Literature DB >> 27313144

Analysing adverse events by time-to-event models: the CLEOPATRA study.

Tanja Proctor1,2, Martin Schumacher1.   

Abstract

When analysing primary and secondary endpoints in a clinical trial with patients suffering from a chronic disease, statistical models for time-to-event data are commonly used and accepted. This is in contrast to the analysis of data on adverse events where often only a table with observed frequencies and corresponding test statistics is reported. An example is the recently published CLEOPATRA study where a three-drug regimen is compared with a two-drug regimen in patients with HER2-positive first-line metastatic breast cancer. Here, as described earlier, primary and secondary endpoints (progression-free and overall survival) are analysed using time-to-event models, whereas adverse events are summarized in a simple frequency table, although the duration of study treatment differs substantially. In this paper, we demonstrate the application of time-to-event models to first serious adverse events using the data of the CLEOPATRA study. This will cover the broad range between a simple incidence rate approach over survival and competing risks models (with death as a competing event) to multi-state models. We illustrate all approaches by means of graphical displays highlighting the temporal dynamics and compare the obtained results. For the CLEOPATRA study, the resulting hazard ratios are all in the same order of magnitude. But the use of time-to-event models provides valuable and additional information that would potentially be overlooked by only presenting incidence proportions. These models adequately address the temporal dynamics of serious adverse events as well as death of patients.
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  adverse events; competing risks; incidence rate; multi-state models; time-to-event

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27313144     DOI: 10.1002/pst.1758

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharm Stat        ISSN: 1539-1604            Impact factor:   1.894


  5 in total

1.  Visualising harms in publications of randomised controlled trials: consensus and recommendations.

Authors:  Rachel Phillips; Suzie Cro; Graham Wheeler; Simon Bond; Tim P Morris; Siobhan Creanor; Catherine Hewitt; Sharon Love; Andre Lopes; Iryna Schlackow; Carrol Gamble; Graeme MacLennan; Chris Habron; Anthony C Gordon; Nikhil Vergis; Tianjing Li; Riaz Qureshi; Colin C Everett; Jane Holmes; Amanda Kirkham; Clare Peckitt; Sarah Pirrie; Norin Ahmed; Laura Collett; Victoria Cornelius
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2022-05-16

2.  Bootstrapping complex time-to-event data without individual patient data, with a view toward time-dependent exposures.

Authors:  Tobias Bluhmki; Hein Putter; Arthur Allignol; Jan Beyersmann
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Decoding kinase-adverse event associations for small molecule kinase inhibitors.

Authors:  Xiajing Gong; Meng Hu; Jinzhong Liu; Geoffrey Kim; James Xu; Amy McKee; Todd Palmby; R Angelo de Claro; Liang Zhao
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2022-07-27       Impact factor: 17.694

4.  Understanding current practice, identifying barriers and exploring priorities for adverse event analysis in randomised controlled trials: an online, cross-sectional survey of statisticians from academia and industry.

Authors:  Rachel Phillips; Victoria Cornelius
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Multistate model for pharmacometric analyses of overall survival in HER2-negative breast cancer patients treated with docetaxel.

Authors:  Sreenath M Krishnan; Lena E Friberg; René Bruno; Ulrich Beyer; Jin Y Jin; Mats O Karlsson
Journal:  CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol       Date:  2021-08-03
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.