blind versus those that were double blind was 1.02 (0.90 to 1.13) in 74 meta-analyses.ConclusionNo evidence was found for an average difference in estimated treatment effect between trials with and without blinded patients, healthcare providers, or outcome assessors. These results could reflect that blinding is less important than often believed or meta-epidemiological study limitations, such as residual confounding or imprecision. At this stage, replication of this study is suggested and blinding should remain a methodological safeguard in trials.