Literature DB >> 23553898

Planning and evaluating clinical trials with composite time-to-first-event endpoints in a competing risk framework.

G Rauch1, J Beyersmann.   

Abstract

Composite endpoints combine several events of interest within a single variable. These are often time-to-first-event data, which are analyzed via survival analysis techniques. To demonstrate the significance of an overall clinical benefit, it is sufficient to assess the test problem formulated for the composite. However, the effect observed for the composite does not necessarily reflect the effects for the components. Therefore, it would be desirable that the sample size for clinical trials using composite endpoints provides enough power not only to detect a clinically relevant superiority for the composite but also to address the components in an adequate way. The single components of a composite endpoint assessed as time-to-first-event define competing risks. We consider multiple test problems based on the cause-specific hazards of competing events to address the problem of analyzing both a composite endpoint and its components. Thereby, we use sequentially rejective test procedures to reduce the power loss to a minimum. We show how to calculate the sample size for the given multiple test problem by using a simply applicable simulation tool in SAS. Our ideas are illustrated by two clinical study examples.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords:  competing risks; composite endpoints; multiple testing; sample size calculation; time-to-event data

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23553898     DOI: 10.1002/sim.5798

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  8 in total

1.  Dealing with competing risks in clinical trials: How to choose the primary efficacy analysis?

Authors:  James F Troendle; Eric S Leifer; Lauren Kunz
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2018-04-29       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Opportunities and challenges of clinical trials in cardiology using composite primary endpoints.

Authors:  Geraldine Rauch; Bernhard Rauch; Svenja Schüler; Meinhard Kieser
Journal:  World J Cardiol       Date:  2015-01-26

3.  A Multi-state Model for Designing Clinical Trials for Testing Overall Survival Allowing for Crossover after Progression.

Authors:  Fang Xia; Stephen L George; Xiaofei Wang
Journal:  Stat Biopharm Res       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 1.452

4.  ALS/SURV: a modification of the CAFS statistic.

Authors:  Stephen A Goutman; Morton B Brown; Merit Cudkowicz; Nazem Atassi; Eva L Feldman
Journal:  Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener       Date:  2019-07-23       Impact factor: 4.092

5.  Time-to-first-event versus recurrent-event analysis: points to consider for selecting a meaningful analysis strategy in clinical trials with composite endpoints.

Authors:  Geraldine Rauch; Meinhard Kieser; Harald Binder; Antoni Bayes-Genis; Antje Jahn-Eimermacher
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2018-02-16       Impact factor: 5.460

6.  Introducing a new estimator and test for the weighted all-cause hazard ratio.

Authors:  Ann-Kathrin Ozga; Geraldine Rauch
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Weighted composite time to event endpoints with recurrent events: comparison of three analytical approaches.

Authors:  Ann-Kathrin Ozga; Geraldine Rauch
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2022-02-05       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  A DAG-based comparison of interventional effect underestimation between composite endpoint and multi-state analysis in cardiovascular trials.

Authors:  Antje Jahn-Eimermacher; Katharina Ingel; Stella Preussler; Antoni Bayes-Genis; Harald Binder
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2017-07-04       Impact factor: 4.615

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.