Developing improved observational methods for evaluating therapeutic effectiveness.

Abstract

Therapeutic efficacy is often studied with observational surveys of patients whose treatments were selected nonexperimentally. The results of these surveys are distrusted because of the fear that biased results occur in the absence of experimental principles, particularly randomization. The purpose of the current study was to develop and validate improved observational study designs by incorporating many of the design principles and patient assembly procedures of the randomized trial. The specific topic investigated was the prophylactic effectiveness of beta-blocker therapy after an acute myocardial infarction. To accomplish the research objective, three sets of data were compared. First, we developed a restricted cohort based on the eligibility criteria of the randomized clinical trial; second, we assembled an expanded cohort using the same design principles except for not restricting patient eligibility; and third, we used the data from the Beta Blocker Heart Attack Trial (BHAT), whose results served as the gold standard for comparison. In this research, the treatment difference in death rates for the restricted cohort and the BHAT trial was nearly identical. In contrast, the expanded cohort had a larger treatment difference than was observed in the BHAT trial. We also noted the important and largely neglected role that eligibility criteria may play in ensuring the validity of treatment comparisons and study outcomes. The new methodologic strategies we developed may improve the quality of observational studies and may be useful in assessing the efficacy of the many medical/surgical therapies that cannot be tested with randomized clinical trials.