The potential benefit of statin prescription based on prediction of treatment responsiveness in older individuals: an application to the PROSPER randomized controlled trial

Impact of the PATH Statement on Analysis and Reporting of Heterogeneity of Treatment Effect in Clinical Trials: A Scoping Review

Background

The Predictive Approaches to Treatment Effect Heterogeneity (PATH) Statement provides guidance for using predictive modeling to identify differences (i.e., heterogeneity) in treatment effects (benefits and harms) among participants in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). It distinguished risk modeling, which uses a multivariable model to predict risk of trial outcome(s) and then examines treatment effects within strata of predicted risk, from effect modeling, which predicts trial outcomes using models that include treatment, individual participant characteristics and interactions of treatment with selected characteristics.

Purpose

To describe studies of heterogeneous treatment effects (HTE) that use predictive modeling in RCT data and cite the PATH Statement.

Data Sources

The Cited By functions in PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science and SCOPUS databases (Jan 7, 2020 - June 5, 2023).

Study Selection

42 reports presenting 45 predictive models.

Data Extraction

Double review with adjudication to identify risk and effect modeling and examine consistency with Statement consensus statements. Credibility of HTE findings was assessed using criteria adapted from the Instrument to assess Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN). Clinical importance of credible HTE findings was also assessed.

Data Synthesis

The numbers of reports, especially risk modeling reports, increased year-on-year. Consistency with consensus statements was high, except for two: only 15 of 32 studies with positive overall findings included a risk model; and most effect models explored many candidate covariates with little prior evidence for effect modification. Risk modeling was more likely than effect modeling to identify both credible HTE (14/19 vs 5/26) and clinically important HTE (10/19 vs 4/26).

Limitations

Risk of reviewer bias: reviewers assessing credibility and clinical importance were not blinded to adherence to PATH recommendations.

Conclusions

The PATH Statement appears to be influencing research practice. Risk modeling often uncovered clinically important HTE; effect modeling was more often exploratory.