A comparison of reweighting estimators of average treatment effects in real world populations.

Regulatory agencies typically evaluate the efficacy and safety of new interventions and grant commercial approval based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Other major healthcare stakeholders, such as insurance companies and health technology assessment agencies, while basing initial access and reimbursement decisions on RCT results, are also keenly interested in whether results observed in idealized trial settings will translate into comparable outcomes in real world settings-that is, into so-called "real world" effectiveness. Unfortunately, evidence of real world effectiveness for new interventions is not available at the time of initial approval. To bridge this gap, statistical methods are available to extend the estimated treatment effect observed in a RCT to a target population. The generalization is done by weighting the subjects who participated in a RCT so that the weighted trial population resembles a target population. We evaluate a variety of alternative estimation and weight construction procedures using both simulations and a real world data example using two clinical trials of an investigational intervention for Alzheimer's disease. Our results suggest an optimal approach to estimation depends on the characteristics of source and target populations, including degree of selection bias and treatment effect heterogeneity.