Tailoring treatments using treatment effect modification

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 355-362

  Schmidt, A F ^a,b,c,d   Klungel, O H ^a,b   Nielen, M ^c   de Boer, A ^b   Groenwold, R H H ^a,b   Hoes, A W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Effect modification; Generalizability; Interaction; Nonrandomized study design; Observational study design; Pharmacoepidemiology; Randomized controlled trial; Statistics

Indexed keywords

EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; THERAPY EFFECT; TREATMENT RESPONSE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); HEALTH SERVICE; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC);

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HEALTH SERVICES NEEDS AND DEMAND; HUMANS; PRECISION MEDICINE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84959093671     PISSN: 10538569     EISSN: 10991557     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pds.3965     Document Type: Review

References (69)

1. Vandenbroucke JP. When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials? Lancet 2004; 363: 1728-1731.
2. Vandenbroucke JP. What is the best evidence for determining harms of medical treatment? CMAJ 2006; 174: 645-646.
3. Grobbee DE, Hoes AW. Intervention Research: Unintended Effects, in Clinical Epidemiology: Principles, Methods and Applications for Clinical Research, chap 6. Burlington: Jones and Bartlett Learning, 2015; 181-214.
4. Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: "to whom do the results of this trial apply?". Lancet 2005; 365: 82-93.
5. Rothwell PM. Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation. Lancet 2005; 365: 176-186.
6. Rothwell PM, Mehta Z, Howard SC, et al. Treating individuals 3: from subgroups to individuals: general principles and the example of carotid endarterectomy. Lancet 2005; 365: 256-265.
7. Bugeja G, Kumar A, Banerjee AK. Exclusion of elderly people from clinical research: a descriptive study of published reports. BMJ 1997; 315: 1059.
8. VanderWeele TJ. On the distinction between interaction and effect modification. Epidemiology 2009; 20: 863-871.
9. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Walker AM. Concepts of interaction. Am J Epidemiol 1980; 112: 467-470.
10. Greenland S. Tests for interaction in epidemiologic studies: a review and a study of power. Stat Med 1983; 2: 243-251.
11. White IR, Elbourne D. Assessing subgroup effects with binary data: can the use of different effect measures lead to different conclusions? BMC Med Res Methodol 2005; 5: 15.
12. Morabia A, Ten HT, Landis JR. Interaction fallacy. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 809-812.
13. Sun X, Briel M, Busse JW, et al. The influence of study characteristics on reporting of subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: systematic review. BMJ 2011; 342: d1569.
14. Rothman KJ, Gallacher JE, Hatch EE. Why representativeness should be avoided. Int J Epidemiol 2013; 42: 1012-1014.
15. Kent DM, Hayward RA. Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification. JAMA 2007; 298: 1209-1212.
16. Hernan MA. A definition of causal effect for epidemiological research. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004; 58: 265-271.
17. Poole C, Shrier IF, VanderWeele TJ: Is the risk difference really a more heterogeneous measure? Epidemiology 2015; 26(5): 714-718.
18. Engels EA, Schmid CH, Terrin N, et al. Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses. Stat Med 2000; 19: 1707-1728.
19. Deeks JJ. Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1575-1600.
20. Sterne JA, Egger M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 1046-1055.
21. Sun X, Briel M, Walter SD, et al. Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. BMJ 2010; 340: c117.
22. Rothwell PM. Treating individuals 2. Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation. Lancet 2005; 365: 176-186.
23. Greenland S, Lash TL, Rothman K: Concepts of interaction, in Rothman K, Greenland S, Lash TL (eds): Modern Epidemiology 3rd ed. Philadelpha: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2008; 71-86.
24. Schwartz D, Lellouch J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 499-505.
25. Schmidt AF, Groenwold RH, van Delden JJ, et al. Justification of exclusion criteria was underreported in a review of cardiovascular trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67(6): 635-644.
26. van der Graaf R, Groenwold RHH, Kalkman S, et al. From justifying inclusion to justifying exclusion of study populations: strengths and limitations. World Med J 2013; 59: 192-197.
27. Dekkers OM, von Elm E, Algra A, et al. How to assess the external validity of therapeutic trials: a conceptual approach. Int J Epidemiol 2010; 39: 89-94.
28. Rothman KJ, Gallacher JE, Hatch EE. Rebuttal: when it comes to scientific inference, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Int J Epidemiol 2013; 42: 1026-1028.
29. Rothman KJ. Six persistent research misconceptions. J Gen Intern Med 2014; 29(7): 1060-1064.
30. Pressler TR, Kaizar EE. The use of propensity scores and observational data to estimate randomized controlled trial generalizability bias. Stat Med 2013; 32(20): 3552-3568.
31. Schmidt AF, Hoes AW, Groenwold RH. Comments on 'The use of propensity scores and observational data to estimate randomized controlled trial generalizability bias' by Taylor R. Pressler and Eloise E. Kaizar, Statistics in Medicine 2013. Stat Med 2014; 33: 536-537.
32. Altman DG, Bland JM. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ 1995; 311: 485.
33. Jones B, Jarvis P, Lewis JA, et al. Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods. BMJ 1996; 313: 36-39.
34. Fleming TR. Design and interpretation of equivalence trials. Am Heart J 2000; 139: S171-S176.
35. Altman DG, Bland JM. Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ 2003; 326: 219.
36. Matthews JN, Altman DG. Statistics notes. Interaction 2: Compare effect sizes not P values. BMJ 1996; 313: 808.
