Kahkoska, Anna R., Lawson, Michael T., Crandell, Jamie, Driscoll, Kimberly A., Kichler, Jessica C., Seid, Michael, Maahs, David M., Kosorok, Michael R., and Mayer-Davis, Elizabeth J.
Key Points Question Are there subgroups of participants in the Flexible Lifestyles Empowering Change (FLEX) trial for whom the intervention is estimated to be optimal, for whom usual care is estimated to be optimal, and for whom control conditions and intervention are estimated to be equivalent? Findings In this post hoc analysis of the FLEX randomized clinical trial of 258 adolescents with type 1 diabetes, an individualized treatment rule showed that a large proportion of participants had equivalent predicted outcomes under intervention vs usual care settings, regardless of randomization. Meaning The precision medicine approach is a conceptually and analytically novel method for post hoc subgroup analysis of randomized clinical trials, capturing data-driven response subgroups without relying on predefined categories., This post hoc precision medicine analysis of the Flexible Lifestyles Empowering Change (FLEX) trial estimates an individualized treatment rule to uncover subgroups of responders for key outcomes in diabetes self-management among youth., Importance The Flexible Lifestyles Empowering Change (FLEX) trial, an 18-month randomized clinical trial testing an adaptive behavioral intervention in adolescents with type 1 diabetes, showed no overall treatment effect for its primary outcome, change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) percentage of total hemoglobin, but demonstrated benefit for quality of life (QoL) as a prespecified secondary outcome. Objective To apply a novel statistical method for post hoc analysis that derives an individualized treatment rule (ITR) to identify FLEX participants who may benefit from intervention based on changes in HbA1c percentage (primary outcome), QoL, and body mass index z score (BMIz) (secondary outcomes) during 18 months. Design, Setting, and Participants This multisite clinical trial enrolled 258 adolescents aged 13 to 16 years with type 1 diabetes for 1 or more years, who had literacy in English, HbA1c percentage of total hemoglobin from 8.0% to 13.0%, a participating caregiver, and no other serious medical conditions. From January 5, 2014, to April 4, 2016, 258 adolescents were recruited. The post hoc analysis excluded adolescents missing outcome measures at 18 months (2 participants [0.8%]) or continuous glucose monitoring data at baseline (40 participants [15.5%]). Data were analyzed from April to December 2018. Interventions The FLEX intervention included a behavioral counseling strategy that integrated motivational interviewing and problem-solving skills training to increase adherence to diabetes self-management. The control condition entailed usual diabetes care. Main Outcomes and Measures Subgroups of FLEX participants were derived from an ITR estimating which participants would benefit from intervention, which would benefit from control conditions, and which would be indifferent. Multiple imputation by chained equations and reinforcement learning trees were used to estimate the ITR. Subgroups based on ITR pertaining to changes during 18 months in 3 univariate outcomes (ie, HbA1c percentage, QoL, and BMIz) and a composite outcome were compared by baseline demographic, clinical, and psychosocial characteristics. Results Data from 216 adolescents in the FLEX trial were reanalyzed (166 [76.9%] non-Hispanic white; 108 teenaged girls [50.0%]; mean [SD] age, 14.9 [1.1] years; mean [SD] diabetes duration, 6.3 [3.7] years). For the univariate outcomes, a large proportion of FLEX participants had equivalent predicted outcomes under intervention vs usual care settings, regardless of randomization, and were assigned to the muted group (HbA1c: 105 participants [48.6%]; QoL: 63 participants [29.2%]; BMIz: 136 participants [63.0%]). Regarding the BMIz univariate outcome, mean baseline BMIz of participants assigned to the muted group was lower than that of those assigned to the intervention and control groups (muted vs intervention: mean difference, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75; P = .002; muted vs control: mean difference, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.11; P