The good, the bad, and the different

A primer on aspects of heterogeneity of treatment effects

Daniel C Malone, Lisa E. Hines, Jennifer S. Graff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The concept of heterogeneity is concerned with understanding differences within and across patients and studies. Heterogeneity of treatment effects is nonrandom variability in response to treatment and includes both benefits and harms. Because not all patients respond the same way, treatment decisions applied in a "one size fits all" fashion based on the average response observed in clinical trials may lead to suboptimal outcomes for some patients. Variation in outcomes among patients may be caused by observable and nonobservable factors. Changes in patients' health status over time can contribute to variability among patients. Assuming that the results from clinical trials are homogeneous across patients may fail to take into account clinically significant variability where some patients may receive benefit and others harm. Subgroup analyses and prediction models are 2 tools to explain variability observed within a study. Evidence synthesis with meta-analysis can provide useful information on the overall effectiveness and response among groups of patients undersampled in individual studies. Yet caution is warranted if the meta-analysis is missing studies or the individual studies comprising the meta-analysis are inherently different. For those making clinical, coverage, and reimbursement decisions at a population level, such as clinicians and pharmacy and therapeutics committee members, understanding the variation among patients, among subpopulations or populations of patients, among clinical studies, or within a meta-analysis is important to ensuring optimal patient outcomes. This article presents a variety of tools and resources to aid decision makers as they evaluate the literature to determine when clinically relevant differences exist.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)555-563
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of managed care pharmacy : JMCP.
Volume20
Issue number6
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Health
Meta-Analysis
Therapeutics
Clinical Trials
Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee
Committee Membership
Decision Support Techniques
Population
Health Status

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmaceutical Science
  • Health Policy
  • Pharmacy
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

The good, the bad, and the different : A primer on aspects of heterogeneity of treatment effects. / Malone, Daniel C; Hines, Lisa E.; Graff, Jennifer S.

In: Journal of managed care pharmacy : JMCP., Vol. 20, No. 6, 2014, p. 555-563.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e5531d610ec74ccf9e2d1cb1ec44ffad,
title = "The good, the bad, and the different: A primer on aspects of heterogeneity of treatment effects",
abstract = "The concept of heterogeneity is concerned with understanding differences within and across patients and studies. Heterogeneity of treatment effects is nonrandom variability in response to treatment and includes both benefits and harms. Because not all patients respond the same way, treatment decisions applied in a {"}one size fits all{"} fashion based on the average response observed in clinical trials may lead to suboptimal outcomes for some patients. Variation in outcomes among patients may be caused by observable and nonobservable factors. Changes in patients' health status over time can contribute to variability among patients. Assuming that the results from clinical trials are homogeneous across patients may fail to take into account clinically significant variability where some patients may receive benefit and others harm. Subgroup analyses and prediction models are 2 tools to explain variability observed within a study. Evidence synthesis with meta-analysis can provide useful information on the overall effectiveness and response among groups of patients undersampled in individual studies. Yet caution is warranted if the meta-analysis is missing studies or the individual studies comprising the meta-analysis are inherently different. For those making clinical, coverage, and reimbursement decisions at a population level, such as clinicians and pharmacy and therapeutics committee members, understanding the variation among patients, among subpopulations or populations of patients, among clinical studies, or within a meta-analysis is important to ensuring optimal patient outcomes. This article presents a variety of tools and resources to aid decision makers as they evaluate the literature to determine when clinically relevant differences exist.",
author = "Malone, {Daniel C} and Hines, {Lisa E.} and Graff, {Jennifer S.}",
year = "2014",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "555--563",
journal = "Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy",
issn = "2376-0540",
publisher = "Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP)",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The good, the bad, and the different

T2 - A primer on aspects of heterogeneity of treatment effects

AU - Malone, Daniel C

AU - Hines, Lisa E.

AU - Graff, Jennifer S.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - The concept of heterogeneity is concerned with understanding differences within and across patients and studies. Heterogeneity of treatment effects is nonrandom variability in response to treatment and includes both benefits and harms. Because not all patients respond the same way, treatment decisions applied in a "one size fits all" fashion based on the average response observed in clinical trials may lead to suboptimal outcomes for some patients. Variation in outcomes among patients may be caused by observable and nonobservable factors. Changes in patients' health status over time can contribute to variability among patients. Assuming that the results from clinical trials are homogeneous across patients may fail to take into account clinically significant variability where some patients may receive benefit and others harm. Subgroup analyses and prediction models are 2 tools to explain variability observed within a study. Evidence synthesis with meta-analysis can provide useful information on the overall effectiveness and response among groups of patients undersampled in individual studies. Yet caution is warranted if the meta-analysis is missing studies or the individual studies comprising the meta-analysis are inherently different. For those making clinical, coverage, and reimbursement decisions at a population level, such as clinicians and pharmacy and therapeutics committee members, understanding the variation among patients, among subpopulations or populations of patients, among clinical studies, or within a meta-analysis is important to ensuring optimal patient outcomes. This article presents a variety of tools and resources to aid decision makers as they evaluate the literature to determine when clinically relevant differences exist.

AB - The concept of heterogeneity is concerned with understanding differences within and across patients and studies. Heterogeneity of treatment effects is nonrandom variability in response to treatment and includes both benefits and harms. Because not all patients respond the same way, treatment decisions applied in a "one size fits all" fashion based on the average response observed in clinical trials may lead to suboptimal outcomes for some patients. Variation in outcomes among patients may be caused by observable and nonobservable factors. Changes in patients' health status over time can contribute to variability among patients. Assuming that the results from clinical trials are homogeneous across patients may fail to take into account clinically significant variability where some patients may receive benefit and others harm. Subgroup analyses and prediction models are 2 tools to explain variability observed within a study. Evidence synthesis with meta-analysis can provide useful information on the overall effectiveness and response among groups of patients undersampled in individual studies. Yet caution is warranted if the meta-analysis is missing studies or the individual studies comprising the meta-analysis are inherently different. For those making clinical, coverage, and reimbursement decisions at a population level, such as clinicians and pharmacy and therapeutics committee members, understanding the variation among patients, among subpopulations or populations of patients, among clinical studies, or within a meta-analysis is important to ensuring optimal patient outcomes. This article presents a variety of tools and resources to aid decision makers as they evaluate the literature to determine when clinically relevant differences exist.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84901228806&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84901228806&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 555

EP - 563

JO - Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy

JF - Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy

SN - 2376-0540

IS - 6

ER -