37. Bagheri Z, Ayatollahi SM, Jafari P. Comparison of three tests of homogeneity of odds ratios in multicenter trials with unequal sample sizes within and among centers. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011; 11: 58.
38. Lui KJ. Testing homogeneity of the risk ratio in stratified noncompliance randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials 2007; 28: 614-625.
39. Lui KJ. A simple test of the homogeneity of risk difference in sparse data: an application to a multicenter study. Biom J 2005; 47: 654-661.
40. O'Gorman TW, Woolson RF, Jones MP, et al. Statistical analysis of K 2×2 tables: a comparative study of estimators/test statistics for association and homogeneity. Environ Health Perspect 1990; 87: 103-107.
41. Paul SR, Donner A. Small sample performance of tests of homogeneity of odds ratios in K 2 x 2 tables. Stat Med 1992; 11: 159-165.
42. Zhang L, Yang H, Cho I. Test homogeneity of risk difference across subgroups in clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat 2009; 19(1): 67-76.
43. Schmidt AF, Groenwold RH, Knol MJ, et al. Exploring interaction effects in small samples increases rates of false-positive and false-negative findings: results from a systematic review and simulation study. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67: 821-829.
44. Schmidt AF, Rovers MM, Klungel OH, et al. Differences in interaction and subgroup-specific effects were observed between randomized and nonrandomized studies in three empirical examples. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 599-607.
45. Koopman L, van der Heijden GJ, Hoes AW, et al. Empirical comparison of subgroup effects in conventional and individual patient data meta-analyses. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008; 24: 358-361.
46. Boessen R, van der Baan F, Groenwold R, et al. Optimizing trial design in pharmacogenetics research: comparing a fixed parallel group, group sequential, and adaptive selection design on sample size requirements. Pharm Stat 2013; 12: 366-374.
47. Bretz F, Koenig F, Brannath W, et al. Adaptive designs for confirmatory clinical trials. Stat Med 2009; 28: 1181-1217.
48. van der Baan FH, Knol MJ, Klungel OH, et al. Potential of adaptive clinical trial designs in pharmacogenetic research. Pharmacogenomics 2012; 13: 571-578.
49. Tanniou J, Tweel v T, Teerenstra S, et al. Level of evidence for promising subgroup findings in an overall non-significant trial. Stat Methods Med Res 2014.
50. Peterson B, George SL. Sample size requirements and length of study for testing interaction in a 2×k factorial design when time-to-failure is the outcome [corrected]. Control Clin Trials 1993; 14: 511-522.
51. Rovers MM, Straatman H, Ingels K, et al. Generalizability of trial results based on randomized versus nonrandomized allocation of OME infants to ventilation tubes or watchful waiting. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 789-794.
52. Bowden J, Dudbridge F. Unbiased estimation of odds ratios: combining genomewide association scans with replication studies. Genet Epidemiol 2009; 33: 406-418.
53. Kent DM, Ruthazer R, Selker HP. Are some patients likely to benefit from recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke even beyond 3hours from symptom onset? Stroke 2003; 34: 464-467.
54. Hayward RA, Kent DM, Vijan S, et al. Multivariable risk prediction can greatly enhance the statistical power of clinical trial subgroup analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006; 6: 18.
55. Kent DM, Rothwell PM, Ioannidis JP, et al. Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal. Trials 2010; 11: 85.
56. Dorresteijn JA, Visseren FL, Ridker PM, et al. Estimating treatment effects for individual patients based on the results of randomised clinical trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5888.
57. Jones MP, O'Gorman TW, Lemke JH, et al. A Monte Carlo investigation of homogeneity tests of the odds ratio under various sample size configurations. Biometrics 1989; 45: 171-181.
58. Liang KY, Self SG. Tests for homogeneity of odds ratio when the data are Sparse 3. Biometrika 1985; 72: 353-358.
59. Lipsitz SR, Dear KB, Laird NM, et al. Tests for homogeneity of the risk difference when data are sparse. Biometrics 1998; 54: 148-160.
60. Lui KJ, Kelly C. Tests for homogeneity of the risk ratio in a series of 2x2 tables. Stat Med 2000; 19: 2919-2932.
61. Lui KJ, Chang KC. Test homogeneity of odds ratio in a randomized clinical trial with noncompliance. J Biopharm Stat 2009; 19: 916-932.
62. Reis IM, Hirji KF, Afifi AA. Exact and asymptotic tests for homogeneity in several 2×2 tables. Stat Med 1999; 18: 893-906.
63. Moons KG, Kengne AP, Woodward M, et al. Risk prediction models: I. Development, internal validation, and assessing the incremental value of a new (bio)marker. Heart 2012; 98: 683-690.
64. Schmidt AF, Nielen M, Klungel OH, et al. Prognostic factors of early metastasis and mortality in dogs with appendicular osteosarcoma after receiving surgery: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Prev Vet Med 2013; 112: 414-422.
65. Farooq V, van Klaveren D, Steyerberg EW, et al. Anatomical and clinical characteristics to guide decision making between coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for individual patients: development and validation of SYNTAX score II. Lancet 2013; 381: 639-650.
66. Schmidt AF, Groenwold RHH, Amsellem P, et al. Which dogs with appendicular osteosarcoma benefit most from chemotherapy after surgery? Results from an individual patient data meta-analysis. Prev Vet Med 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.10.016.
67. van Giessen A, Moons KG, de Wit GA, et al. Tailoring the implementation of new biomarkers based on their added predictive value in subgroups of individuals. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0114020.
68. van Giessen A, de Wit GA, Smit HA, et al. Patient selection for cardiac surgery: time to consider subgroups within risk categories? Int J Cardiol 2015; 203: 1103-1108.
69. Everitt B, Hothorn T: Cluster Analysis, in Gentleman R, Hornik K, Parmigiani G (eds): An Introduction to Applied Multivariate Analysis with R, chap 6. New York, Springer, 2011, pp 163-200