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.

Predicting response to a cognitive–behavioral approach to treating low back pain: Secondary analysis of the BeST data set

“…We make a clear distinction between confirmatory prespecified subgroup analyses and exploratory subgroup analyses, where the former is used for hypothesis testing and the latter is hypothesis generating (33,34). We used the Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple testing for the prespecified subgroup analyses only.…”

Field Synopsis of the Role of Sex in Stroke Prediction Models

“…While the call for sex‐specific risk assessment in stroke appears well motivated by the literature, such calls should be viewed as part of a larger initiative to make recommendations more “patient‐specific,” as there are numerous factors (including sex) that can influence a patient's prognosis and potential for treatment benefit and harm 72, 73, 74. CPMs have the potential to enable appropriate tailoring of prevention and treatment strategies for stroke in men and women, and to improve estimation of sex‐based treatment disparities, which have been documented among stroke patients 13, 75.…”

A Framework for Crafting Clinical Practice Guidelines that are Relevant to the Care and Management of People with Multimorbidity

“…Second, risk-based exploration of treatment heterogeneity is needed for tailoring treatment recommendations, avoiding inappropriate subgroup analyses. 42,59 Third, meaningful outcomes need to be assessed that comprehensively capture health states and mortality at defined time points. 25,35,60 Treatment effects should be expressed in absolute and relative terms.…”