Abstract
To increase confidence in the use of observational analyses when addressing effectiveness questions beyond those addressed by randomized trials, one can first benchmark the observational analyses against existing trial results. We use Swedish registry data to emulate a target trial similar to the TASTE randomized trial, which found no difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction by 1 year with or without thrombus aspiration among individuals with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. We benchmark the emulation against the trial at 1 year, then extend the emulation’s follow up to 3 years and estimate effects in subpopulations underrepresented in the trial. As in the TASTE trial, the observational analysis found no differences in risk of outcomes by 1 year between groups (risk difference 0.7 (−0.7,2.0) and -0.2 (−1.3,1.0) for death and myocardial infarction respectively), so benchmarking was considered successful. We additionally show no difference in risk of death or myocardial infarction by 3 years, or within subpopulations by 1 year. Benchmarking against an index trial before using observational analyses to answer questions beyond those the trial could address allowed us to explore whether the observational data can be trusted to deliver valid estimates of treatment effects.
Competing Interest Statement
AM, ID, BL, SJ, MF, TJ, and AB have nothing to disclose; OF reports grants from Sanofi Pasteur, during the conduct of the study; MH reports personal fees from Cytel and ProPublica, during the conduct of the study.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by a grant from the Swedish Research Council (2018-03028). AM received funds from Strategic Research Program in Epidemiology at Karolinska Institutet and FORTE (2020-00029) during the conduct of the study. ID received funds from PCORI (ME‐1502‐27794) during the conduct of the study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board in Stockholm (2012/60-31/2)
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
This is the latest update of the manuscript
Data Availability
Pseudonymized personal data were obtained from national Swedish Registry holders after ethical approval and secrecy assessment. According to Swedish laws and regulations, personal sensitive data can only be made available for researchers who fulfill legal requirements for access to personal sensitive data.
