Evaluating individualized treatment effect predictions: A model-based perspective on discrimination and calibration assessment.

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the prediction of individualized treatment effects. While there is a rapidly growing literature on the development of such models, there is little literature on the evaluation of their performance. In this paper, we aim to facilitate the validation of prediction models for individualized treatment effects. The estimands of interest are defined based on the potential outcomes framework, which facilitates a comparison of existing and novel measures. In particular, we examine existing measures of discrimination for benefit (variations of the c-for-benefit), and propose model-based extensions to the treatment effect setting for discrimination and calibration metrics that have a strong basis in outcome risk prediction. The main focus is on randomized trial data with binary endpoints and on models that provide individualized treatment effect predictions and potential outcome predictions. We use simulated data to provide insight into the characteristics of the examined discrimination and calibration statistics under consideration, and further illustrate all methods in a trial of acute ischemic stroke treatment. The results show that the proposed model-based statistics had the best characteristics in terms of bias and accuracy. While resampling methods adjusted for the optimism of performance estimates in the development data, they had a high variance across replications that limited their accuracy. Therefore, individualized treatment effect models are best validated in independent data. To aid implementation, a software implementation of the proposed methods was made available in R.

Regularized parametric survival modeling to improve risk prediction models.

We propose to combine the benefits of flexible parametric survival modeling and regularization to improve risk prediction modeling in the context of time-to-event data. Thereto, we introduce ridge, lasso, elastic net, and group lasso penalties for both log hazard and log cumulative hazard models. The log (cumulative) hazard in these models is represented by a flexible function of time that may depend on the covariates (i.e., covariate effects may be time-varying). We show that the optimization problem for the proposed models can be formulated as a convex optimization problem and provide a user-friendly R implementation for model fitting and penalty parameter selection based on cross-validation. Simulation study results show the advantage of regularization in terms of increased out-of-sample prediction accuracy and improved calibration and discrimination of predicted survival probabilities, especially when sample size was relatively small with respect to model complexity. An applied example illustrates the proposed methods. In summary, our work provides both a foundation for and an easily accessible implementation of regularized parametric survival modeling and suggests that it improves out-of-sample prediction performance.

The potential benefit of statin prescription based on prediction of treatment responsiveness in older individuals: An application to the PROSPER randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Clinical guidelines often recommend to treat individuals based on their cardiovascular risk. We revisit this paradigm and quantify the efficacy of three treatment strategies: (i) overall prescription, i.e. treatment to all individuals sharing the eligibility criteria of a trial; (ii) risk-stratified prescription, i.e. treatment only to those at an elevated outcome risk; and (iii) prescription based on predicted treatment responsiveness. METHODS: We reanalysed the PROSPER randomised controlled trial, which included individuals aged 70-82 years with a history of, or risk factors for, vascular diseases. We conducted the derivation and internal-external validation of a model predicting treatment responsiveness. We compared to placebo (n= 2913): (i) pravastatin (n= 2891); (ii) pravastatin in the presence of previous vascular diseases and placebo in the absence thereof (n= 2925); and (iii) pravastatin in the presence of a favourable prediction of treatment response and placebo in the absence thereof (n= 2890). RESULTS: We found an absolute difference in primary outcome events composed of coronary death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal or non-fatal stroke, per 10 000 person-years equal to: -78 events (95% CI, -144 to -12) when prescribing pravastatin to all participants; -66 events (95% CI, -114 to -18) when treating only individuals with an elevated vascular risk; and -103 events (95% CI, -162 to -44) when restricting pravastatin to individuals with a favourable prediction of treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: Pravastatin prescription based on predicted responsiveness may have an encouraging potential for cardiovascular prevention. Further external validation of our results and clinical experiments are needed.

This study invistigates whether an algorithm to predict how much old age individuals would benefit from a statin treatment could be useful to guide clinicians in their prescription decision-making; the key findings are: About one out of seven individuals included in the study has no predicted benefit of pravastatin; Compared to prescribing pravastatin to all old age individuals at risk of cardiovascular diseases, withholding pravastatin in those with no predicted benefit seems to lead to a better prevention of cardiovascular events.

Predictive performance of the CHA2DS2-VASc rule in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Essentials The widely recommended CHA2DS2-VASc shows conflicting results in contemporary validation studies. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies validating CHA2DS2-VASc. There was high heterogeneity in stroke risks for different CHA2DS2-VASc scores. This was not explained by differences between setting of care, or by performing meta-regression. SUMMARY: Background The CHA2DS2-VASc decision rule is widely recommended for estimating stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), although validation studies show ambiguous and conflicting results. Objectives To: (i) review existing studies validating CHA2DS2-VASc in AF patients who are not (yet) anticoagulated; (ii) meta-analyze estimates of stroke risk per score; and (iii) explore sources of heterogeneity across the validation studies. Methods We performed a systematic literature review and random effects meta-analysis of studies externally validating CHA2DS2-VASc in AF patients not receiving anticoagulants. To explore between-study heterogeneity in stroke risk, we stratified studies to the clinical setting in which patient enrollment started, and performed meta-regression. Results In total, 19 studies were evaluated, with over two million person-years of follow-up. In studies recruiting AF patients in hospitals, stroke risks for scores of 0, 1 and 2 were 0.4% (approximate 95% prediction interval [PI] 0.2-3.2%), 1.2% (95% PI 0.1-3.8%), and 2.2% (95% PI 0.03-7.8%), respectively. These were consistently higher than those in studies recruiting patients from the open general population, with risks of 0.2% (95% PI 0.0-0.9%), 0.7% (95% PI 0.3-1.2%) and 1.5% (95% PI 0.4-3.3%) for scores of 0, 1, and 2, respectively. Heterogeneity, as reflected by the wide PIs, could not be fully explained by meta-regression. Conclusions Studies validating CHA2DS2-VASc show high heterogeneity in predicted stroke risks for different scores.

Development and validation of clinical prediction models: marginal differences between logistic regression, penalized maximum likelihood estimation, and genetic programming.

OBJECTIVE: Many prediction models are developed by multivariable logistic regression. However, there are several alternative methods to develop prediction models. We compared the accuracy of a model that predicts the presence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) when developed by four different methods. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used the data of 2,086 primary care patients suspected of DVT, which included 21 candidate predictors. The cohort was split into a derivation set (1,668 patients, 329 with DVT) and a validation set (418 patients, 86 with DVT). Also, 100 cross-validations were conducted in the full cohort. The models were developed by logistic regression, logistic regression with shrinkage by bootstrapping techniques, logistic regression with shrinkage by penalized maximum likelihood estimation, and genetic programming. The accuracy of the models was tested by assessing discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: There were only marginal differences in the discrimination and calibration of the models in the validation set and cross-validations. CONCLUSION: The accuracy measures of the models developed by the four different methods were only slightly different, and the 95% confidence intervals were mostly overlapped. We have shown that models with good predictive accuracy are most likely developed by sensible modeling strategies rather than by complex development methods.