Consistency-adjusted alpha allocation methods for a time-to-event analysis of composite endpoints

被引:7
|
作者
Rauch, G. [1 ]
Wirths, M. [1 ]
Kieser, M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Heidelberg Univ, Inst Med Biometry & Informat, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany
关键词
Clinical trial; Composite endpoint; Multiple testing; Bootstrap; COMPONENTS; STRATEGY; TRIALS; ISSUES;
D O I
10.1016/j.csda.2014.01.017
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Composite endpoints are often used as primary efficacy endpoints, particularly in the field of oncology and cardiology. These endpoints combine several time-to-event variables of interest within a single time-to-first-event variable. Thereby, it is intended to enlarge the expected effect size and thus to increase the power of the clinical trial. However, the interpretation of composite endpoints can be difficult, as the observed effect for the composite does not necessarily reflect the effects of the single components. Therefore, it might not be adequate to judge the efficacy of the new intervention exclusively on the composite effect. Including the most relevant components in an efficacy claim assessed by a confirmatory test strategy could overcome this problem but imposes the problem of multiplicity. Moreover, to show non-inferiority or even superiority of the new intervention with respect to single components is usually not realistic in these settings as the expected individual effects are small. Recently, consistency-adjusted alpha allocation methods were proposed in the literature which can be used and extended to establish a new efficacy claim for a composite endpoint and one main component. The power properties of the new approach are compared to the alternative efficacy claim of proving superiority for the composite and non-inferiority for the main component. Moreover, the methods are illustrated with a clinical trial example. Thereby, the general problem of correlation-adjusted multiple testing procedures is addressed by applying a bootstrapping algorithm to estimate the special correlation structure between a composite endpoint and an individual component in the time-to-event setting.(1) (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:151 / 161
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Adjusted estimates for time-to-event endpoints
    Storer, Barry E.
    Gooley, Ted A.
    Jones, Michael P.
    [J]. LIFETIME DATA ANALYSIS, 2008, 14 (04) : 484 - 495
  • [2] Adjusted estimates for time-to-event endpoints
    Barry E. Storer
    Ted A. Gooley
    Michael P. Jones
    [J]. Lifetime Data Analysis, 2008, 14 : 484 - 495
  • [3] Analysis of composite time-to-event endpoints in cardiovascular outcome trials
    Marceau West, Rachel
    Golm, Gregory
    Mehrotra, Devan, V
    [J]. CLINICAL TRIALS, 2024,
  • [4] A consistency-adjusted alpha-adaptive strategy for sequential testing
    Alosh, Mohamed
    Huque, Mohammad F.
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2010, 29 (15) : 1559 - 1571
  • [5] Investigations of methods for multiple time-to-event endpoints: A chronic myeloid leukemia data analysis
    Wu, Hongji
    Hou, Yawen
    Chen, Zheng
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2023, 29 (01) : 211 - 217
  • [6] Consequences of Delayed Treatment Effects on Analysis of Time-to-Event Endpoints
    Gil D. Fine
    [J]. Drug information journal : DIJ / Drug Information Association, 2007, 41 : 535 - 539
  • [7] Consequences of delayed treatment effects on analysis of time-to-event endpoints
    Fine, Gil D.
    [J]. DRUG INFORMATION JOURNAL, 2007, 41 (04): : 535 - 539
  • [8] Time-to-Event Endpoints in Imaging Biomarker Studies
    Chen, Ruizhe
    Wang, Hao
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2024,
  • [9] Bayesian methods for setting sample sizes and choosing allocation ratios in phase II clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints
    Cotterill, Amy
    Whitehead, John
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2015, 34 (11) : 1889 - 1903
  • [10] Sensitivity to censored-at-random assumption in the analysis of time-to-event endpoints
    Lipkovich, Ilya
    Ratitch, Bohdana
    O'Kelly, Michael
    [J]. PHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS, 2016, 15 (03) : 216 - 229