IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i5p587-598.html

Can Machine Learning from Real-World Data Support Drug Treatment Decisions? A Prediction Modeling Case for Direct Oral Anticoagulants

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas D. Meid

    (Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany)

  • Lucas Wirbka

    (Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany)

Abstract

Background: Decision making for the “best†treatment is particularly challenging in situations in which individual patient response to drugs can largely differ from average treatment effects. By estimating individual treatment effects (ITEs), we aimed to demonstrate how strokes, major bleeding events, and a composite of both could be reduced by model-assisted recommendations for a particular direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC). Methods: In German claims data for the calendar years 2014–2018, we selected 29 901 new users of the DOACs rivaroxaban and apixaban. Random forests considered binary events within 1 y to estimate ITEs under each DOAC according to the X-learner algorithm with 29 potential effect modifiers; treatment recommendations were based on these estimated ITEs. Model performance was evaluated by the c-for-benefit statistics, absolute risk reduction (ARR), and absolute risk difference (ARD) by trial emulation. Results: A significant proportion of patients would be recommended a different treatment option than they actually received. The stroke model significantly discriminated patients for higher benefit and thus indicated improved decisions by reduced outcomes (c-for-benefit: 0.56; 95% confidence interval [0.52; 0.60]). In the group with apixaban recommendation, the model also improved the composite endpoint (ARR: 1.69 % [0.39; 2.97]). In trial emulations, model-assisted recommendations significantly reduced the composite event rate (ARD: −0.78 % [−1.40; −0.03]). Conclusions: If prescribers are undecided about the potential benefits of different treatment options, ITEs can support decision making, especially if evidence is inconclusive, risk-benefit profiles of therapeutic alternatives differ significantly, and the patients’ complexity deviates from “typical†study populations. In the exemplary case for DOACs and potentially in other situations, the significant impact could also become practically relevant if recommendations were available in an automated way as part of decision making. Highlights It was possible to calculate individual treatment effects (ITEs) from routine claims data for rivaroxaban and apixaban, and the characteristics between the groups with recommendation for one or the other option differed significantly. ITEs resulted in recommendations that were significantly superior to usual (observed) treatment allocations in terms of absolute risk reduction, both separately for stroke and in the composite endpoint of stroke and major bleeding. When similar patients from routine data were selected (precision cohorts) for patients with a strong recommendation for one option or the other, those similar patients under the respective recommendation showed a significantly better prognosis compared with the alternative option. Many steps may still be needed on the way to clinical practice, but the principle of decision support developed from routine data may point the way toward future decision-making processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas D. Meid & Lucas Wirbka, 2022. "Can Machine Learning from Real-World Data Support Drug Treatment Decisions? A Prediction Modeling Case for Direct Oral Anticoagulants," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 587-598, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:5:p:587-598
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211064604
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211064604
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211064604?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lucas Wirbka & Walter E Haefeli & Andreas D Meid, 2020. "A framework to build similarity-based cohorts for personalized treatment advice – a standardized, but flexible workflow with the R package SimBaCo," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-12, May.
    2. Wright, Marvin N. & Ziegler, Andreas, 2017. "ranger: A Fast Implementation of Random Forests for High Dimensional Data in C++ and R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 77(i01).
    3. Paul K. J. Han & Tania D. Strout & Caitlin Gutheil & Carl Germann & Brian King & Eirik Ofstad & PÃ¥l Gulbrandsen & Robert Trowbridge, 2021. "How Physicians Manage Medical Uncertainty: A Qualitative Study and Conceptual Taxonomy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(3), pages 275-291, April.
    4. Erika A. Waters & Julia Maki & Ying Liu & Nicole Ackermann & Chelsey R. Carter & Hank Dart & Deborah J. Bowen & Linda D. Cameron & Graham A. Colditz, 2021. "Risk Ladder, Table, or Bulleted List? Identifying Formats That Effectively Communicate Personalized Risk and Risk Reduction Information for Multiple Diseases," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(1), pages 74-88, January.
    5. Gal Dinstag & David Amar & Erik Ingelsson & Euan Ashley & Ron Shamir, 2019. "Personalized prediction of adverse heart and kidney events using baseline and longitudinal data from SPRINT and ACCORD," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-12, August.
    6. Carissa Bonner & Lyndal J. Trevena & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Yasmina Okan & Elissa Ozanne & Ellen Peters & Daniëlle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Best Practice for Presenting Probabilities in Patient Decision Aids: Fundamental Principles," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 821-833, October.
