  Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of randomised trials are
considered a reliable way to assess participant-level treatment effect
modifiers but may not make the best use of the available data. Traditionally,
effect modifiers are explored one covariate at a time, which gives rise to the
possibility that evidence of treatment-covariate interaction may be due to
confounding from a different, related covariate. We aimed to evaluate current
practice when estimating treatment-covariate interactions in IPD meta-analysis,
specifically focusing on involvement of additional covariates in the models. We
reviewed 100 IPD meta-analyses of randomised trials, published between 2015 and
2020, that assessed at least one treatment-covariate interaction. We identified
four approaches to handling additional covariates: (1) Single interaction model
(unadjusted): No additional covariates included (57/100 studies); (2) Single
interaction model (adjusted): Adjustment for the main effect of at least one
additional covariate (35/100); (3) Multiple interactions model: Adjustment for
at least one two-way interaction between treatment and an additional covariate
(3/100); and (4) Three-way interaction model: Three-way interaction formed
between treatment, the additional covariate and the potential effect modifier
(5/100). IPD is not being utilised to its fullest extent. In an exemplar
dataset, we demonstrate how these approaches can lead to different conclusions.
Researchers should adjust for additional covariates when estimating
interactions in IPD meta-analysis providing they adjust their main effects,
which is already widely recommended. Further, they should consider whether more
complex approaches could provide better information on who might benefit most
from treatments, improving patient choice and treatment policy and practice.
