Benjamin French

Objective Randomized trials have reported inconsistent evidence on the effectiveness of algorithms that use genotypes to initiate warfarin therapy. The Clarification of Optimal Anticoagulation through Genetics (COAG) trial initiated therapy on the basis of predicted maintenance doses, with a pharmacogenetic-guided algorithm in one study group and a clinically guided algorithm in the other. The European Pharmacogenetics of Anticoagulant Therapy (EU-PACT) consortium initiated therapy on the basis of loading doses, with an algorithm-based prediction in one study group and a fixed-dose regimen in the other. To understand the differences between these trials, we compared the initial doses between alternative dosing algorithms (the pharmacogenetic-guided and clinically guided algorithms developed by Gage and colleagues and those developed by the International Warfarin Pharmacogenetics Consortium) and between the COAG and EU-PACT dose-initiation strategies. Methods This was a secondary analysis of the COAG trial – a double-blind, randomized-controlled trial (2009–2013) – conducted at 18 clinical centers in the USA, which included 1010 adults initiating warfarin therapy, of whom 719 achieved maintenance dose. Results Among COAG participants, the distribution of initial doses differed between algorithms, but showed similar prediction accuracy for maintenance dose. However, had the COAG trial implemented the EU-PACT strategy, the 3-day initial dose would have been 4.8 mg greater among participants randomized to pharmacogenetic-guided dosing, but only 2.5 mg greater among participants randomized to clinically guided dosing (P<0.001). Conclusion Compared with the COAG trial, the EU-PACT trial used systematically larger loading doses in the pharmacogenetic-guided group and might have inadequately adjusted for clinical variability in warfarin dose requirements in the fixed-dose group.

The availability of data from electronic health records facilitates the development and evaluation of risk-prediction models, but estimation of prediction accuracy could be limited by outcome misclassification, which can arise if events are not captured. We evaluate the robustness of prediction accuracy summaries, obtained from receiver operating characteristic curves and risk-reclassification methods, if events are not captured (i.e., “false negatives”). We derive estimators for sensitivity and specificity if misclassification is independent of marker values. In simulation studies, we quantify the potential for bias in prediction accuracy summaries if misclassification depends on marker values. We compare the accuracy of alternative prognostic models for 30-day all-cause hospital readmission among 4548 patients discharged from the University of Pennsylvania Health System with a primary diagnosis of heart failure. Simulation studies indicate that if misclassification depends on marker values, then the estimated accuracy improvement is also biased, but the direction of the bias depends on the direction of the association between markers and the probability of misclassification. In our application, 29% of the 1143 readmitted patients were readmitted to a hospital elsewhere in Pennsylvania, which reduced prediction accuracy. Outcome misclassification can result in erroneous conclusions regarding the accuracy of risk-prediction models.

Heart failure research suggests that multiple biomarkers could be combined with relevant clinical information to more accurately quantify individual risk and guide patient-specific treatment strategies. Therefore, statistical methodology is required to determine multi-marker risk scores that yield improved prognostic performance. Development of a prognostic score that combines biomarkers with clinical variables requires specification of an appropriate statistical model and is most frequently achieved using standard regression methods such as Cox regression. We demonstrate that care is needed in model specification and that maximal use of marker information requires consideration of potential non-linear effects and interactions. The derived multi-marker score can be evaluated using time-dependent receiver operating characteristic methods, or risk reclassification methods adapted for survival outcomes. We compare the performance of alternative model accuracy methods using simulations, both to evaluate power and to quantify the potential loss in accuracy associated with use of a sub-optimal regression model to develop the multi-marker score. We illustrate development and evaluation strategies using data from the Penn Heart Failure Study. Based on our results, we recommend that analysts carefully examine the functional form for component markers and consider plausible forms for effect modification to maximize the prognostic potential of a model-derived multi-marker score.

Recently, there has been much interest in using volume‐outcome data to establish causal associations between measures of surgical experience or quality and patient outcomes following a surgical procedure, such as coronary artery bypass graft, total hip replacement, and radical prostatectomy. However, there does not appear to be a standard approach to a volume‐outcome analysis with respect to specifying a volume measure and selecting an estimation method. We establish the recurrent marked point process as a general framework from which to approach a longitudinal volume‐outcome analysis and examine the statistical issues associated with using longitudinal data analysis methods to model aggregate volume‐outcome data. We review assumptions to ensure that linear or generalized linear mixed models and generalized estimating equations provide valid estimates of the volume‐outcome association. In addition, we provide theoretical and empirical evidence that bias may be introduced when an aggregate volume measure is used to address a scientific question regarding the effect of cumulative experience. We conclude with the recommendation that analysts carefully specify a volume measure that most accurately reflects their scientific question of interest and select an estimation method that is appropriate for their scientific context. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.