    7. Jakub Z Qazi & Mireille E Schnitzer & Robert Côté & Marie-Josée Martel & Marc Dorais & Sylvie Perreault, 2021. "Predicting major bleeding among hospitalized patients using oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation after discharge," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-20, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Backer, David & Billing, Trey, 2024. "Forecasting the prevalence of child acute malnutrition using environmental and conflict conditions as leading indicators," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    2. Luis A Barboza & Shu-Wei Chou-Chen & Paola Vásquez & Yury E García & Juan G Calvo & Hugo G Hidalgo & Fabio Sanchez, 2023. "Assessing dengue fever risk in Costa Rica by using climate variables and machine learning techniques," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-13, January.
    3. Mariana Oliveira & Luís Torgo & Vítor Santos Costa, 2021. "Evaluation Procedures for Forecasting with Spatiotemporal Data," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-27, March.
    4. Hausner, Ryan, 2026. "Genre and Temporal Dynamics in Spotify Popularity Prediction," SocArXiv vba8f_v1, Center for Open Science.
    5. Bokelmann, Björn & Lessmann, Stefan, 2024. "Improving uplift model evaluation on randomized controlled trial data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 313(2), pages 691-707.
    6. Joel Podgorski & Oliver Kracht & Luis Araguas-Araguas & Stefan Terzer-Wassmuth & Jodie Miller & Ralf Straub & Rolf Kipfer & Michael Berg, 2024. "Groundwater vulnerability to pollution in Africa’s Sahel region," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 7(5), pages 558-567, May.
    7. Heinisch, Katja & Scaramella, Fabio & Schult, Christoph, 2025. "Assumption errors and forecast accuracy: A partial linear instrumental variable and double machine learning approach," IWH Discussion Papers 6/2025, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    8. Nayiri Galestian Pour & Soudabeh Shemehsavar, 2024. "Learning from high dimensional data based on weighted feature importance in decision tree ensembles," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 313-342, February.
    9. Bazyli Czyżewski & Jakub Staniszewski & Joanna Staniszewska & Marta Guth, 2025. "Does Increasing Agricultural Efficiency Contribute to Food Security—Trade‐Offs of Value Addition in Crop Production?," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(S1), pages 939-970, November.
    10. Arjan S. Gosal & Janine A. McMahon & Katharine M. Bowgen & Catherine H. Hoppe & Guy Ziv, 2021. "Identifying and Mapping Groups of Protected Area Visitors by Environmental Awareness," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, May.
    11. David Dorn & Florian Schoner & Moritz Seebacher & Lisa Simon & Ludger Woessmann, 2024. "Multidimensional Skills on LinkedIn Profiles: Measuring Human Capital and the Gender Skill Gap," Papers 2409.18638, arXiv.org, revised May 2025.
    12. Albert Stuart Reece & Gary Kenneth Hulse, 2022. "European Epidemiological Patterns of Cannabis- and Substance-Related Congenital Neurological Anomalies: Geospatiotemporal and Causal Inferential Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-35, December.
    13. Michael Parzinger & Lucia Hanfstaengl & Ferdinand Sigg & Uli Spindler & Ulrich Wellisch & Markus Wirnsberger, 2020. "Residual Analysis of Predictive Modelling Data for Automated Fault Detection in Building’s Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-18, August.
    14. Nance Nerissa & Mertens Andrew & Gerds Thomas Alexander & Wang Zeyi & Torp-Pedersen Christian & van der Laan Mark & Kvist Kajsa & Lange Theis & Zareini Bochra & Petersen Maya L., 2025. "Applying the Causal Roadmap to longitudinal national registry data in Denmark: A case study of second-line diabetes medication and dementia," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18.
    15. Chen, Jianbao & Shen, Jiamin & Ke, Nan, 2025. "Assessing the impact of new energy demonstration city policy on industrial carbon intensity using machine learning," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1690-1707.
    16. Saniya Singh & Chris Degeling & Peta Drury & Amy Montgomery & Peter Caputi & Frank P. Deane, 2024. "Nurses’ Anxiety Mediates the Relationship between Clinical Tolerance to Uncertainty and Antibiotic Initiation Decisions in Residential Aged-Care Facilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(4), pages 415-425, May.
    17. Van Belle, Jente & Guns, Tias & Verbeke, Wouter, 2021. "Using shared sell-through data to forecast wholesaler demand in multi-echelon supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(2), pages 466-479.
    18. Tania L. Maxwell & Mark D. Spalding & Daniel A. Friess & Nicholas J. Murray & Kerrylee Rogers & Andre S. Rovai & Lindsey S. Smart & Lukas Weilguny & Maria Fernanda Adame & Janine B. Adams & William E., 2024. "Soil carbon in the world’s tidal marshes," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, December.
    19. Albert Stuart Reece & Gary Kenneth Hulse, 2022. "European Epidemiological Patterns of Cannabis- and Substance-Related Body Wall Congenital Anomalies: Geospatiotemporal and Causal Inferential Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-38, July.
    20. Andrew P. Wheeler & Wouter Steenbeek, 2021. "Mapping the Risk Terrain for Crime Using Machine Learning," Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 445-480, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:5:p:587-598. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.