A comparison of eight methods for the dual-endpoint evaluation of efficacy in a proof-of-concept HIV vaccine trial.

To support the design of the world's first proof-of-concept (POC) efficacy trial of a cell-mediated immunity-based HIV vaccine, we evaluate eight methods for testing the composite null hypothesis of no-vaccine effect on either the incidence of HIV infection or the viral load set point among those infected, relative to placebo. The first two methods use a single test applied to the actual values or ranks of a burden-of-illness (BOI) outcome that combines the infection and viral load endpoints. The other six methods combine separate tests for the two endpoints using unweighted or weighted versions of the two-part z, Simes', and Fisher's methods. Based on extensive simulations that were used to design the landmark POC trial, the BOI methods are shown to have generally low power for rejecting the composite null hypothesis (and hence advancing the vaccine to a subsequent large-scale efficacy trial). The unweighted Simes' and Fisher's combination methods perform best overall. Importantly, this conclusion holds even after the test for the viral load component is adjusted for bias that can be introduced by conditioning on a postrandomization event (HIV infection). The adjustment is derived using a selection bias model based on the principal stratification framework of causal inference.