Cargando…

Comparing Effect Estimates in Randomized Trials and Observational Studies From the Same Population: An Application to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND: To understand when results from observational studies and randomized trials are comparable, we performed an observational emulation of a target trial designed to ask similar questions as the VALIDATE (Bivalirudin Versus Heparin in ST‐Segment and Non–ST‐Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Matthews, Anthony A., Szummer, Karolina, Dahabreh, Issa J., Lindahl, Bertil, Erlinge, David, Feychting, Maria, Jernberg, Tomas, Berglund, Anita, Hernán, Miguel A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8483524/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33998290
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.020357
_version_ 1784577150335057920
author Matthews, Anthony A.
Szummer, Karolina
Dahabreh, Issa J.
Lindahl, Bertil
Erlinge, David
Feychting, Maria
Jernberg, Tomas
Berglund, Anita
Hernán, Miguel A.
author_facet Matthews, Anthony A.
Szummer, Karolina
Dahabreh, Issa J.
Lindahl, Bertil
Erlinge, David
Feychting, Maria
Jernberg, Tomas
Berglund, Anita
Hernán, Miguel A.
author_sort Matthews, Anthony A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To understand when results from observational studies and randomized trials are comparable, we performed an observational emulation of a target trial designed to ask similar questions as the VALIDATE (Bivalirudin Versus Heparin in ST‐Segment and Non–ST‐Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy) randomized trial. The VALIDATE trial compared the effect of bivalirudin and heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention on the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and bleeding across Sweden. METHODS AND RESULTS: We specified the protocol of a target trial similar to the VALIDATE trial, then emulated the target trial in the period before the VALIDATE trial took place using data from the SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence‐Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) registry—the same registry in which the trial was undertaken. The target trial emulation and the VALIDATE trial both estimated little or no effect of bivalirudin versus heparin on the risk of death or myocardial infarction by 180 days (target trial emulation risk ratio for death, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.88 – 1.54]; VALIDATE trial hazard ratio for death, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.78 – 1.41]). The observational data, however, could not capture less severe cases of bleeding, resulting in an inability to define a bleeding outcome like the trial, and could not accurately estimate the comparative risk of death by 14 days, which may be the result of intractable confounding early in follow‐up or the inability to precisely emulate the trial’s eligibility criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Using real‐world data to emulate a target trial can deliver accurate effect estimates. Yet, even with rich observational data, it is not always possible to estimate the short‐term effect of interventions or the effect on outcomes for which data are not routinely collected.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8483524
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84835242021-10-06 Comparing Effect Estimates in Randomized Trials and Observational Studies From the Same Population: An Application to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Matthews, Anthony A. Szummer, Karolina Dahabreh, Issa J. Lindahl, Bertil Erlinge, David Feychting, Maria Jernberg, Tomas Berglund, Anita Hernán, Miguel A. J Am Heart Assoc Original Research BACKGROUND: To understand when results from observational studies and randomized trials are comparable, we performed an observational emulation of a target trial designed to ask similar questions as the VALIDATE (Bivalirudin Versus Heparin in ST‐Segment and Non–ST‐Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy) randomized trial. The VALIDATE trial compared the effect of bivalirudin and heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention on the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and bleeding across Sweden. METHODS AND RESULTS: We specified the protocol of a target trial similar to the VALIDATE trial, then emulated the target trial in the period before the VALIDATE trial took place using data from the SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence‐Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) registry—the same registry in which the trial was undertaken. The target trial emulation and the VALIDATE trial both estimated little or no effect of bivalirudin versus heparin on the risk of death or myocardial infarction by 180 days (target trial emulation risk ratio for death, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.88 – 1.54]; VALIDATE trial hazard ratio for death, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.78 – 1.41]). The observational data, however, could not capture less severe cases of bleeding, resulting in an inability to define a bleeding outcome like the trial, and could not accurately estimate the comparative risk of death by 14 days, which may be the result of intractable confounding early in follow‐up or the inability to precisely emulate the trial’s eligibility criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Using real‐world data to emulate a target trial can deliver accurate effect estimates. Yet, even with rich observational data, it is not always possible to estimate the short‐term effect of interventions or the effect on outcomes for which data are not routinely collected. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8483524/ /pubmed/33998290 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.020357 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Matthews, Anthony A.
Szummer, Karolina
Dahabreh, Issa J.
Lindahl, Bertil
Erlinge, David
Feychting, Maria
Jernberg, Tomas
Berglund, Anita
Hernán, Miguel A.
Comparing Effect Estimates in Randomized Trials and Observational Studies From the Same Population: An Application to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
title Comparing Effect Estimates in Randomized Trials and Observational Studies From the Same Population: An Application to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
title_full Comparing Effect Estimates in Randomized Trials and Observational Studies From the Same Population: An Application to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
title_fullStr Comparing Effect Estimates in Randomized Trials and Observational Studies From the Same Population: An Application to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
title_full_unstemmed Comparing Effect Estimates in Randomized Trials and Observational Studies From the Same Population: An Application to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
title_short Comparing Effect Estimates in Randomized Trials and Observational Studies From the Same Population: An Application to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
title_sort comparing effect estimates in randomized trials and observational studies from the same population: an application to percutaneous coronary intervention
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8483524/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33998290
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.020357
work_keys_str_mv AT matthewsanthonya comparingeffectestimatesinrandomizedtrialsandobservationalstudiesfromthesamepopulationanapplicationtopercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT szummerkarolina comparingeffectestimatesinrandomizedtrialsandobservationalstudiesfromthesamepopulationanapplicationtopercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT dahabrehissaj comparingeffectestimatesinrandomizedtrialsandobservationalstudiesfromthesamepopulationanapplicationtopercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT lindahlbertil comparingeffectestimatesinrandomizedtrialsandobservationalstudiesfromthesamepopulationanapplicationtopercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT erlingedavid comparingeffectestimatesinrandomizedtrialsandobservationalstudiesfromthesamepopulationanapplicationtopercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT feychtingmaria comparingeffectestimatesinrandomizedtrialsandobservationalstudiesfromthesamepopulationanapplicationtopercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT jernbergtomas comparingeffectestimatesinrandomizedtrialsandobservationalstudiesfromthesamepopulationanapplicationtopercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT berglundanita comparingeffectestimatesinrandomizedtrialsandobservationalstudiesfromthesamepopulationanapplicationtopercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT hernanmiguela comparingeffectestimatesinrandomizedtrialsandobservationalstudiesfromthesamepopulationanapplicationtopercutaneouscoronaryintervention