Endpoints for randomized controlled clinical trials for COVID-19 treatments.
COVID-19
WHO ordinal scale
censoring
clinical trials
endpoints
log-rank test
proportional odds model
Journal
Clinical trials (London, England)
ISSN: 1740-7753
Titre abrégé: Clin Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101197451
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
18
7
2020
medline:
21
10
2020
entrez:
18
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Endpoint choice for randomized controlled trials of treatments for novel coronavirus-induced disease (COVID-19) is complex. Trials must start rapidly to identify treatments that can be used as part of the outbreak response, in the midst of considerable uncertainty and limited information. COVID-19 presentation is heterogeneous, ranging from mild disease that improves within days to critical disease that can last weeks to over a month and can end in death. While improvement in mortality would provide unquestionable evidence about the clinical significance of a treatment, sample sizes for a study evaluating mortality are large and may be impractical, particularly given a multitude of putative therapies to evaluate. Furthermore, patient states in between "cure" and "death" represent meaningful distinctions. Clinical severity scores have been proposed as an alternative. However, the appropriate summary measure for severity scores has been the subject of debate, particularly given the variable time course of COVID-19. Outcomes measured at fixed time points, such as a comparison of severity scores between treatment and control at day 14, may risk missing the time of clinical benefit. An endpoint such as time to improvement (or recovery) avoids the timing problem. However, some have argued that power losses will result from reducing the ordinal scale to a binary state of "recovered" versus "not recovered." We evaluate statistical power for possible trial endpoints for COVID-19 treatment trials using simulation models and data from two recent COVID-19 treatment trials. Power for fixed time-point methods depends heavily on the time selected for evaluation. Time-to-event approaches have reasonable statistical power, even when compared with a fixed time-point method evaluated at the optimal time. Time-to-event analysis methods have advantages in the COVID-19 setting, unless the optimal time for evaluating treatment effect is known in advance. Even when the optimal time is known, a time-to-event approach may increase power for interim analyses.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Endpoint choice for randomized controlled trials of treatments for novel coronavirus-induced disease (COVID-19) is complex. Trials must start rapidly to identify treatments that can be used as part of the outbreak response, in the midst of considerable uncertainty and limited information. COVID-19 presentation is heterogeneous, ranging from mild disease that improves within days to critical disease that can last weeks to over a month and can end in death. While improvement in mortality would provide unquestionable evidence about the clinical significance of a treatment, sample sizes for a study evaluating mortality are large and may be impractical, particularly given a multitude of putative therapies to evaluate. Furthermore, patient states in between "cure" and "death" represent meaningful distinctions. Clinical severity scores have been proposed as an alternative. However, the appropriate summary measure for severity scores has been the subject of debate, particularly given the variable time course of COVID-19. Outcomes measured at fixed time points, such as a comparison of severity scores between treatment and control at day 14, may risk missing the time of clinical benefit. An endpoint such as time to improvement (or recovery) avoids the timing problem. However, some have argued that power losses will result from reducing the ordinal scale to a binary state of "recovered" versus "not recovered."
METHODS
We evaluate statistical power for possible trial endpoints for COVID-19 treatment trials using simulation models and data from two recent COVID-19 treatment trials.
RESULTS
Power for fixed time-point methods depends heavily on the time selected for evaluation. Time-to-event approaches have reasonable statistical power, even when compared with a fixed time-point method evaluated at the optimal time.
DISCUSSION
Time-to-event analysis methods have advantages in the COVID-19 setting, unless the optimal time for evaluating treatment effect is known in advance. Even when the optimal time is known, a time-to-event approach may increase power for interim analyses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32674594
doi: 10.1177/1740774520939938
pmc: PMC7611901
mid: EMS137081
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antiviral Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
472-482Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : 75N91019D00024
Pays : United States
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00002/14
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : SRF-2015-08-001
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 7;382(19):1787-1799
pubmed: 32187464
JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2052-2059
pubmed: 32320003
Lancet. 2020 May 16;395(10236):1569-1578
pubmed: 32423584
Clin Trials. 2017 Jun;14(3):264-276
pubmed: 28397569
J Thromb Haemost. 2020 May;18(5):1023-1026
pubmed: 32338827
N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 12;381(24):2293-2303
pubmed: 31774950
N Engl J Med. 1994 Feb 10;330(6):377-81
pubmed: 8284001
Stat Med. 2009 Nov 20;28(26):3189-209
pubmed: 19455540
Thromb Res. 2020 Jul;191:145-147
pubmed: 32291094
Eur J Neurol. 2020 Sep;27(9):e31-e32
pubmed: 32323891
Stat Biopharm Res. 2020 Jul 29;12(4):483-497
pubmed: 34191981
BMJ. 2006 May 6;332(7549):1080
pubmed: 16675816
Stat Med. 2003 May 15;22(9):1433-46
pubmed: 12704607
JAMA. 2020 Apr 28;323(16):1574-1581
pubmed: 32250385
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000 Jun;161(6):1942-8
pubmed: 10852771
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2019 Jun 21;15:100401
pubmed: 31312748
JCI Insight. 2020 May 21;5(10):
pubmed: 32324595
Intensive Care Med. 1996 Jul;22(7):707-10
pubmed: 8844239
Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1033-1034
pubmed: 32192578
N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 5;383(19):1813-1826
pubmed: 32445440
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):507-513
pubmed: 32007143
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 21;382(21):2012-2022
pubmed: 32227758
Biometrics. 1987 Jun;43(2):471-6
pubmed: 3607207
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):475-481
pubmed: 32105632
Stroke. 2007 Nov;38(11):3055-62
pubmed: 17916765