PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Selby, Joe V
AU  - Maas, Carolien C H M
AU  - Fireman, Bruce H
AU  - Kent, David M
TI  - Impact of the PATH Statement on Analysis and Reporting of Heterogeneity of Treatment Effect in Clinical Trials: A Scoping Review
AID  - 10.1101/2024.05.06.24306774
DP  - 2024 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2024.05.06.24306774
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/06/2024.05.06.24306774.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/06/2024.05.06.24306774.full
AB  - Background The Predictive Approaches to Treatment Effect Heterogeneity (PATH) Statement provides guidance for using predictive modeling to identify differences (i.e., heterogeneity) in treatment effects (benefits and harms) among participants in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). It distinguished risk modeling, which uses a multivariable model to predict risk of trial outcome(s) and then examines treatment effects within strata of predicted risk, from effect modeling, which predicts trial outcomes using models that include treatment, individual participant characteristics and interactions of treatment with selected characteristics.Purpose To describe studies of heterogeneous treatment effects (HTE) that use predictive modeling in RCT data and cite the PATH Statement,Data Sources The Cited By functions in PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science and SCOPUS databases (Jan 7, 2020 - June 5, 2023).Study Selection 42 reports presenting 45 predictive models.Data Extraction Double review with adjudication to identify risk and effect modeling and examine consistency with Statement consensus statements. Credibility of HTE findings was assessed using criteria adapted from the Instrument to assess Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN). Clinical importance of credible HTE findings was also assessed.Data Synthesis The numbers of reports, especially risk modeling reports, increased year-on-year. Consistency with consensus statements was high, except for two: only 15 of 32 studies with positive overall findings included a risk model; and most effect models explored many candidate covariates with little prior evidence for effect modification. Risk modeling was more likely than effect modeling to identify both credible HTE (14/19 vs 5/26) and clinically important HTE (10/19 vs 4/26).Limitations Risk of reviewer bias: reviewers assessing credibility and clinical importance were not blinded to adherence to PATH recommendations.Conclusions The PATH Statement appears to be influencing research practice. Risk modeling often uncovered clinically important HTE; effect modeling was more often exploratory.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementDrs. Selby and Maas and Mr. Fireman report no funding related to work performed on this publication. Dr. Kent was funded by a National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) grant (UM1TR004398-01). Dr. Selby previously served as the Executive Director of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). The views and findings presented in this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and are not presented on behalf of or as the views of PCORI.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI 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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.