4.6 Article

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

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION
Volume 10, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.020357

Keywords

methodology; observational studies; randomized controlled trials; registry; SWEDEHEART; target trial emulation

Funding

  1. Swedish Research Council [2018--03028]
  2. Swedish Research Council [2018-03028] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

By emulating a target trial with real-world data, this study found that observational data and trial results were largely consistent in the impact of bivalirudin versus heparin on death and myocardial infarction risk. However, limitations were identified in capturing less severe bleeding cases and estimating short-term mortality risk accurately.
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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available