Dataset Information

Illustrating potential effects of alternate control populations on real-world evidence-based statistical analyses.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Case-control study designs are commonly used in retrospective analyses of real-world evidence (RWE). Due to the increasingly wide availability of RWE, it can be difficult to determine whether findings are robust or the result of testing multiple hypotheses.

Materials and methods

We investigate the potential effects of modifying cohort definitions in a case-control association study between depression and type 2 diabetes mellitus. We used a large (>75 million individuals) de-identified administrative claims database to observe the effects of minor changes to the requirements of glucose and hemoglobin A1c tests in the control group.

Results

We found that small permutations to the criteria used to define the control population result in significant shifts in both the demographic structure of the identified cohort as well as the odds ratio of association. These differences remain present when testing against age- and sex-matched controls.

Discussion

Analyses of RWE need to be carefully designed to avoid issues of multiple testing. Minor changes to control cohorts can lead to significantly different results and have the potential to alter even prospective studies through selection bias.

Conclusion

We believe this work offers strong support for the need for robust guidelines, best practices, and regulations around the use of observational RWE for clinical or regulatory decision-making.

SUBMITTER: Huang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8206406 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction Real-world evidence is important in regulatory and funding decisions. Manual data extraction from electronic health records (EHRs) is time-consuming and challenging to maintain. Automated extraction using natural language processing (NLP) and artificial intelligence may facilitate this process. Whereas NLP offers a faster solution than manual methods of extraction, the validity of extracted data remains in question. The current study compared manual and automated data extraction from the EHR of patients with advanced lung cancer. Methods Previously, we extracted EHRs from 1209 patients diagnosed with advanced lung cancer (stage IIIB or IV) between January 2015 and December 2017 at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (Toronto, Canada) using the commercially available artificial intelligence engine, DARWEN (Pentavere, Ontario, Canada). For comparison, 100 of 333 patients that received systemic therapy were randomly selected and clinical data manually extracted by two trained abstractors using the same accepted gold standard feature definitions, including patient, disease characteristics, and treatment data. All cases were re-reviewed by an expert adjudicator. Accuracy and concordance between automated and manual methods are reported. Results Automated extraction required considerably less time (<1 day) than manual extraction (∼225 person-hr). The collection of demographic data (age, sex, diagnosis) was highly accurate and concordant with both methods (96%–100%). Accuracy (for either extraction approach) and concordance were lower for unstructured data elements in EHR, such as performance status, date of diagnosis, and smoking status (NLP accuracy: 88%–94%; Manual accuracy: 78%–94%; concordance: 71%–82%). Concurrent medications (86%–100%) and comorbid conditions (96%–100%), were reported with high accuracy and concordance. Treatment details were also accurately captured with both methods (84%–100%) and highly concordant (83%–99%). Detection of whether biomarker testing was performed was highly accurate and concordant (96%–98%), although detection of biomarker test results was more variable (accuracy 84%–100%, concordance 84%–99%). Features with syntactic or semantic variation requiring clinical interpretation were extracted with slightly lower accuracy by both NLP and manual review. For example, metastatic sites were more accurately identified through NLP extraction (NLP: 88%–99%; manual: 71%–100%; concordance: 70%–99%) with the exception of lung and lymph node metastases (NLP: 66%–71%; manual: 87%–92%; concordance: 58%) owing to analogous terms used in radiology reports not being included in the accepted gold standard definition. Conclusions Automated data abstraction from EHR is highly accurate and faster than manual abstraction. Key challenges include poorly structured EHR and the use of analogous terms beyond the accepted gold standard definition. The application of NLP can facilitate real-world evidence studies at a greater scale than could be achieved with manual data extraction

Project description:Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are essential to guide medical practice; however, their generalizability to a given population is often uncertain. We developed a statistically informed Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) model, RCT-Twin-GAN, that leverages relationships between covariates and outcomes and generates a digital twin of an RCT (RCT-Twin) conditioned on covariate distributions from a second patient population. We used RCT-Twin-GAN to reproduce treatment effect outcomes of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) and the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Blood Pressure Trial, which tested the same intervention but had different treatment effect results. To demonstrate treatment effect estimates of each RCT conditioned on the other RCT patient population, we evaluated the cardiovascular event-free survival of SPRINT digital twins conditioned on the ACCORD cohort and vice versa (SPRINT-conditioned ACCORD twins). The conditioned digital twins were balanced by the intervention arm (mean absolute standardized mean difference (MASMD) of covariates between treatment arms 0.019 (SD 0.018), and the conditioned covariates of the SPRINT-Twin on ACCORD were more similar to ACCORD than a sprint (MASMD 0.0082 SD 0.016 vs. 0.46 SD 0.20). Most importantly, across iterations, SPRINT conditioned ACCORD-Twin datasets reproduced the overall non-significant effect size seen in ACCORD (5-year cardiovascular outcome hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) of 0.88 (0.73-1.06) in ACCORD vs median 0.87 (0.68-1.13) in the SPRINT conditioned ACCORD-Twin), while the ACCORD conditioned SPRINT-Twins reproduced the significant effect size seen in SPRINT (0.75 (0.64-0.89) vs median 0.79 (0.72-0.86)) in ACCORD conditioned SPRINT-Twin). Finally, we describe the translation of this approach to real-world populations by conditioning the trials on an electronic health record population. Therefore, RCT-Twin-GAN simulates the direct translation of RCT-derived treatment effects across various patient populations with varying covariate distributions.