» Articles » PMID: 37771175

Use of Multiple Covariates in Assessing Treatment-effect Modifiers: A Methodological Review of Individual Participant Data Meta-analyses

Overview
Date 2023 Sep 29
PMID 37771175
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of randomised trials are considered a reliable way to assess participant-level treatment effect modifiers but may not make the best use of the available data. Traditionally, effect modifiers are explored one covariate at a time, which gives rise to the possibility that evidence of treatment-covariate interaction may be due to confounding from a different, related covariate. We aimed to evaluate current practice when estimating treatment-covariate interactions in IPD meta-analysis, specifically focusing on involvement of additional covariates in the models. We reviewed 100 IPD meta-analyses of randomised trials, published between 2015 and 2020, that assessed at least one treatment-covariate interaction. We identified four approaches to handling additional covariates: (1) Single interaction model (unadjusted): No additional covariates included (57/100 IPD meta-analyses); (2) Single interaction model (adjusted): Adjustment for the main effect of at least one additional covariate (35/100); (3) Multiple interactions model: Adjustment for at least one two-way interaction between treatment and an additional covariate (3/100); and (4) Three-way interaction model: Three-way interaction formed between treatment, the additional covariate and the potential effect modifier (5/100). IPD is not being utilised to its fullest extent. In an exemplar dataset, we demonstrate how these approaches lead to different conclusions. Researchers should adjust for additional covariates when estimating interactions in IPD meta-analysis providing they adjust their main effects, which is already widely recommended. Further, they should consider whether more complex approaches could provide better information on who might benefit most from treatments, improving patient choice and treatment policy and practice.

Citing Articles

Nonlinear effects and effect modification at the participant-level in IPD meta-analysis part 1: analysis methods are often substandard.

Marlin N, Godolphin P, Hooper R, Riley R, Rogozinska E J Clin Epidemiol. 2023; 159:309-318.

PMID: 37146661 PMC: 7616832. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.04.013.

References
1.
Shrier I, Redelmeier A, Schnitzer M, Steele R . Challenges in interpreting results from 'multiple regression' when there is interaction between covariates. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2019; 26(2):53-56. DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111225. View

2.
Fisher D, Carpenter J, Morris T, Freeman S, Tierney J . Meta-analytical methods to identify who benefits most from treatments: daft, deluded, or deft approach?. BMJ. 2017; 356:j573. PMC: 5421441. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j573. View

3.
Godolphin P, White I, Tierney J, Fisher D . Estimating interactions and subgroup-specific treatment effects in meta-analysis without aggregation bias: A within-trial framework. Res Synth Methods. 2022; 14(1):68-78. PMC: 10087172. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1590. View

4.
Stewart L, Tierney J . To IPD or not to IPD? Advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data. Eval Health Prof. 2002; 25(1):76-97. DOI: 10.1177/0163278702025001006. View

5.
Tierney J, Vale C, Riley R, Tudur Smith C, Stewart L, Clarke M . Individual Participant Data (IPD) Meta-analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials: Guidance on Their Use. PLoS Med. 2015; 12(7):e1001855. PMC: 4510878. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001855. View