Clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews and health technology assessments: synthesis of guidance documents and the literature.
ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to synthesize best practices for addressing clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews and health technology assessments (HTAs).
We abstracted information from guidance documents and methods manuals made available by international organizations that develop systematic reviews and HTAs. We searched PubMed® to identify studies on clinical heterogeneity and subgroup analysis. Two authors independently abstracted and assessed relevant information.
Methods manuals offer various definitions of clinical heterogeneity. In essence, clinical heterogeneity is considered variability in study population characteristics, interventions, and outcomes across studies. It can lead to effect-measure modification or statistical heterogeneity, which is defined as variability in estimated treatment effects beyond what would be expected by random error alone. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity are closely intertwined but they do not have a one-to-one relationship. The presence of statistical heterogeneity does not necessarily indicate that clinical heterogeneity is the causal factor. Methodological heterogeneity, biases, and random error can also cause statistical heterogeneity, alone or in combination with clinical heterogeneity.
Identifying potential modifiers of treatment effects (i.e., effect-measure modifiers) is important for researchers conducting systematic reviews and HTAs. Recognizing clinical heterogeneity and clarifying its implications helps decision makers to identify patients and patient populations who benefit the most, who benefit the least, and who are at greatest risk of experiencing adverse outcomes from a particular intervention.
Article: In reply.Deutsches Ärzteblatt International 10/2014; 111(40):681. DOI:10.3238/arztebl.2014.0681 · 3.61 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: 'Success' in drug development is bringing to patients a new medicine that has an acceptable benefit-risk profile and that is also cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness means that the incremental clinical benefit is deemed worth paying for by a healthcare system, and it has an important role in enabling manufacturers to obtain new medicines to patients as soon as possible following regulatory approval. Subgroup analyses are increasingly being utilised by decision-makers in the determination of the cost-effectiveness of new medicines when making recommendations. This paper highlights the statistical considerations when using subgroup analyses to support cost-effectiveness for a health technology assessment. The key principles recommended for subgroup analyses supporting clinical effectiveness published by Paget et al. are evaluated with respect to subgroup analyses supporting cost-effectiveness. A health technology assessment case study is included to highlight the importance of subgroup analyses when incorporated into cost-effectiveness analyses. In summary, we recommend planning subgroup analyses for cost-effectiveness analyses early in the drug development process and adhering to good statistical principles when using subgroup analyses in this context. In particular, we consider it important to provide transparency in how subgroups are defined, be able to demonstrate the robustness of the subgroup results and be able to quantify the uncertainty in the subgroup analyses of cost-effectiveness. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Pharmaceutical Statistics 07/2014; 13(4). DOI:10.1002/pst.1626 · 1.10 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The optimal initial treatment for patients with acute limb ischemia (ALI) remains undefined. Although clinical outcome data are inconsistent, catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) with tissue plasminogen activator is increasingly used. Patient-level analysis combining clinical and economic data in a real-life setting is lacking. This study compared clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of initial treatment strategies for nonembolic ALI using real-life patient-level data.Journal of Vascular Surgery 08/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2014.07.086 · 2.98 Impact Factor