Explaining heterogeneity of individual treatment causal effects by subgroup discovery: An observational case study in antibiotics treatment of acute rhino-sinusitis

OBJECTIVES

Individuals may respond differently to the same treatment, and there is a need to understand such heterogeneity of causal individual treatment effects. We propose and evaluate a modelling approach to better understand this heterogeneity from observational studies by identifying patient subgroups with a markedly deviating response to treatment. We illustrate this approach in a primary care case-study of antibiotic (AB) prescription on recovery from acute rhino-sinusitis (ARS).

METHODS

Our approach consists of four stages and is applied to a large dataset in primary care dataset of 24,392 patients suspected of suffering from ARS. We first identify pre-treatment variables that either confound the relationship between treatment and outcome or are risk factors of the outcome. Second, based on the pre-treatment variables we create Synthetic Random Forest (SRF) models to compute the potential outcomes and subsequently the causal individual treatment effect (ITE) estimates. Third, we perform subgroup discovery using the ITE estimates as outcomes to identify positive and negative responders. Fourth, we evaluate the predictive performance of the identified subgroups for predicting the outcome in two ways: the likelihood ratio test, and whether the subgroups are selected via the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) using backward stepwise variable selection. We validate the whole modelling strategy by means of 10-fold-cross-validation.

RESULTS

Based on 20 pre-treatment variables, four subgroups (three for positive responders and one for negative responders) were identified. The log likelihood ratio tests showed that the subgroups were significant. Variable selection using the AIC kept two of the four subgroups, one for positive responders and one for negative responders. As for the validation of the whole modelling strategy, all reported measures (the number of pre-treatment variables associated with the outcome, number of subgroups, number of subgroups surviving variable selection and coverage) showed little variation.

CONCLUSIONS

With the proposed approach, we identified subgroups of positive and negative responders to treatment that markedly deviate from the mean response. The subgroups showed additive predictive value of the outcome. The modelling approach strategy was shown to be robust on this dataset. Our approach was thus able to discover understandable subgroups from observational data that have predictive value and which may be considered by the clinical users to get insight into who responds positively or negatively to a proposed treatment.