Literature DB >> 26353896

Large sample inference for a win ratio analysis of a composite outcome based on prioritized components.

Ionut Bebu1, John M Lachin2.   

Abstract

Composite outcomes are common in clinical trials, especially for multiple time-to-event outcomes (endpoints). The standard approach that uses the time to the first outcome event has important limitations. Several alternative approaches have been proposed to compare treatment versus control, including the proportion in favor of treatment and the win ratio. Herein, we construct tests of significance and confidence intervals in the context of composite outcomes based on prioritized components using the large sample distribution of certain multivariate multi-sample U-statistics. This non-parametric approach provides a general inference for both the proportion in favor of treatment and the win ratio, and can be extended to stratified analyses and the comparison of more than two groups. The proposed methods are illustrated with time-to-event outcomes data from a clinical trial.
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Keywords:  Cardiovascular disease; Composite outcomes; Proportion in favor of treatment; U-statistic; Win ratio

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26353896      PMCID: PMC4679075          DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxv032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biostatistics        ISSN: 1465-4644            Impact factor:   5.899


  20 in total

1.  Composite outcomes in randomized trials: greater precision but with greater uncertainty?

Authors:  Nick Freemantle; Melanie Calvert; John Wood; Joanne Eastaugh; Carl Griffin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-05-21       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 2.  The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve (PARTNER) trial: clinical trialist perspective.

Authors:  Ajay J Kirtane; Martin B Leon
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2012-06-26       Impact factor: 29.690

3.  Generalized pairwise comparisons of prioritized outcomes in the two-sample problem.

Authors:  Marc Buyse
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-12-30       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Opportunities and challenges of combined effect measures based on prioritized outcomes.

Authors:  Geraldine Rauch; Antje Jahn-Eimermacher; Werner Brannath; Meinhard Kieser
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-10-13       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 5.  Advanced multiplicity adjustment methods in clinical trials.

Authors:  Mohamed Alosh; Frank Bretz; Mohammad Huque
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-09-16       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Addressing multiplicity issues of a composite endpoint and its components in clinical trials.

Authors:  Mohammad F Huque; Mohamed Alosh; Rafia Bhore
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.051

7.  Moving beyond our comfort zone.

Authors:  Brian Claggett; Lee-Jen Wei; Marc A Pfeffer
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2013-01-17       Impact factor: 29.983

8.  Reanalysis or redefinition of the hypothesis?

Authors:  Jody D Ciolino; Rickey E Carter
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2014-08-19       Impact factor: 29.983

9.  Applying novel methods to assess clinical outcomes: insights from the TRILOGY ACS trial.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Bakal; Matthew T Roe; E Magnus Ohman; Shaun G Goodman; Keith A A Fox; Yinggan Zheng; Cynthia M Westerhout; Judith S Hochman; Yuliya Lokhnygina; Eileen B Brown; Paul W Armstrong
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2014-07-10       Impact factor: 29.983

10.  The percutaneous coronary intervention prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ACTIVATION) trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Muhammed Zeeshan Khawaja; Duolao Wang; Stuart Pocock; Simon Robert Redwood; Martyn Rhys Thomas
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-07-24       Impact factor: 2.279

View more
  14 in total

1.  The inverse-probability-of-censoring weighting (IPCW) adjusted win ratio statistic: an unbiased estimator in the presence of independent censoring.

Authors:  Gaohong Dong; Lu Mao; Bo Huang; Margaret Gamalo-Siebers; Jiuzhou Wang; GuangLei Yu; David C Hoaglin
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2020-06-17       Impact factor: 1.051

2.  Properties of composite time to first event versus joint marginal analyses of multiple outcomes.

Authors:  Ionut Bebu; John M Lachin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2018-06-28       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Weighted win loss approach for analyzing prioritized outcomes.

Authors:  Xiaodong Luo; Junshan Qiu; Steven Bai; Hong Tian
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-03-26       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Statistical models for composite endpoints of death and non-fatal events: a review.

Authors:  Lu Mao; KyungMann Kim
Journal:  Stat Biopharm Res       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 1.586

5.  On recurrent-event win ratio.

Authors:  Lu Mao; KyungMann Kim; Yi Li
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2022-03-29       Impact factor: 2.494

6.  Applying a Risk-benefit Analysis to Outcomes in Tuberculosis Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Sachiko Miyahara; Ritesh Ramchandani; Soyeon Kim; Scott R Evans; Amita Gupta; Susan Swindells; Richard E Chaisson; Grace Montepiedra
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 9.079

7.  Sample size formula for general win ratio analysis.

Authors:  Lu Mao; KyungMann Kim; Xinran Miao
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2021-06-08       Impact factor: 1.701

8.  A class of proportional win-fractions regression models for composite outcomes.

Authors:  Lu Mao; Tuo Wang
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2020-10-10       Impact factor: 1.701

9.  Win Ratio -An Intuitive and Easy-To-Interpret Composite Outcome in Medical Studies.

Authors:  Hongyue Wang; Jing Peng; Juila Z Zheng; Bokai Wang; Xiang Lu; Chongshu Chen; Xin M Tu; Changyong Feng
Journal:  Shanghai Arch Psychiatry       Date:  2017-02-25

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.