Sequential regression and simulation: a method for estimating causal effects from heterogeneous clinical trials without a common control group
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 15, 2025

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Vivek A Rudrapatna1,2, Vignesh G Ravindranath3, Douglas V Arneson3
1Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. vivek.rudrapatna@ucsf.edu.
Background:
The advent of clinical trial data sharing platforms has created opportunities for making new discoveries and answering important questions using already collected data. However, existing methods for meta-analyzing these data require the presence of shared control groups across studies, significantly limiting the number of questions that can be confidently addressed. We sought to develop a method for meta-analyzing potentially heterogeneous clinical trials even in the absence of a common control group.
Methods:
This work was conducted within the context of a broader effort to study comparative efficacy in Crohn's disease. Following a search of clnicaltrials.gov we obtained access to the individual participant data from nine trials of FDA-approved treatments in Crohn's Disease (N = 3392). We developed a method involving sequences of regression and simulation to separately model the placebo- and drug-attributable effects, and to simulate head-to-head trials against an appropriately normalized background. We validated this method by comparing the outcome of a simulated trial comparing the efficacies of adalimumab and ustekinumab against the recently published results of SEAVUE, an actual head-to-head trial of these drugs. This study was pre-registered on PROSPERO (#157,827) prior to the completion of SEAVUE.
Results:
Using our method of sequential regression and simulation, we compared the week eight outcomes of two virtual cohorts subject to the same patient selection criteria as SEAVUE and treated with adalimumab or ustekinumab. Our primary analysis replicated the corresponding published results from SEAVUE (p = 0.9). This finding proved stable under multiple sensitivity analyses.
Conclusions:
This new method may help reduce the bias of individual participant data meta-analyses, expand the scope of what can be learned from these already-collected data, and reduce the costs of obtaining high-quality evidence to guide patient care.
Related Concept Videos
Causality in Epidemiology
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...
Study Design in Statistics
Does aspirin reduce the risk of heart attacks? Is one brand of fertilizer more effective at growing roses than another? Is fatigue as dangerous to a driver as the influence of alcohol? Questions like these are answered using randomized experiments with proper...
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Crossover Experiments
Crossover designs are performed even with smaller sample sizes since the samples can act as their controls. These are better than simple randomized trials since patients are exposed to all the treatments.

