A health equity perspective on data-driven treatment decisions in cardiovascular care: risk assessments versus individualized treatment rules

BackgroundMedical treatment decisions are often based on estimated global risk scores. When heterogeneity in treatment effects exists, assigning treatment according to estimated individualized treatment rules (ITRs) instead has the potential to improve mean outcomes. To investigate racial and ethnic group differences in treatment rates when comparing antihypertensive medication recommendations from an estimated ITR with a risk score approach. MethodsData were simulated to emulate observational data with underlying treatment effect heterogeneity in survival times. An ITR and risk score approach were compared to illustrate how the resulting recommendations may disagree. An ITR for prescribing antihypertensives was estimated from 3,281 adults from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), an observational longitudinal cohort study, and compared to the risk-based approach recommended by cardiovascular care guidelines. Hypothetical treatment rates under each "rule" were computed. In the simulation study, the proportion of individuals treated optimally under each rule was calculated. Using MESA, a Chi-square test of independence was performed to determine whether treatment rates differed across racial and ethnic groups. ResultsTwo benefits of ITRs were shown: they (1) maximize expected survival times and (2) may mitigate racial disparities when treatment effect heterogeneity is expected. Using MESA, the ITR recommended treatment to more participants than the risk score approach across all racial and ethnic groups. A Chi-square test suggested that treatment rates for different "rules" differed significantly across racial and ethnic groups (p < .001). ConclusionTreatment recommendations varied substantially when assigning treatment using an ITR versus a risk-based approach.