Going beyond randomised controlled trials to assess treatment effect heterogeneity across target populations

Methods have been developed for transporting evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to target populations. However, these approaches allow only for differences in characteristics observed in the RCT and real-world data (overt heterogeneity). These approaches do not recognise heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) according to unmeasured characteristics (essential heterogeneity). We use a target trial design and apply a local instrumental variable (LIV) approach to electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, and examine both forms of heterogeneity in assessing the comparative effectiveness of two second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus. We first estimate individualised estimates of HTE across the entire target population defined by applying eligibility criteria from national guidelines (n = 13,240) within an overall target trial framework. We define a subpopulation who meet a published RCT's eligibility criteria ('RCT-eligible', n = 6497), and a subpopulation who do not ('RCT-ineligible', n = 6743). We compare average treatment effects for pre-specified subgroups within the RCT-eligible subpopulation, the RCT-ineligible subpopulation, and within the overall target population. We find differences across these subpopulations in the magnitude of subgroup-level treatment effects, but that the direction of estimated effects is stable. Our results highlight that LIV methods can provide useful evidence about treatment effect heterogeneity including for those subpopulations excluded from RCTs.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Health Economics
Published
2024-09-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4903
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.71

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Going beyond randomised controlled trials to assess treatment effect heterogeneity across target populations

Karla Díaz-Ordaz, David G. Lugo‐Palacios, Orlagh Carroll, Andrew Briggs et al.
1 citations
Health Economics
Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
0.71
article

Going beyond randomised controlled trials to assess treatment effect heterogeneity across target populations

Karla Díaz-Ordaz, David G. Lugo‐Palacios, Orlagh Carroll, Andrew Briggs, Anirban Basu, Patrick Bidulka, Amanda Adler, Stephen O’Neill, Richard Grieve
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Methods have been developed for transporting evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to target populations. However, these approaches allow only for differences in characteristics observed in the RCT and real-world data (overt heterogeneity). These approaches do not recognise heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) according to unmeasured characteristics (essential heterogeneity). We use a target trial design and apply a local instrumental variable (LIV) approach to electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, and examine both forms of heterogeneity in assessing the comparative effectiveness of two second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus. We first estimate individualised estimates of HTE across the entire target population defined by applying eligibility criteria from national guidelines (n = 13,240) within an overall target trial framework. We define a subpopulation who meet a published RCT's eligibility criteria ('RCT-eligible', n = 6497), and a subpopulation who do not ('RCT-ineligible', n = 6743). We compare average treatment effects for pre-specified subgroups within the RCT-eligible subpopulation, the RCT-ineligible subpopulation, and within the overall target population. We find differences across these subpopulations in the magnitude of subgroup-level treatment effects, but that the direction of estimated effects is stable. Our results highlight that LIV methods can provide useful evidence about treatment effect heterogeneity including for those subpopulations excluded from RCTs.

Health EconomicsVol. 34(1)
University of Washington (US), Churchill Hospital (GB), University of Oxford (GB), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB), Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism (GB), University College London (GB)
National Institute for Health and Care Research, University of Warwick, Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Medical Research Council, Leibniz-Gemeinschaft
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 26%
Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
0.71
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.