Using the Causal Inference Framework to Support Individualized Drug Treatment Decisions Based on Observational Healthcare Data

References

• Tiede KE, Ripke F, Degen N, Gaissmaier W. When does the incremental risk format aid informed medical decisions? The role of learning, feedback, and number of treatment options. Med Decis Making. 2020;40(2):212–221. doi:10.1177/0272989X2090435732036764
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD001431.28402085
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong KA, Metlay JP. Annals clinical decision making: communicating risk and engaging patients in shared decision making. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(10):688–692.32311739
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenland S. Effect Modification and Interaction In: Balakrishnan N, Colton T, Everitt B, Piegorsch W, Ruggeri F, Teugels JL, editors. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. 2015:1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Duan T, Rajpurkar P, Laird D, Ng AY, Basu S. Clinical value of predicting individual treatment effects for intensive blood pressure therapy. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019;12(3):e005010. doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.00501030857410
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong KA, Metlay JP. Annals clinical decision making: translating population evidence to individual patients. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(9):610–616. doi:10.7326/M19-349632311741
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinstag G, Amar D, Ingelsson E, Ashley E, Shamir R. Personalized prediction of adverse heart and kidney events using baseline and longitudinal data from SPRINT and ACCORD. PLoS One. 2019;14(8):e0219728.31393900
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metlay JP, Armstrong KA. Annals clinical decision making: weighing evidence to inform clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(9):599–603. doi:10.7326/M19-194132311735
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent DM, Hayward RA. Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification. JAMA. 2007;298(10):1209–1212. doi:10.1001/jama.298.10.120917848656
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashley EA. The precision medicine initiative: a new national effort. JAMA. 2015;313(21):2119–2120. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.359525928209
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qian M, Murphy SA. Performance guarantees for individualized treatment rules. Ann Stat. 2011;39(2):1180–1210. doi:10.1214/10-AOS86421666835
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu Y, Wood AM, Sweeting MJ, Roberts DJ, Tom BD. Optimal individualized decision rules from a multi-arm trial: a comparison of methods and an application to tailoring inter-donation intervals among blood donors in the UK. Stat Methods Med Res. 2020;962280220920669.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logan BR, Sparapani R, McCulloch RE, Laud PW. Decision making and uncertainty quantification for individualized treatments using Bayesian additive regression trees. Stat Methods Med Res. 2019;28(4):1079–1093. doi:10.1177/096228021774619129254443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A, et al. 2019 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(3):407–477.31504439
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(20):2001–2015. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa070648217982182
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahabreh IJ, Hayward R, Kent DM. Using group data to treat individuals: understanding heterogeneous treatment effects in the age of precision medicine and patient-centred evidence. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(6):2184–2193.27864403
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendling T, Jung K, Callahan A, Schuler A, Shah NH, Gallego B. Comparing methods for estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects using observational data from health care databases. Stat Med. 2018;37(23):3309–3324.29862536
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Q, Ramamoorthy A, Huang SM. Real-world data and clinical pharmacology: a regulatory science perspective. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2019;106(1):67–71. doi:10.1002/cpt.141330964944
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorajoo SR, Chan A. Implementing clinical prediction models: pushing the needle towards precision pharmacotherapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018;103(2):180–183. doi:10.1002/cpt.75228722146
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steyerberg EW, Moons KG, van der Windt DA, et al. Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 3: prognostic model research. PLoS Med. 2013;10(2):e1001381.23393430
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hingorani AD, Windt DA, Riley RD, et al. Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 4: stratified medicine research. BMJ. 2013;346:e5793. doi:10.1136/bmj.e579323386361
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reilly BM, Evans AT. Translating clinical research into clinical practice: impact of using prediction rules to make decisions. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(3):201–209. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-3-200602070-0000916461965
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kosorok MR, Laber EB. Precision medicine. Annu Rev Stat Appl. 2019;6:263–286. doi:10.1146/annurev-statistics-030718-10525131073534
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huling JD, Yu M, Liang M, Smith M. Risk prediction for heterogeneous populations with application to hospital admission prediction. Biometrics. 2018;74(2):557–565. doi:10.1111/biom.1276929073325
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunzel SR, Sekhon JS, Bickel PJ, Yu B. Metalearners for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects using machine learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116(10):4156–4165. doi:10.1073/pnas.180459711630770453
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anoke SC, Normand SL, Zigler CM. Approaches to treatment effect heterogeneity in the presence of confounding. Stat Med. 2019;38(15):2797–2815. doi:10.1002/sim.814330931547
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hahn PR, Murray JS, Carvalho CM. Bayesian regression tree models for causal inference: regularization, confounding, and heterogeneous effects. Bayesian Anal. 2020;2020.
