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

<p>Abstract</p> <p>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 tr...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kent David M, Rothwell Peter M, Ioannidis John PA, Altman Doug G, Hayward Rodney A
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2010-08-01
Series:Trials
Online Access:http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/11/1/85
id doaj-02000dbdcb5041a1868a0976c6313cc0
record_format Article
spelling doaj-02000dbdcb5041a1868a0976c6313cc02020-11-24T21:19:07ZengBMCTrials1745-62152010-08-011118510.1186/1745-6215-11-85Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposalKent David MRothwell Peter MIoannidis John PAAltman Doug GHayward Rodney A<p>Abstract</p> <p>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.</p> http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/11/1/85
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Kent David M
Rothwell Peter M
Ioannidis John PA
Altman Doug G
Hayward Rodney A
spellingShingle Kent David M
Rothwell Peter M
Ioannidis John PA
Altman Doug G
Hayward Rodney A
Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal
Trials
author_facet Kent David M
Rothwell Peter M
Ioannidis John PA
Altman Doug G
Hayward Rodney A
author_sort Kent David M
title Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal
title_short Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal
title_full Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal
title_fullStr Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal
title_full_unstemmed Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal
title_sort assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal
publisher BMC
series Trials
issn 1745-6215
publishDate 2010-08-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>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.</p>
url http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/11/1/85
work_keys_str_mv AT kentdavidm assessingandreportingheterogeneityintreatmenteffectsinclinicaltrialsaproposal
AT rothwellpeterm assessingandreportingheterogeneityintreatmenteffectsinclinicaltrialsaproposal
AT ioannidisjohnpa assessingandreportingheterogeneityintreatmenteffectsinclinicaltrialsaproposal
AT altmandougg assessingandreportingheterogeneityintreatmenteffectsinclinicaltrialsaproposal
AT haywardrodneya assessingandreportingheterogeneityintreatmenteffectsinclinicaltrialsaproposal
_version_ 1726006981318148096