Investigating treatment-effect modification by a continuous covariate in IPD meta-analysis: an approach using fractional polynomials.
Continuous covariate
Fractional polynomials
Meta-analysis
Structured reporting
Treatment-effect modification
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 04 2022
06 04 2022
Historique:
received:
24
06
2021
accepted:
17
01
2022
entrez:
6
4
2022
pubmed:
7
4
2022
medline:
8
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In clinical trials, there is considerable interest in investigating whether a treatment effect is similar in all patients, or that one or more prognostic variables indicate a differential response to treatment. To examine this, a continuous predictor is usually categorised into groups according to one or more cutpoints. Several weaknesses of categorization are well known. To avoid the disadvantages of cutpoints and to retain full information, it is preferable to keep continuous variables continuous in the analysis. To handle this issue, the Subpopulation Treatment Effect Pattern Plot (STEPP) was proposed about two decades ago, followed by the multivariable fractional polynomial interaction (MFPI) approach. Provided individual patient data (IPD) from several studies are available, it is possible to investigate for treatment heterogeneity with meta-analysis techniques. Meta-STEPP was recently proposed and in patients with primary breast cancer an interaction of estrogen receptors with chemotherapy was investigated in eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We use data from eight randomized controlled trials in breast cancer to illustrate issues from two main tasks. The first task is to derive a treatment effect function (TEF), that is, a measure of the treatment effect on the continuous scale of the covariate in the individual studies. The second is to conduct a meta-analysis of the continuous TEFs from the eight studies by applying pointwise averaging to obtain a mean function. We denote the method metaTEF. To improve reporting of available data and all steps of the analysis we introduce a three-part profile called MethProf-MA. Although there are considerable differences between the studies (populations with large differences in prognosis, sample size, effective sample size, length of follow up, proportion of patients with very low estrogen receptor values) our results provide clear evidence of an interaction, irrespective of the choice of the FP function and random or fixed effect models. In contrast to cutpoint-based analyses, metaTEF retains the full information from continuous covariates and avoids several critical issues when performing IPD meta-analyses of continuous effect modifiers in randomised trials. Early experience suggests it is a promising approach. Not applicable.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In clinical trials, there is considerable interest in investigating whether a treatment effect is similar in all patients, or that one or more prognostic variables indicate a differential response to treatment. To examine this, a continuous predictor is usually categorised into groups according to one or more cutpoints. Several weaknesses of categorization are well known. To avoid the disadvantages of cutpoints and to retain full information, it is preferable to keep continuous variables continuous in the analysis. To handle this issue, the Subpopulation Treatment Effect Pattern Plot (STEPP) was proposed about two decades ago, followed by the multivariable fractional polynomial interaction (MFPI) approach. Provided individual patient data (IPD) from several studies are available, it is possible to investigate for treatment heterogeneity with meta-analysis techniques. Meta-STEPP was recently proposed and in patients with primary breast cancer an interaction of estrogen receptors with chemotherapy was investigated in eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
We use data from eight randomized controlled trials in breast cancer to illustrate issues from two main tasks. The first task is to derive a treatment effect function (TEF), that is, a measure of the treatment effect on the continuous scale of the covariate in the individual studies. The second is to conduct a meta-analysis of the continuous TEFs from the eight studies by applying pointwise averaging to obtain a mean function. We denote the method metaTEF. To improve reporting of available data and all steps of the analysis we introduce a three-part profile called MethProf-MA.
RESULTS
Although there are considerable differences between the studies (populations with large differences in prognosis, sample size, effective sample size, length of follow up, proportion of patients with very low estrogen receptor values) our results provide clear evidence of an interaction, irrespective of the choice of the FP function and random or fixed effect models.
CONCLUSIONS
In contrast to cutpoint-based analyses, metaTEF retains the full information from continuous covariates and avoids several critical issues when performing IPD meta-analyses of continuous effect modifiers in randomised trials. Early experience suggests it is a promising approach.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Not applicable.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35382744
doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01516-w
pii: 10.1186/s12874-022-01516-w
pmc: PMC8985287
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
98Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Brief Bioinform. 2020 Dec 1;21(6):1904-1919
pubmed: 31750518
Biostatistics. 2004 Jul;5(3):465-81
pubmed: 15208206
Res Synth Methods. 2018 Jun;9(2):312-317
pubmed: 29281174
Stat Med. 2009 Apr 15;28(8):1255-68
pubmed: 19170050
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Sep;64(9):949-67
pubmed: 21411280
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Oct 10;28(29):4539-44
pubmed: 20837942
PLoS Med. 2012;9(5):e1001216
pubmed: 22675273
Lancet. 2011 Aug 27;378(9793):771-84
pubmed: 21802721
Stat Med. 2011 Dec 10;30(28):3341-60
pubmed: 21953493
BMJ Open. 2016 Sep 08;6(9):e011148
pubmed: 27609843
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Stat Med. 2019 Feb 10;38(3):326-338
pubmed: 30284314
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Mar 6;19(1):46
pubmed: 30841848
BMJ. 2017 Mar 3;356:j573
pubmed: 28258124
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 03;11(3):e0149977
pubmed: 26938061
Stat Med. 2013 Sep 30;32(22):3788-803
pubmed: 23580422
Lancet. 2005 May 14-20;365(9472):1687-717
pubmed: 15894097
Ann Oncol. 2014 May;25(5):1004-11
pubmed: 24562447
Stat Med. 2014 Nov 30;33(27):4695-708
pubmed: 25244679
Biom J. 2012 Sep;54(5):686-700
pubmed: 22778015
Stat Med. 2012 Dec 20;31(29):3821-39
pubmed: 22807043
BMJ. 2013 Feb 05;346:e5793
pubmed: 23386361
Stat Med. 2004 Aug 30;23(16):2509-25
pubmed: 15287081
Stat Med. 2020 Jul 10;39(15):2115-2137
pubmed: 32350891
Stat Med. 2016 Sep 20;35(21):3704-16
pubmed: 27073066
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Sep;113:159-167
pubmed: 31132471
Stat Med. 2006 Jan 15;25(1):127-41
pubmed: 16217841
N Engl J Med. 1989 Feb 23;320(8):479-84
pubmed: 2644532
JAMA. 2017 Dec 19;318(23):2337-2343
pubmed: 29260229
Stat Med. 2000 Oct 15;19(19):2595-609
pubmed: 10986536
Pharm Stat. 2020 Sep;19(5):541-560
pubmed: 32216035
CMAJ. 2020 Aug 10;192(32):E901-E906
pubmed: 32778601
Stat Med. 2007 Nov 30;26(27):4989-5001
pubmed: 17607706
Br J Cancer. 2018 Nov;119(10):1288-1296
pubmed: 30353050
Lancet. 2005 Jan 15-21;365(9455):256-65
pubmed: 15652609
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 14;12(6):e0178531
pubmed: 28614415
Int J Epidemiol. 2010 Oct;39(5):1345-59
pubmed: 20439481