Personalized Evidence Based Medicine: Predictive Approaches to Heterogeneous Treatment Effects

Overview

Journal BMJ

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2018 Dec 12

PMID 30530757

Citations 162

Authors

David M Kent

Ewout Steyerberg

David van Klaveren

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The use of evidence from clinical trials to support decisions for individual patients is a form of "reference class forecasting": implicit predictions for an individual are made on the basis of outcomes in a reference class of "similar" patients treated with alternative therapies. Evidence based medicine has generally emphasized the broad reference class of patients qualifying for a trial. Yet patients in a trial (and in clinical practice) differ from one another in many ways that can affect the outcome of interest and the potential for benefit. The central goal of personalized medicine, in its various forms, is to narrow the reference class to yield more patient specific effect estimates to support more individualized clinical decision making. This article will review fundamental conceptual problems with the prediction of outcome risk and heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE), as well as the limitations of conventional (one-variable-at-a-time) subgroup analysis. It will also discuss several regression based approaches to "predictive" heterogeneity of treatment effect analysis, including analyses based on "risk modeling" (such as stratifying trial populations by their risk of the primary outcome or their risk of serious treatment-related harms) and analysis based on "effect modeling" (which incorporates modifiers of relative effect). It will illustrate these approaches with clinical examples and discuss their respective strengths and vulnerabilities.

Citing Articles

Plasma miR-379 can predict treatment response to FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine--paclitaxel in advanced pancreatic cancer.

Boyd L, Ali M, Puik J, Comandatore A, Ginocchi L, Meijer L J Liq Biopsy. 2025; 5:100152.

PMID: 40027944 PMC: 11863948. DOI: 10.1016/j.jlb.2024.100152.

Big data for neuroscience in the context of predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine.

Bajinka O, Ouedraogo S, Li N, Zhan X EPMA J. 2025; 16(1):17-35.

PMID: 39991094 PMC: 11842698. DOI: 10.1007/s13167-024-00393-1.

Machine-learning approaches to predict individualized treatment effect using a randomized controlled trial.

Hamaya R, Hara K, Manson J, Rimm E, Sacks F, Xue Q Eur J Epidemiol. 2025; .

PMID: 39946045 DOI: 10.1007/s10654-024-01185-7.

"Lost in translation?" Animal research in the era of precision medicine.

Fruhwein H, Paul N J Transl Med. 2025; 23(1):152.

PMID: 39905446 PMC: 11796152. DOI: 10.1186/s12967-025-06084-3.

Step-by-step causal analysis of EHRs to ground decision-making.

Doutreligne M, Struja T, Abecassis J, Morgand C, Celi L, Varoquaux G PLOS Digit Health. 2025; 4(2):e0000721.

PMID: 39899627 PMC: 11790099. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000721.

References

Thune J, Hoefsten D, Lindholm M, Mortensen L, Andersen H, Nielsen T . Simple risk stratification at admission to identify patients with reduced mortality from primary angioplasty. Circulation. 2005; 112(13):2017-21. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.558676. View

van Klaveren D, Steyerberg E, Serruys P, Kent D . The proposed 'concordance-statistic for benefit' provided a useful metric when modeling heterogeneous treatment effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 94:59-68. PMC: 7448760. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.021. View

Salisbury A, Spertus J . Realizing the Potential of Clinical Risk Prediction Models: Where Are We Now and What Needs to Change to Better Personalize Delivery of Care?. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015; 8(4):332-4. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.115.002038. View

Dorresteijn J, Kaasenbrood L, Cook N, van Kruijsdijk R, van der Graaf Y, Visseren F . How to translate clinical trial results into gain in healthy life expectancy for individual patients. BMJ. 2016; 352:i1548. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i1548. View

Wilson P, Meigs J, Sullivan L, Fox C, Nathan D, DAgostino Sr R . Prediction of incident diabetes mellitus in middle-aged adults: the Framingham Offspring Study. Arch Intern Med. 2007; 167(10):1068-74. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.167.10.1068. View

Abraham E, Laterre P, Garg R, Levy H, Talwar D, Trzaskoma B . Drotrecogin alfa (activated) for adults with severe sepsis and a low risk of death. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353(13):1332-41. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa050935. View

Guyatt G, Sackett D, Cook D . Users' guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. B. What were the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994; 271(1):59-63. DOI: 10.1001/jama.271.1.59. View

Pocock S, Lubsen J . More on subgroup analyses in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(19):2076. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc0800616. View

Byar D . Assessing apparent treatment--covariate interactions in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med. 1985; 4(3):255-63. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4780040304. View

10.

Franklin J, Schneeweiss S . When and How Can Real World Data Analyses Substitute for Randomized Controlled Trials?. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2017; 102(6):924-933. DOI: 10.1002/cpt.857. View

11.

Marcucci M, Sinclair J . A generalised model for individualising a treatment recommendation based on group-level evidence from randomised clinical trials. BMJ Open. 2013; 3(8). PMC: 3752048. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003143. View

12.

Pocock S, Assmann S, Enos L, Kasten L . Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems. Stat Med. 2002; 21(19):2917-30. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1296. View

13.

Agoritsas T, Merglen A, Shah N, ODonnell M, Guyatt G . Adjusted Analyses in Studies Addressing Therapy and Harm: Users' Guides to the Medical Literature. JAMA. 2017; 317(7):748-759. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.20029. View

14.

Kent D, Hayward R . Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification. JAMA. 2007; 298(10):1209-12. DOI: 10.1001/jama.298.10.1209. View

15.

Kent D, Selker H, Ruthazer R, Bluhmki E, Hacke W . The stroke-thrombolytic predictive instrument: a predictive instrument for intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2006; 37(12):2957-62. DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000249054.96644.c6. View

16.

Rothwell P . Treating individuals 2. Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation. Lancet. 2005; 365(9454):176-86. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17709-5. View

17.

Selker H, Griffith J, Beshansky J, Schmid C, Califf R, DAgostino R . Patient-specific predictions of outcomes in myocardial infarction for real-time emergency use: a thrombolytic predictive instrument. Ann Intern Med. 1997; 127(7):538-56. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-127-7-199710010-00006. View

18.

Furukawa T, Guyatt G, Griffith L . Can we individualize the 'number needed to treat'? An empirical study of summary effect measures in meta-analyses. Int J Epidemiol. 2002; 31(1):72-6. DOI: 10.1093/ije/31.1.72. View

19.

Califf R, Woodlief L, Harrell Jr F, Lee K, White H, Guerci A . Selection of thrombolytic therapy for individual patients: development of a clinical model. GUSTO-I Investigators. Am Heart J. 1997; 133(6):630-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-8703(97)70164-9. View

20.

Wallach J, Sullivan P, Trepanowski J, Steyerberg E, Ioannidis J . Sex based subgroup differences in randomized controlled trials: empirical evidence from Cochrane meta-analyses. BMJ. 2016; 355:i5826. PMC: 5122320. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i5826. View