Comparing Effect Estimates in Randomized Trials and Observational Studies From the Same Population: An Application to...

Background To understand when results from observational studies and randomized trials are comparable, we performed an observational emulation of a target trial designed to ask similar questions as the VALIDATE (Bivalirudin Versus Heparin in ST-Segment and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy) randomized trial. The VALIDATE trial compared the effect of bivalirudin and heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention on the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and bleeding across Sweden. Methods and Results We specified the protocol of a target trial similar to the VALIDATE trial, then emulated the target trial in the period before the VALIDATE trial took place using data from the SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) registry-the same registry in which the trial was undertaken. The target trial emulation and the VALIDATE trial both estimated little or no effect of bivalirudin versus heparin on the risk of death or myocardial infarction by 180 days (target trial emulation risk ratio for death, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.88 - 1.54]; VALIDATE trial hazard ratio for death, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.78 - 1.41]). The observational data, however, could not capture less severe cases of bleeding, resulting in an inability to define a bleeding outcome like the trial, and could not accurately estimate the comparative risk of death by 14 days, which may be the result of intractable confounding early in follow-up or the inability to precisely emulate the trial's eligibility criteria. Conclusions Using real-world data to emulate a target trial can deliver accurate effect estimates. Yet, even with rich observational data, it is not always possible to estimate the short-term effect of interventions or the effect on outcomes for which data are not routinely collected.