Assessing treatment effect modification due to comorbidity using individual participant data from industry-sponsored drug trials
Hanlon, P.; Butterly, E.; Shah, A.; Hannigan, L.; Lewsey, J.; Mair, F.; Kent, D.; Guthrie, B.; Wild, S.; Welton, N.; Dias, S.; McAllister, D.
Show abstract
BackgroundPeople with comorbidities are under-represented in clinical trials. Empirical estimates of treatment effect modification by comorbidity are lacking leading to uncertainty in treatment recommendations. We aimed to produce estimates of treatment effect modification by comorbidity using individual participant data (IPD). Methods and ResultsUsing 126 industry-sponsored phase 3/4 trials across 23 index conditions, we performed a two-stage IPD meta-analysis to estimate modification of treatment effect by comorbidity. We estimated the effect of comorbidity measured in 3 ways: (i) the number of comorbidities (in addition to the index condition), (ii) presence or absence of the six commonest comorbid diseases for each index condition, and (iii) using continuous markers of underlying conditions (e.g., estimated glomerular function). Comorbidities were under-represented in trial participants and few had >2 comorbidities. We found no evidence of modification of treatment efficacy by comorbidity, for any of the 3 measures of comorbidity. This was the case for 20 conditions for which the outcome variable was continuous (e.g., change in glycosylated haemoglobin in diabetes) and for three conditions in which the outcomes were discrete events (e.g., number of headaches in migraine). Although all were null, estimates of treatment effect modification were more precise in some cases (e.g., Sodium-glucose co-transporter inhibitors for type 2 diabetes - interaction term for comorbidity count 0.004, 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.02) while for others credible intervals were wide (e.g., corticosteroids for asthma - interaction term -0.22, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.54). ConclusionFor trials included in this analysis, there was no empirical evidence of treatment effect modification by comorbidity. Our findings support the assumption that estimates of treatment efficacy are constant, at least across modest levels of comorbidity.
Matching journals
The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical Trials in COVID-19 Management & Prevention: A Meta-epidemiological Study examining methodological quality 95%
- Strength of Statistical Evidence for the Efficacy of Cancer Drugs: A Bayesian Re-Analysis of Trials Supporting FDA Approval 93%
- Prospective Registration of Trials: Where we are, why, and how we could get better 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Benzodiazepine Initiation Effect on Mortality Among Medicare Beneficiaries Post Acute Ischemic Stroke 93%
- Using quantitative bias analysis to adjust for misclassification of COVID-19 outcomes: An applied example of inhaled corticosteroids and COVID-19 outcomes 92%
- Emulating randomized controlled trials of long-acting insulins and cardiovascular events using real-world data for patients with type 2 diabetes 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- STIMULATE-ICP: A pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster randomised trial of an integrated care pathway with a nested, Phase III, open label, adaptive platform randomised drug trial in individuals with Long COVID: a structured protocol 94%
- Hydroxychloroquine/Chloroquine for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis 94%
- How Informative Were Early SARS-CoV-2 Treatment and Prevention Trials? A longitudinal cohort analysis of trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Tool to assess risk of bias due to missing evidence in network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN): elaboration and examples 93%
- Transparency and reporting characteristics of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials 93%
- Phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study of camostat mesilate (FOY-305) for the treatment of COVID-19 (CANDLE study) 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of confounder-adjusted 20212 hospitalized patients 93%
- Accuracy and clinical effectiveness of risk prediction tools for pressure injury occurrence: An umbrella review 93%
- A Systematic Review of Machine Learning-based Prognostic Models for Acute Pancreatitis: Towards Improving Methods and Reporting Quality 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.