   Google Scholar
• Bica I, Alaa AM, Lambert C, van der Schaar M. From real-world patient data to individualized treatment effects using machine learning: current and future methods to address underlying challenges. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund JL, Richardson DB, Sturmer T. The active comparator, new user study design in pharmacoepidemiology: historical foundations and contemporary application. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2015;2(4):221–228. doi:10.1007/s40471-015-0053-526954351
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bours MJL. A nontechnical explanation of the counterfactual definition of confounding. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;121:91–100. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.02132068101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy AD. Some thoughts on the distribution of earnings. Oxf Econ Pap. 1951;3(2):135–146. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a041827
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J Educ Psychol. 1974;66(5):688–701. doi:10.1037/h0037350
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamont A, Lyons MD, Jaki T, et al. Identification of predicted individual treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018;27(1):142–157. doi:10.1177/096228021562398126988928
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Middelburg RA, Arbous MS, Middelburg JG, van der Bom JG. Personalization of medicine requires better observational evidence. Clin Epidemiol. 2018;10:1391–1399.30323682
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen S, Tian L, Cai T, Yu M. A general statistical framework for subgroup identification and comparative treatment scoring. Biometrics. 2017;73(4):1199–1209. doi:10.1111/biom.1267628211943
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VanderWeele TJ, Luedtke AR, van der Laan MJ, Kessler RC. Selecting optimal subgroups for treatment using many covariates. Epidemiology. 2019;30(3):334–341. doi:10.1097/EDE.000000000000099130789432
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman J, Hastie T, Tibshirani R. Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. J Stat Softw. 2010;33(1):1–22. doi:10.18637/jss.v033.i0120808728
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basu S, Sussman JB, Rigdon J, Steimle L, Denton BT, Hayward RA. Benefit and harm of intensive blood pressure treatment: derivation and validation of risk models using data from the SPRINT and ACCORD trials. PLoS Med. 2017;14(10):e1002410. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.100241029040268
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Klaveren D, Steyerberg EW, Serruys PW, Kent DM. The proposed ‘concordance-statistic for benefit’ provided a useful metric when modeling heterogeneous treatment effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;94:59–68. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.02129132832
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sachs MC, Sjolander A, Gabriel EE. Aim for clinical utility, not just predictive accuracy. Epidemiology. 2020;31(3):359–364. doi:10.1097/EDE.000000000000117332091429
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernan MA, Robins JM. Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;183(8):758–764. doi:10.1093/aje/kwv25426994063
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernan MA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Robins JM. Randomized trials analyzed as observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(8):560–562.24018844
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naimi AI, Cole SR, Kennedy EH. An introduction to g methods. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(2):756–762.28039382
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang X, Wells A, Brufsky A, Neapolitan R. A clinical decision support system learned from data to personalize treatment recommendations towards preventing breast cancer metastasis. PLoS One. 2019;14(3):e0213292. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.021329230849111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Upshaw JN, Ruthazer R, Miller KD, et al. Personalized decision making in early stage breast cancer: applying clinical prediction models for anthracycline cardiotoxicity and breast cancer mortality demonstrates substantial heterogeneity of benefit-harm trade-off. Clin Breast Cancer. 2019;19(4):259–267e251. doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2019.04.01231175052
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinks AA, Peck RW, Neely M, Mould DR. Development and implementation of electronic health record-integrated model-informed clinical decision support tools for the precision dosing of drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;107(1):129–135. doi:10.1002/cpt.167931621071
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt AF, Klungel OH, Nielen M, de Boer A, Groenwold RH, Hoes AW. Tailoring treatments using treatment effect modification. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25(4):355–362. doi:10.1002/pds.396526877168
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orellana L, Rotnitzky A, Robins JM. Dynamic regime marginal structural mean models for estimation of optimal dynamic treatment regimes, Part I: main content. Int J Biostat. 2010;6(2):Article8.
