Abstract
AbstractProspective benchmarking of an observational analysis against a randomized trial increases confidence in the benchmarking process as it relies exclusively on aligning the protocol of the trial and the observational analysis, while the trials findings are unavailable. The Randomized Evaluation of Decreased Usage of Betablockers After Myocardial Infarction (REDUCE-AMI, ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03278509) trial started recruitment in September 2017 and results are expected in 2024. REDUCE-AMI aimed to estimate the effect of long-term use of beta blockers on the risk of death and myocardial following a myocardial infarction with preserved left ventricular systolic ejection fraction. We specified the protocol of a target trial as similar as possible to that of REDUCE-AMI, then emulated the target trial using observational data from Swedish healthcare registries. Had everyone followed the treatment strategy as specified in the target trial protocol, the observational analysis estimated a reduction in the 5-year risk of death or myocardial infarction of 0.8 percentage points for beta blockers compared with no beta blockers; effects ranging from an absolute reduction of 4.5 percentage points to an increase of 2.8 percentage points in the risk of death or myocardial infarction were compatible with our data under conventional statistical criteria. Once results of REDUCE-AMI are published, we will compare the results of our observational analysis against those from the trial. If this prospective benchmarking is successful, it supports the credibility of additional analyses using these observational data, which can rapidly deliver answers to questions that could not be answered by the initial trial. If benchmarking proves unsuccessful, we will conduct a “postmortem” analysis to identify the reasons for the discrepancy. Prospective benchmarking shifts the investigator focus away from an endeavour to use observational data to obtain similar results as a completed randomized trial, to a systematic attempt to align the design and analysis of the trial and the observational analysis.
Funder
Vetenskapsrådet
Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd
Karolinska Institutet
Karolinska Institute
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference26 articles.
1. Dahabreh IJ, Robins JM, Hernán MA. Benchmarking observational methods by comparing randomized trials and their emulations. Epidemiology. 2020;31:614–9.
2. Matthews AA, Dahabreh IJ, Fröbert O, et al. Benchmarking observational analyses before using them to address questions trials do not answer: an application to coronary thrombus aspiration. Am J Epidemiol. 2022;2:kwac098.
3. Matthews AA, Szummer K, Dahabreh IJ, et al. Comparing effect estimates in randomized trials and observational studies from the same population: an application to percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10: e020357.
4. Lodi S, Phillips A, Lundgren J, et al. Effect estimates in randomized trials and observational studies: comparing apples with apples. Am J Epidemiol. 2019;188:1569–77.
5. Garcia-Albeniz X, Chan JM, Paciorek A, et al. Immediate versus deferred initiation of androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer patients with PSA-only relapse. An observational follow-up study. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:817–24.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献