Causalytics LLC, Cary, NC.
Critical Inference LLC, Bozeman, MT.
Am Heart J. 2024 Aug;274:23-31. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2024.04.020. Epub 2024 May 2.
Clinicians often suspect that a treatment effect can vary across individuals. However, they usually lack "evidence-based" guidance regarding potential heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE). Potentially actionable HTE is rarely discovered in clinical trials and is widely believed (or rationalized) by researchers to be rare. Conventional statistical methods to test for possible HTE are extremely conservative and tend to reinforce this belief. In truth, though, there is no realistic way to know whether a common, or average, effect estimated from a clinical trial is relevant for all, or even most, patients. This absence of evidence, misinterpreted as evidence of absence, may be resulting in sub-optimal treatment for many individuals. We first summarize the historical context in which current statistical methods for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were developed, focusing on the conceptual and technical limitations that shaped, and restricted, these methods. In particular, we explain how the common-effect assumption came to be virtually unchallenged. Second, we propose a simple graphical method for exploratory data analysis that can provide useful visual evidence of possible HTE. The basic approach is to display the complete distribution of outcome data rather than relying uncritically on simple summary statistics. Modern graphical methods, unavailable when statistical methods were initially formulated a century ago, now render fine-grained interrogation of the data feasible. We propose comparing observed treatment-group data to "pseudo data" engineered to mimic that which would be expected under a particular HTE model, such as the common-effect model. A clear discrepancy between the distributions of the common-effect pseudo data and the actual treatment-effect data provides prima facie evidence of HTE to motivate additional confirmatory investigation. Artificial data are used to illustrate implications of ignoring heterogeneity in practice and how the graphical method can be useful.
临床医生常常怀疑治疗效果可能因人而异。然而,他们通常缺乏关于潜在治疗效果异质性(HTE)的“循证”指导。在临床试验中很少发现潜在可操作的 HTE,研究人员普遍认为(或合理化)其很少见。用于检验潜在 HTE 的常规统计方法极为保守,往往强化了这种观点。但实际上,从临床试验中估计出的常见或平均效应是否适用于所有甚至大多数患者,并无切实可行的方法可以得知。这种缺乏证据的情况,被错误地解释为不存在证据,可能导致许多人接受的治疗效果不理想。
我们首先总结了当前用于随机对照试验(RCT)的统计方法发展的历史背景,重点介绍了影响和限制这些方法的概念和技术局限性。特别是,我们解释了共同效应假设如何几乎未受到挑战。其次,我们提出了一种简单的探索性数据分析图形方法,可以为潜在 HTE 提供有用的直观证据。基本方法是显示完整的结果数据分布,而不是不加批判地依赖简单的汇总统计。一个世纪前制定统计方法时还没有现代图形方法,现在可以对数据进行更精细的询问。我们建议将观察到的治疗组数据与“伪数据”进行比较,这些伪数据旨在模拟特定 HTE 模型(如共同效应模型)下预期的数据。共同效应伪数据分布与实际治疗效果数据之间的明显差异提供了 HTE 的初步证据,以促使进行额外的确认性调查。使用人工数据来说明在实践中忽略异质性的影响以及图形方法如何有用。