Modern approaches for evaluating treatment effect heterogeneity from clinical trials and observational data

In this paper, we review recent advances in statistical methods for the evaluation of the heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE), including subgroup identification and estimation of individualized treatment regimens, from randomized clinical trials and observational studies. We identify several types of approaches using the features introduced in Lipkovich et al (Stat Med 2017;36: 136-196) that distinguish the recommended principled methods from basic methods for HTE evaluation that typically rely on rules of thumb and general guidelines (the methods are often referred to as common practices). We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of various principled methods as well as common measures for evaluating their performance. We use simulated data and a case study based on a historical clinical trial to illustrate several new approaches to HTE evaluation.

Simultaneous confidence intervals from randomization tests with application in testing bioequivalence with multiple endpoints

We propose a method to construct simultaneous confidence intervals for a parameter vector from inverting a series of randomization tests (RT). The randomization tests are facilitated by an efficient multivariate Robbins-Monro procedure that takes the correlation information of all components into account. The estimation method does not require any distributional assumption of the population other than the existence of the second moments. The resulting simultaneous confidence intervals are not necessarily symmetric about the point estimate of the parameter vector but possess the property of equal tails in all dimensions. In particular, we present the constructing the mean vector of one population and the difference between two mean vectors of two populations. Extensive simulation is conducted to show numerical comparison with four methods. We illustrate the application of the proposed method to test bioequivalence with multiple endpoints on some real data.

Assessing the Most Vulnerable Subgroup to Type II Diabetes Associated with Statin Usage: Evidence from Electronic Health Record Data

There have been increased concerns that the use of statins, one of the most commonly prescribed drugs for treating coronary artery disease, is potentially associated with the increased risk of new-onset Type II diabetes (T2D). Nevertheless, to date, there is no robust evidence supporting as to whether and what kind of populations are indeed vulnerable for developing T2D after taking statins. In this case study, leveraging the biobank and electronic health record data in the Partner Health System, we introduce a new data analysis pipeline and a novel statistical methodology that address existing limitations by (i) designing a rigorous causal framework that systematically examines the causal effects of statin usage on T2D risk in observational data, (ii) uncovering which patient subgroup is most vulnerable for developing T2D after taking statins, and (iii) assessing the replicability and statistical significance of the most vulnerable subgroup via a bootstrap calibration procedure. Our proposed approach delivers asymptotically sharp confidence intervals and debiased estimate for the treatment effect of the most vulnerable subgroup in the presence of high-dimensional covariates. With our proposed approach, we find that females with high T2D genetic risk are at the highest risk of developing T2D due to statin usage.

Analysis of the specificity of a COVID-19 antigen test in the Slovak mass testing program

AIMS

Mass antigen testing programs have been challenged because of an alleged insufficient specificity, leading to a large number of false positives. The objective of this study is to derive a lower bound of the specificity of the SD Biosensor Standard Q Ag-Test in large scale practical use.

METHODS

Based on county data from the nationwide tests for SARS-CoV-2 in Slovakia between 31.10.-1.11. 2020 we calculate a lower confidence bound for the specificity. As positive test results were not systematically verified by PCR tests, we base the lower bound on a worst case assumption, assuming all positives to be false positives.

RESULTS

3,625,332 persons from 79 counties were tested. The lowest positivity rate was observed in the county of Rožňava where 100 out of 34307 (0.29%) tests were positive. This implies a test specificity of at least 99.6% (97.5% one-sided lower confidence bound, adjusted for multiplicity).

CONCLUSION

The obtained lower bound suggests a higher specificity compared to earlier studies in spite of the underlying worst case assumption and the application in a mass testing setting. The actual specificity is expected to exceed 99.6% if the prevalence in the respective regions was non-negligible at the time of testing. To our knowledge, this estimate constitutes the first bound obtained from large scale practical use of an antigen test.

Adjusting for selection bias in assessing treatment effect estimates from multiple subgroups

This paper discusses a number of methods for adjusting treatment effect estimates in clinical trials where differential effects in several subpopulations are suspected. In such situations, the estimates from the most extreme subpopulation are often overinterpreted. The paper focusses on the construction of simultaneous confidence intervals intended to provide a more realistic assessment regarding the uncertainty around these extreme results. The methods from simultaneous inference are compared with shrinkage estimates arising from Bayesian hierarchical models by discussing salient features of both approaches in a typical application.