Overall average treatment effects from clinical trials, one-variable-at-a-time subgroup analyses and predictive approaches to heterogeneous treatment effects: Toward a more patient-centered evidence-based medicine.

Abstract

Despite the predominance of the evidence-based medicine paradigm, a fundamental incongruity remains: Evidence is derived from groups of people, yet medical decisions are made by and for individuals. Randomization ensures the comparability of treatment groups within a clinical trial, which allows for unbiased estimation of average treatment effects. If we treated groups of patients instead of individuals, or if patients with the same disease were identical to one another in all factors that determined the harms and the benefits of therapy, then these group-level averages would make a perfectly sound foundation for medical decision-making. But patients differ from one another in many ways that determine the likelihood of an outcome, both with and without a treatment. Nevertheless, popular approaches to evidence-based medicine have encouraged a reliance on the average treatment effects estimated from clinical trials and meta-analysis as guides to decision-making for individuals. Here, we discuss the limitations of this approach as well as limitations of conventional, one-variable-at-a-time subgroup analysis; finally, we discuss the rationale for "predictive" approaches to heterogeneous treatment effects. Predictive approaches to heterogeneous treatment effects combine methods for causal inference (e.g. randomization) with methods for prediction that permit inferences about which patients are likely to benefit and which are not, taking into account multiple relevant variables simultaneously to yield "personalized" estimates of benefit-harm trade-offs. We focus on risk modeling approaches, which rely on the mathematical dependence of the absolute treatment effect with the baseline risk, which varies substantially "across patients" in most trials. While there are a number of examples of risk modeling approaches that have been practice-changing, risk modeling does not provide ideal estimates of individual treatment effects, since risk modeling does not account for how individual variables might modify the effects of therapy. In "effect modeling," prediction models are developed directly on clinical trial data, including terms for treatment and treatment effect interactions. These more flexible approaches may better uncover individualized treatment effects, but are also prone to overfitting when dimensionality is high, power is low, and there is limited prior knowledge about effect modifiers.