   Google Scholar
• Wirbka L, Haefeli WE, Meid AD. A framework to build similarity-based cohorts for personalized treatment advice - a standardized, but flexible workflow with the R package SimBaCo. PLoS One. 2020;15(5):e0233686.32470056
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins GS, de Groot JA, Dutton S, et al. External validation of multivariable prediction models: a systematic review of methodological conduct and reporting. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:40. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-4024645774
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seidling HM, Klein U, Schaier M, et al. What, if all alerts were specific - estimating the potential impact on drug interaction alert burden. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83(4):285–291. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.12.00624484781
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kappen TH, Peelen LM. Prediction models: the right tool for the right problem. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2016;29(6):717–726. doi:10.1097/ACO.000000000000038627536997
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metlay JP, Armstrong KA. Annals clinical decision making: incorporating perspective into clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(11):743–746. doi:10.7326/M19-346932311737
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang SV, Huybrechts KF, Fischer MA, et al. Generalized boosted modeling to identify subgroups where effect of dabigatran versus warfarin may differ: an observational cohort study of patients with atrial fibrillation. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2018;27(4):383–390. doi:10.1002/pds.439529383858
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou M, Leonard CE, Brensinger CM, et al. Pharmacoepidemiologic screening of potential oral anticoagulant drug interactions leading to thromboembolic events. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;108(2):377–386. doi:10.1002/cpt.184532275326
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan A, Brodhead AE, Schwartz KA, Kolts RL, Brown WA. Sex differences in antidepressant response in recent antidepressant clinical trials. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2005;25(4):318–324. doi:10.1097/01.jcp.0000168879.03169.ce16012273
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Andrea E, Kesselheim A, Franklin J, Jung E, Hey S, Patorno E. Heterogeneity of antidiabetic treatment effect on the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2020;19(1). doi:10.1186/s12933-020-01133-1
   Google Scholar
• Leonard CE, Zhou M, Brensinger CM, et al. Clopidogrel drug interactions and serious bleeding: generating real-world evidence via automated high-throughput pharmacoepidemiologic screening. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2019;106(5):1067–1075. doi:10.1002/cpt.150731106397
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, Angiolillo DJ, et al. Greater clinical benefit of more intensive oral antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel in patients with diabetes mellitus in the trial to assess improvement in therapeutic outcomes by optimizing platelet inhibition with prasugrel-thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 38. Circulation. 2008;118(16):1626–1636.18757948
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dondo TB, Hall M, West RM, et al. Beta-blockers and mortality after acute myocardial infarction in patients without heart failure or ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(22):2710–2720. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.57828571635
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mangoni AA, Jackson SH. The implications of a growing evidence base for drug use in elderly patients. Part 3. Beta-adrenoceptor blockers in heart failure and thrombolytics in acute myocardial infarction. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2006;61(5):513–520. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02611.x16669843
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trenkwalder P, Elmfeldt D, Hofman A, et al. The study on cognition and prognosis in the elderly (SCOPE) - major CV events and stroke in subgroups of patients. Blood Press. 2005;14(1):31–37. doi:10.1080/0803705051000882315823945
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mangoni AA, Jackson SH. The implications of a growing evidence base for drug use in elderly patients Part 2. ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in heart failure and high cardiovascular risk patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2006;61(5):502–512. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02610.x16669842
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romao VC, Canhao H, Fonseca JE. Old drugs, old problems: where do we stand in prediction of rheumatoid arthritis responsiveness to methotrexate and other synthetic DMARDs? BMC Med. 2013;11:17.23343013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmer SC, Craig JC, Navaneethan SD, Tonelli M, Pellegrini F, Strippoli GF. Benefits and harms of statin therapy for persons with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(4):263–275. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-157-4-201208210-0000722910937
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mangoni AA, Jackson SH. The implications of a growing evidence base for drug use in elderly patients. Part 1. Statins for primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2006;61(5):494–501. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02609.x16669841
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Leeuwen RW, van Gelder T, Mathijssen RH, Jansman FG. Drug-drug interactions with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors: a clinical perspective. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(8):e315–326. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70579-524988935
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schandelmaier S, Chang Y, Devasenapathy N, et al. A systematic survey identified 36 criteria for assessing effect modification claims in randomized trials or meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;113:159–167. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.01431132471
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar