Tolulope T Sajobi1, Yukun Zhang1, Bijoy K Menon1, Mayank Goyal1, Andrew M Demchuk1, Joseph P Broderick1, Michael D Hill2. 1. From the Calgary Stroke Program, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. 2. From the Calgary Stroke Program, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. michael.hill@ucalgary.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ordinal outcomes, such as modified Rankin Scale (mRS), are the standard primary end points in acute stroke trials. Regression models for assessing treatment efficacy after adjusting for baseline covariates have been developed for continuous, binary, or ordinal end points. There has been no consensus on the best choice of method for analyzing these data. METHODS: We compared several regression models for assessing treatment efficacy in acute stroke trials using existing data sets from the Interventional Management of Stroke-III and Prolyse in Acute Cerebral Thromboembolism II (PROACT-2) trials. Patients with baseline non-contrast computed tomographic Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) > 5, baseline computed tomographic angiography, or conventional angiogram showing an intracranial internal carotid artery or middle cerebral artery trunk (M-1) occlusion, adequate collateral circulation shown on computed tomographic angiography, and treatment times of non-contrast computed tomographic to groin puncture of ≤90 minutes, were included. Monte Carlo techniques were used to compare the statistical power of these regression models under a variety of simulated data analytic scenarios. RESULTS: Binary logistic regression showed greater power when the treatment is predicted to show evidence of benefit on one end of the mRS with no other gains across other levels of the scale. Proportional odds regression showed greater power when the treatment is predicted to show evidence of improvement on both ends of the mRS. CONCLUSIONS: The mRS distribution for both treatment and control groups influences the power of the investigated statistical models to assess treatment efficacy. A careful evaluation of the expected outcome distribution across the mRS scale is required to determine the best choice of primary analysis.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ordinal outcomes, such as modified Rankin Scale (mRS), are the standard primary end points in acute stroke trials. Regression models for assessing treatment efficacy after adjusting for baseline covariates have been developed for continuous, binary, or ordinal end points. There has been no consensus on the best choice of method for analyzing these data. METHODS: We compared several regression models for assessing treatment efficacy in acute stroke trials using existing data sets from the Interventional Management of Stroke-III and Prolyse in Acute Cerebral Thromboembolism II (PROACT-2) trials. Patients with baseline non-contrast computed tomographic Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) > 5, baseline computed tomographic angiography, or conventional angiogram showing an intracranial internal carotid artery or middle cerebral artery trunk (M-1) occlusion, adequate collateral circulation shown on computed tomographic angiography, and treatment times of non-contrast computed tomographic to groin puncture of ≤90 minutes, were included. Monte Carlo techniques were used to compare the statistical power of these regression models under a variety of simulated data analytic scenarios. RESULTS: Binary logistic regression showed greater power when the treatment is predicted to show evidence of benefit on one end of the mRS with no other gains across other levels of the scale. Proportional odds regression showed greater power when the treatment is predicted to show evidence of improvement on both ends of the mRS. CONCLUSIONS: The mRS distribution for both treatment and control groups influences the power of the investigated statistical models to assess treatment efficacy. A careful evaluation of the expected outcome distribution across the mRS scale is required to determine the best choice of primary analysis.
Authors: A Furlan; R Higashida; L Wechsler; M Gent; H Rowley; C Kase; M Pessin; A Ahuja; F Callahan; W M Clark; F Silver; F Rivera Journal: JAMA Date: 1999-12-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jeffrey L Saver; Mayank Goyal; Alain Bonafe; Hans-Christoph Diener; Elad I Levy; Vitor M Pereira; Gregory W Albers; Christophe Cognard; David J Cohen; Werner Hacke; Olav Jansen; Tudor G Jovin; Heinrich P Mattle; Raul G Nogueira; Adnan H Siddiqui; Dileep R Yavagal; Blaise W Baxter; Thomas G Devlin; Demetrius K Lopes; Vivek K Reddy; Richard du Mesnil de Rochemont; Oliver C Singer; Reza Jahan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrew M Demchuk; Mayank Goyal; Bijoy K Menon; Muneer Eesa; Karla J Ryckborst; Noreen Kamal; Shivanand Patil; Sachin Mishra; Mohammed Almekhlafi; Privia A Randhawa; Daniel Roy; Robert Willinsky; Walter Montanera; Frank L Silver; Ashfaq Shuaib; Jeremy Rempel; Tudor Jovin; Donald Frei; Biggya Sapkota; J Michael Thornton; Alexandre Poppe; Donatella Tampieri; Cheemun Lum; Alain Weill; Tolulope T Sajobi; Michael D Hill Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2014-12-25 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Bruce C V Campbell; Peter J Mitchell; Timothy J Kleinig; Helen M Dewey; Leonid Churilov; Nawaf Yassi; Bernard Yan; Richard J Dowling; Mark W Parsons; Thomas J Oxley; Teddy Y Wu; Mark Brooks; Marion A Simpson; Ferdinand Miteff; Christopher R Levi; Martin Krause; Timothy J Harrington; Kenneth C Faulder; Brendan S Steinfort; Miriam Priglinger; Timothy Ang; Rebecca Scroop; P Alan Barber; Ben McGuinness; Tissa Wijeratne; Thanh G Phan; Winston Chong; Ronil V Chandra; Christopher F Bladin; Monica Badve; Henry Rice; Laetitia de Villiers; Henry Ma; Patricia M Desmond; Geoffrey A Donnan; Stephen M Davis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mayank Goyal; Andrew M Demchuk; Bijoy K Menon; Muneer Eesa; Jeremy L Rempel; John Thornton; Daniel Roy; Tudor G Jovin; Robert A Willinsky; Biggya L Sapkota; Dar Dowlatshahi; Donald F Frei; Noreen R Kamal; Walter J Montanera; Alexandre Y Poppe; Karla J Ryckborst; Frank L Silver; Ashfaq Shuaib; Donatella Tampieri; David Williams; Oh Young Bang; Blaise W Baxter; Paul A Burns; Hana Choe; Ji-Hoe Heo; Christine A Holmstedt; Brian Jankowitz; Michael Kelly; Guillermo Linares; Jennifer L Mandzia; Jai Shankar; Sung-Il Sohn; Richard H Swartz; Philip A Barber; Shelagh B Coutts; Eric E Smith; William F Morrish; Alain Weill; Suresh Subramaniam; Alim P Mitha; John H Wong; Mark W Lowerison; Tolulope T Sajobi; Michael D Hill Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joseph P Broderick; Yuko Y Palesch; Andrew M Demchuk; Sharon D Yeatts; Pooja Khatri; Michael D Hill; Edward C Jauch; Tudor G Jovin; Bernard Yan; Frank L Silver; Rüdiger von Kummer; Carlos A Molina; Bart M Demaerschalk; Ronald Budzik; Wayne M Clark; Osama O Zaidat; Tim W Malisch; Mayank Goyal; Wouter J Schonewille; Mikael Mazighi; Stefan T Engelter; Craig Anderson; Judith Spilker; Janice Carrozzella; Karla J Ryckborst; L Scott Janis; Renée H Martin; Lydia D Foster; Thomas A Tomsick Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: George Howard; Jennifer L Waller; Jenifer H Voeks; Virginia J Howard; Edward C Jauch; Kennedy R Lees; Fenwick T Nichols; Volker W Rahlfs; David C Hess Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Yilin Ning; Peh Joo Ho; Nathalie C Støer; Ka Keat Lim; Hwee-Lin Wee; Mikael Hartman; Marie Reilly; Chuen Seng Tan Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 4.790