Sharing, harmonizing, and analyzing participant-level data is of central importance in the rapid research response to emerging pathogens. Individual participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs), which synthesize participant-level data from related primary studies, have several advantages over pooling study-level effect estimates in a traditional meta-analysis. IPD-MAs enable researchers to more effectively separate spurious heterogeneity related to differences in measurement from clinically relevant heterogeneity from differences in underlying risk or distribution of factors that modify disease progression. This tutorial describes the steps needed to conduct an IPD-MA of an emerging pathogen and how IPD-MAs of emerging pathogens differ from those of well-studied exposures and outcomes. We discuss key statistical issues, including participant- and study-level missingness and complex measurement error, and present recommendations. We review how IPD-MAs conducted during the COVID-19 response addressed these statistical challenges when harmonizing and analyzing participant-level data related to an emerging pathogen. The guidance presented here is based on lessons learned in our conduct of IPD-MAs in the research response to emerging pathogens, including Zika virus and COVID-19.

Background: Various treatments are recommended as first-line options in practice guidelines for depression, but it is unclear which is most efficacious for a given person. Accurate individualized predictions of relative treatment effects are needed to optimize treatment recommendations for depression and reduce this disorder's vast personal and societal costs.

Aims: We describe the protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) to inform personalized treatment selection among five major empirically-supported depression treatments.

Method: We will use the METASPY database to identify randomized clinical trials that compare two or more of five treatments for adult depression: antidepressant medication, cognitive therapy, behavioral activation, interpersonal psychotherapy, and psychodynamic therapy. We will request IPD from identified studies. We will conduct an IPD-NMA and develop a multivariable prediction model that estimates individualized relative treatment effects from demographic, clinical, and psychological participant characteristics. Depressive symptom level at treatment completion will constitute the primary outcome. We will evaluate this model using a range of measures for discrimination and calibration, and examine its potential generalizability using internal-external cross-validation.

Conclusions: We describe a state-of-the-art method to predict personalized treatment effects based on IPD from multiple trials. The resulting prediction model will need prospective evaluation in mental health care for its potential to inform shared decision-making. This study will result in a unique database of IPD from randomized clinical trials around the world covering five widely used depression treatments, available for future research.

The estimand framework, introduced in the ICH E9 (R1) Addendum, provides a structured approach for defining precise research questions in randomised clinical trials. It suggests five strategies for addressing intercurrent events (ICE). This case study examines the principal stratum strategy, highlighting its potential for estimating causal treatment effects in specific subpopulations and the challenges involved. The occurrence of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) and their potential clinical impact are important factors in evaluating biosimilars. Typically, analyses focus on subgroups of patients who develop ADAs during the study. However, conducting subgroup analyses based on post-randomisation variables, such as immunogenicity, can introduce substantial bias into treatment effect estimates and is therefore methodologically not optimal. The principal stratum strategy provides a statistical pathway for estimating treatment effects in subpopulations that cannot be anticipated at baseline. By leveraging counterfactuals to assess treatment outcomes, with and without the incidence of intercurrent events (ICEs), this approach can be implemented through a missing data perspective. We demonstrate the implementation of the principal stratum strategy in a phase 3 equivalence trial of a biosimilar for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Using a multiple imputation approach, we leverage longitudinal measurements to create analysis datasets for subpopulations who develop ADAs as ICE. Our results highlight the principal stratum strategy's potential and challenges, emphasising its reliance on unobserved ICE states and the need for complex and rigorous modelling. This study contributes to a nuanced understanding and practical implementation of the principal stratum strategy within the ICH E9 (R1) framework.

Various statistical and machine learning algorithms can be used to predict treatment effects at the patient level using data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Such predictions can facilitate individualized treatment decisions. Recently, a range of methods and metrics were developed for assessing the accuracy of such predictions. Here, we extend these methods, focusing on the case of survival (time-to-event) outcomes. We start by providing alternative definitions of the participant-level treatment benefit; subsequently, we summarize existing and propose new measures for assessing the performance of models estimating participant-level treatment benefits. We explore metrics assessing discrimination and calibration for benefit and decision accuracy. These measures can be used to assess the performance of statistical as well as machine learning models and can be useful during model development (i.e., for model selection or for internal validation) or when testing a model in new settings (i.e., in an external validation). We illustrate methods using simulated data and real data from the OPERAM trial, an RCT in multimorbid older people, which randomized participants to either standard care or a pharmacotherapy optimization intervention. We provide R codes for implementing all models and measures.

Aims: Clinical guidelines often recommend treating 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 and results: We reanalysed the PROSPER randomized 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 with 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). We found an absolute difference in primary outcome events composed of coronary death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and 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.

Conclusion: 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.

Observational data provide invaluable real-world information in medicine, but certain methodological considerations are required to derive causal estimates. In this systematic review, we evaluated the methodology and reporting quality of individual-level patient data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs) conducted with non-randomized exposures, published in 2009, 2014, and 2019 that sought to estimate a causal relationship in medicine. We screened over 16,000 titles and abstracts, reviewed 45 full-text articles out of the 167 deemed potentially eligible, and included 29 into the analysis. Unfortunately, we found that causal methodologies were rarely implemented, and reporting was generally poor across studies. Specifically, only three of the 29 articles used quasi-experimental methods, and no study used G-methods to adjust for time-varying confounding. To address these issues, we propose stronger collaborations between physicians and methodologists to ensure that causal methodologies are properly implemented in IPD-MAs. In addition, we put forward a suggested checklist of reporting guidelines for IPD-MAs that utilize causal methods. This checklist could improve reporting thereby potentially enhancing the quality and trustworthiness of IPD-MAs, which can be considered one of the most valuable sources of evidence for health policy.

Predicting future outcomes of patients is essential to clinical practice, with many prediction models published each year. Empirical evidence suggests that published studies often have severe methodological limitations, which undermine their usefulness. This article presents a step-by-step guide to help researchers develop and evaluate a clinical prediction model. The guide covers best practices in defining the aim and users, selecting data sources, addressing missing data, exploring alternative modelling options, and assessing model performance. The steps are illustrated using an example from relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Comprehensive R code is also provided.

The use of disease or multi-use models (i.e. one model that can be used to determine the cost effectiveness of many new technologies in a certain disease) is increasingly being advocated. Diabetes is a disease area where such models are relatively common; examples are the CORE Diabetes Model, which was used for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guideline NG28, and the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) model. Recently, Eli Lilly has submitted a new diabetes model, the PRIME Type 2 Diabetes Model (PRIME T2D), to the NICE. This model was used in the NICE single technology appraisal (STA) process of tirzepatide (tradename Mounjaro®; Technology Appraisal 924). In this commentary we set out the key learnings from the External Assessment Group (EAG) perspective regarding this TA, the assessment of a disease model, and associated challenges.