Identifying patient subgroups who benefit most from a treatment: using administrative claims data to uncover treatment heterogeneity

References

• Cortese DA. A vision of individualized medicine in the context of global health. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007;82:491-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Briefing paper for methods review workshop on identifying sub-groups and exploring heterogeneity. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2007preprint
   Google Scholar
• The National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder - Diagnosis and management of ADHD in children, young people and adults. London: NICE clinical guideline 72, 2008
   Google Scholar
• Janes H, Pepe MS, Bossuyt PM, et al. Measuring the performance of markers for guiding treatment decisions. Ann Intern Med 2011;154:253-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tian L, Cai T, Wei LJ. Identifying subjects who benefit from additional information for better prediction of the outcome variables. Biometrics 2009;65:894-902
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao L, Cai T, Tian L, et al. Stratifying subjects for treatment selection with censored event time data from a comparative study. Harvard University Biostatistics Working Paper Series. 2010; Working Paper 122. http://biostats.bepress.com/harvardbiostat/paper122
   Google Scholar
• Cai T, Tian L, Wong PH, et al. Analysis of randomized comparative clinical trial data for personalized treatment selections. Biostatistics 2011;12:270-82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karapetis CS, Khambata-Ford S, Jonker DJ, et al. K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1757-65
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahabreh IJ, Terasawa T, Castaldi PJ, et al. Systematic review: anti-epidermal growth factor receptor treatment effect modification by KRAS mutations in advanced colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2011;154:37-49
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bilous M, Dowsett M, Hanna W, et al. Current perspectives on HER2 testing: a review of national testing guidelines. Mod Pathol 2003;16:173-82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanna W. Testing for HER2 status. Oncology 2001;61(2 Suppl):22-30
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lagakos SW. The challenge of subgroup analyses–reporting without distorting. N Engl J Med 2006;354:1667-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peto R. Misleading subgroup analyses in GISSI. Am J Cardiol 1990;66:771-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pocock SJ, Assmann SE, Enos LE, et al. Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems. Stat Med 2002;21:2917-30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Assmann SF, Pocock SJ, Enos LE, et al. Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet 2000;355:1064-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernandez AV, Boersma E, Murray GD, et al. Subgroup analyses in therapeutic cardiovascular clinical trials: are most of them misleading? Am Heart J 2006;151:257-64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song X, Pepe MS. Evaluating markers for selecting a patient's treatment. Biometrics 2004;60:874-83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pastor PN, Reuben CA. Diagnosed attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and learning disability: United States, 2004-2006. Vital Health Stat 2008;10:1-14
   Google Scholar
• Polanczyk G, de Lima MS, Horta BL, et al. The worldwide prevalence of ADHD: a systematic review and metaregression analysis. Am J Psychiatry 2007;164:942-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heal DJ, Smith SL, Findling RL. ADHD: current and future therapeutics. Curr Top Behav Neurosci 2012;9:361-90
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wolraich ML, Wibbelsman CJ, Brown TE, et al. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder among adolescents: a review of the diagnosis, treatment, and clinical implications. Pediatrics 2005;115:1734-46
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Market Watch -ADHD Market. Focus on brands. 2011. http://www.pm360online.com/MarketWatch_1111. Accessed December 19, 2011
   Google Scholar
• Thomson Reuters MarketScan®. Commercial claims and encounter research database. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge MTHC, 2011
   Google Scholar
• ICD9Data.com. Attention deficit disorder of childhood. 2012. http://www.icd9data.com/2012/Volume1/290-319/300-316/314/default.htm. Accessed April 20, 2012
   Google Scholar
• Lunceford JK, Davidian M. Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study. Stat Med 2004;23:2937-60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control-group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat. 1985;39:33-8
   Google Scholar
• Polsky D, Mandelblatt JS, Weeks JC, et al. Economic evaluation of breast cancer treatment: considering the value of patient choice. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1139-46
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nishida Y, Takahashi Y, Nakayama T, et al. Comparative effect of olmesartan and candesartan on lipid metabolism and renal function in patients with hypertension: a retrospective observational study. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2011;10:74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tibshirani R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the Lasso. J Roy Stat Soc B (Meth) 1996;58:267-88
   Google Scholar
• Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Statist 1979;6:65-70
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ReadyPrice®. Greenwood Village, CO: MicroMedex Division, Thomson Health Care, 2011
   Google Scholar
• Dorresteijn JAN, Visseren FLJ, Ridker PM, et al. Estimating treatment effects for individual patients based on the results of randomised clinical trials. BMJ 2011;Oct 3:343:d5888
   Google Scholar
• de Sahb-Berkovitch R, Woronoff-Lemsi MC, Molimard M. Assessing cancer drugs for reimbursement: methodology, relationship between effect size and medical need. Therapie 2010;65:373–7, 367-72
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Uno H, Cai T, Tian L, Wei LJ. Graphical procedures for evaluating overall and subject-specific incremental values from new predictors with censored event time data. Biometrics. 2011 Dec;67(4):1389-96
   Google Scholar