Generalized pairwise comparison methods to analyze (non)prioritized composite endpoints.
Aortic Valve Stenosis
/ complications
Biostatistics
Computer Simulation
Data Interpretation, Statistical
Endpoint Determination
/ statistics & numerical data
Heart Failure
/ complications
Humans
Models, Statistical
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
/ statistics & numerical data
Statistics, Nonparametric
Stroke
/ etiology
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
Treatment Outcome
composite endpoint
generalized pairwise comparison
logrank
net benefit
win ratio
Journal
Statistics in medicine
ISSN: 1097-0258
Titre abrégé: Stat Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8215016
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 12 2019
30 12 2019
Historique:
received:
04
07
2018
revised:
02
09
2019
accepted:
13
09
2019
pubmed:
30
10
2019
medline:
1
12
2020
entrez:
30
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In the analysis of composite endpoints in a clinical trial, time to first event analysis techniques such as the logrank test and Cox proportional hazard test do not take into account the multiplicity, importance, and the severity of events in the composite endpoint. Several generalized pairwise comparison analysis methods have been described recently that do allow to take these aspects into account. These methods have the additional benefit that all types of outcomes can be included, such as longitudinal quantitative outcomes, to evaluate the full treatment effect. Four of the generalized pairwise comparison methods, ie, the Finkelstein-Schoenfeld, the Buyse, unmatched Pocock, and adapted O'Brien test, are summarized. They are compared to each other and to the logrank test by means of simulations while specifically evaluating the effect of correlation between components of the composite endpoint on the power to detect a treatment difference. These simulations show that prioritized generalized pairwise comparison methods perform very similarly, are sensitive to the priority rank of the components in the composite endpoint, and do not measure the true treatment effect from the second priority-ranked component onward. The nonprioritized pairwise comparison test does not suffer from these limitations and correlation affects only its variance.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5641-5656Informations de copyright
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Références
Cox D. Regression models and life-tables. J Royal Stat Soc. 1972;34(2):187-220.
Finkelstein DM, Schoenfeld DA. Combining mortality and longitudinal measures in clinical trials. Statist Med. 1999;18:1341-1354.
Buyse M. Generalized pairwise comparisons of prioritized outcomes in the two-sample problem. Statist Med. 2010;29:3245-3257.
Ramchandani R, Schoenfeld D, Finkelstein DM. Global rank tests for multiple, possibly censored, outcomes. Biometrics. 2016;72(3):926-935.
Pocock SJ, Ariti CA, Collier TJ, Wang D. The win ratio: a new approach to the analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials based on clinical priorities. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:176-182.
Spitzer E, Mieghem NMV, Pibarot P, et al. Rationale and design of the transcatheter aortic valve replacement to unload the left ventricle in patients with advanced heart failure (TAVR UNLOAD) trial. Am Heart J. 2016;182:80-88.
Bebu I, Lachin JM. Large sample inference for a win ratio analysis of a composite outcome based on prioritized components. Biostatistics. 2016;17(1):178-187.
Rauch G, Jahn-Eimermacher A, Brannathc W, Kiesera M. Opportunities and challenges of combined effect measures based on prioritized outcomes. Statist Med. 2014;33:1104-1120.
Oakes D. On the win-ratio statistic in clinical trials with multiple types of event. Biometrika. 2016;103(3):742-745.
Mann HB, Whitney DR. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Stat. 1947;18(1):50-60.
Leton E, Zuluaga P. Relationships among test for censored data. Biometrical Journal. 2005;47(3):377-387.
Gehan EA. A generalized Wilcoxon test for comparing arbitrarily singly-censored samples. Biometrika. 1965;52(1/2):203-223.
Péron J, Buyse M, Ozenne B, Roche L, Roy P. An extension of generalized pairwise comparisons of prioritized outcomes in the presence of censoring. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016;27(4):1230-1239.
Dong G, Li D, Ballerstedt S, Vandemeulebroecke M. A generalized analytic solution to the win ratio to analyze a composite endpoint considering the clinical importance order among components. Pharmaceutical Statistics. 2016;15:430-437.
O'Brien PC. Procedures for comparing samples with multiple endpoints. Biometrics. 1984;40:1079-1087.
FDA. Multiple endpoints in clinical trials guidance for industry. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm536750.pdf2017.
Efron B. The two sample problem with censored data. In: Proceeding of Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. 1967; Berkeley, CA.
Berry J, Miller R, Moore DH, Cudkowicz ME. The combined assessment of function and survival (CAFS): a new endpoint for ALS clinical trials. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2013;14(3):162-168.
Tseng C, Wong WK. Analysis of a composite endpoint with longitudinal and time-to-event data. Statist Med. 2011;30:1018-1027.
Reilly C. A nonparametric approach to the analysis of longitudinal data via a set of level crossing problems with application to the analysis of microarray time course experiments. Biostatistics. 2005;6(2):271-278.
Vonesh EF, Greene T, Schluchter MD. Shared parameter models for the joint analysis of longitudinal data and event times. Statist Med. 2006;25:143-163.
Healy B, Schoenfeld D. Comparison of analysis approaches for phase III clinical trials in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Muscle Nerve. 2012;46:506-511.
Andersen P, Gill R. Cox's regression model for counting processes: a large sample study. Ann Stat. 1982;10(4):1100-1120.
Rogers J, Pocock S, McMurray J, et al. Analysing recurrent hospitalizations in heart failure: a review of statistical methodology, with application to charm-preserved. Eur J Heart Fail. 2014;16:33-40.