The Good, the Bad, and the Different: A Primer on Aspects of Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects

The concept of heterogeneity is concerned with understanding differences within and across patients and studies. Heterogeneity of treatment effects is nonrandom variability in response to treatment and includes both benefits and harms. Because not all patients respond the same way, treatment decisions applied in a "one size fits all" fashion based on the average response observed in clinical trials may lead to suboptimal outcomes for some patients. Variation in outcomes among patients may be caused by observable and nonobservable factors. Changes in patients' health status over time can contribute to variability among patients. Assuming that the results from clinical trials are homogeneous across patients may fail to take into account clinically significant variability where some patients may receive benefit and others harm. Subgroup analyses and prediction models are 2 tools to explain variability observed within a study. Evidence synthesis with meta-analysis can provide useful information on the overall effectiveness and response among groups of patients undersampled in individual studies. Yet caution is warranted if the meta-analysis is missing studies or the individual studies comprising the meta-analysis are inherently different.For those making clinical, coverage, and reimbursement decisions at a population level, such as clinicians and pharmacy and therapeutics committee members, understanding the variation among patients, among subpopulations or populations of patients, among clinical studies, or within a meta-analysis is important to ensuring optimal patient outcomes. This article presents a variety of tools and resources to aid decision makers as they evaluate the literature to determine when clinically relevant differences exist.

[1]  J. L. Gall,et al.  APACHE II--a severity of disease classification system. , 1986, Critical care medicine.

[2]  J. Allison Risk adjustment for measuring health care outcomes , 1996 .

[3]  J. Stamler Aspirin in coronary heart disease , 1980 .

[4]  Meera Viswanathan,et al.  Comparative Effectiveness Review Methods: Clinical Heterogeneity , 2010 .

[5]  C. Mackenzie,et al.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.

[6]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Development : American College of Chest Thrombolytic Therapy Guideline Methodology for Antithrombotic and , 2008 .

[7]  K. Lohr,et al.  P-1102 - Comparative Effectiveness of Second Generation Antidepressants in the Pharmacologic Treatment of Adult Depression , 2011, European Psychiatry.

[8]  S. Dagogo-Jack,et al.  Comorbidities of Diabetes and Hypertension: Mechanisms and Approach to Target Organ Protection , 2011, Journal of clinical hypertension.

[9]  D. Singer,et al.  A new risk scheme to predict warfarin-associated hemorrhage: The ATRIA (Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation) Study. , 2011, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[10]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[12]  David Moher,et al.  Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews , 2007, BMC medical research methodology.

[13]  B. Gage,et al.  Selecting Patients With Atrial Fibrillation for Anticoagulation: Stroke Risk Stratification in Patients Taking Aspirin , 2004, Circulation.

[14]  Gretchen A. Piatt,et al.  Deficiencies of Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Models for Type 1 Diabetes A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances. , 2006, Diabetes Care.

[15]  G. Breithardt,et al.  Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  Sally Hopewell,et al.  Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. , 2009, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[17]  Sarah Parish,et al.  Randomized trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2.ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. , 1988, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[18]  M. Gail,et al.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. , 1989, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[19]  Ravi Varadhan,et al.  A framework for the analysis of heterogeneity of treatment effect in patient-centered outcomes research. , 2013, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[20]  M. Mclaughlin Healthcare policy implications of heterogeneity of treatment effects. , 2007, The American journal of medicine.

[21]  Gregory Y H Lip,et al.  A novel user-friendly score (HAS-BLED) to assess 1-year risk of major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation: the Euro Heart Survey. , 2010, Chest.

[22]  L. Iezzoni Risk Adjustment for Measuring Healthcare Outcomes , 1994 .

[23]  A. Y. Lu,et al.  Interindividual variability in inhibition and induction of cytochrome P450 enzymes. , 2001, Annual review of pharmacology and toxicology.

[24]  S. Kaplan,et al.  Who Can Respond to Treatment?: Identifying Patient Characteristics Related to Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects , 2010, Medical care.

[25]  D. Singer,et al.  Antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. , 2012, Chest.

[26]  M. Rich,et al.  Clinical classification schemes for predicting hemorrhage: results from the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation (NRAF). , 2006, American heart journal.

[27]  Alex J. Sutton,et al.  Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 7 , 2013, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[28]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Chapter 9: Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta-Analyses , 2008 .

[29]  Richard L Kravitz,et al.  Evidence-based medicine, heterogeneity of treatment effects, and the trouble with averages. , 2004, The Milbank quarterly.

[30]  Malcolm Rowland,et al.  Bridging the efficacy–effectiveness gap: a regulator's perspective on addressing variability of drug response , 2011, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[31]  Paolo Prandoni,et al.  Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. , 2012, Chest.

[32]  R. Kravitz,et al.  Heterogeneity of treatment effects: implications for guidelines, payment, and quality assessment. , 2007, The American journal of medicine.

[33]  R. Willke,et al.  From concepts, theory, and evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects to methodological approaches: a primer , 2012, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[34]  L. Hedges,et al.  Introduction to Meta‐Analysis , 2009, International Coaching Psychology Review.

[35]  David M Kent,et al.  Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal , 2010, Trials.

[36]  D. Levy,et al.  Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. , 1998, Circulation.

[37]  Chandler Stolp,et al.  Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research , 1984 .

[38]  D. P. Gaver,et al.  Combining Information: Statistical Issues and Opportunities for Research , 1993 .