Reporting of heterogeneity of treatment effect in cohort studies: a review of the literature

Tailoring the treatment of inflammatory rheumatic diseases by a better stratification and characterization of the clinical patient heterogeneity. Findings from a systematic literature review and experts' consensus

Inflammatory rheumatic diseases are different pathologic conditions associated with a deregulated immune response, codified along a spectrum of disorders, with autoinflammatory and autoimmune diseases as two-end phenotypes of this continuum. Despite pathogenic differences, inflammatory rheumatic diseases are commonly managed with a limited number of immunosuppressive drugs, sometimes with partial evidence or transferring physicians' knowledge in different patients. In addition, several randomized clinical trials, enrolling these patients, did not meet the primary pre-established outcomes and these findings could be linked to the underlying molecular diversities along the spectrum of inflammatory rheumatic disorders. In fact, the resulting patient heterogeneity may be driven by differences in underlying molecular pathology also resulting in variable responses to immunosuppressive drugs. Thus, the identification of different clinical subsets may possibly overcome the major obstacles that limit the development more effective therapeutic strategies for these patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. This clinical heterogeneity could require a diverse therapeutic management to improve patient outcomes and increase the frequency of clinical remission. Therefore, the importance of better patient stratification and characterization is increasingly pointed out according to the precision medicine principles, also suggesting a new approach for disease treatment. In fact, based on a better proposed patient profiling, clinicians could more appropriately balance the therapeutic management. On these bases, we synthetized and discussed the available literature about the patient profiling in regard to therapy in the context of inflammatory rheumatic diseases, mainly focusing on randomized clinical trials. We provided an overview of the importance of a better stratification and characterization of the clinical heterogeneity of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases identifying this point as crucial in improving the management of these patients.

Single-group studies in leading physical therapy journals commonly make inappropriate conclusions regarding treatment effect modifiers. A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Characteristics that identify patients who respond differently to certain interventions are called treatment effect modifiers. Some studies inappropriately report the presence of treatment effect modifiers without adequate study designs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate what proportion of single-group studies published in leading physical therapy journals inappropriately report treatment effect modifiers, and to assess whether the proportion varies over time or between journals.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of studies published in eight leading physical therapy journals since 2000. Eligible studies were single-group studies (e.g., cohort study or secondary analysis of treatment arm of randomised controlled trial) that investigated any condition, treatment or outcome. Studies that suggested participants with certain baseline characteristics responded better/or worse to the treatment, were considered to have reported inappropriately. Studies reporting that participants with certain baseline characteristics had improved outcomes but did not state it was due to the treatment were considered to have reported appropriately. The proportion of inappropriate reporting was compared over time and between journals.

RESULTS

Of the 145 included studies, 73 (50.3%) were categorised as inappropriately reporting treatment effect modifiers. The proportion of inappropriate reporting was highest in the most recent period, 2018 - 2022 (59.6%) and 2006 - 2011 (55.6%). The proportion of inappropriate reporting varied substantially between journals from 0% (Journal of Physiotherapy) to 91.7% (Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy).

CONCLUSIONS

A large proportion (50.3%) of single-arm studies in leading physical therapy journals inappropriately report treatment effect modifiers. This inappropriate reporting risks misleading clinicians when selecting interventions for individual patients.

Improving the reporting quality of intervention trials addressing the inter-individual variability in response to the consumption of plant bioactives: quality index and recommendations

PURPOSE

The quality of the study design and data reporting in human trials dealing with the inter-individual variability in response to the consumption of plant bioactives is, in general, low. There is a lack of recommendations supporting the scientific community on this topic. This study aimed at developing a quality index to assist the assessment of the reporting quality of intervention trials addressing the inter-individual variability in response to plant bioactive consumption. Recommendations for better designing and reporting studies were discussed.

METHODS

The selection of the parameters used for the development of the quality index was carried out in agreement with the scientific community through a survey. Parameters were defined, grouped into categories, and scored for different quality levels. The applicability of the scoring system was tested in terms of consistency and effort, and its validity was assessed by comparison with a simultaneous evaluation by experts' criteria.

RESULTS

The "POSITIVe quality index" included 11 reporting criteria grouped into four categories (Statistics, Reporting, Data presentation, and Individual data availability). It was supported by detailed definitions and guidance for their scoring. The quality index score was tested, and the index demonstrated to be valid, reliable, and responsive.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation of the reporting quality of studies addressing inter-individual variability in response to plant bioactives highlighted the aspects requiring major improvements. Specific tools and recommendations favoring a complete and transparent reporting on inter-individual variability have been provided to support the scientific community on this field.