Literature DB >> 31659790

Generalized pairwise comparison methods to analyze (non)prioritized composite endpoints.

J Verbeeck1, E Spitzer2,3, T de Vries2, G A van Es4, W N Anderson5, N M Van Mieghem3, M B Leon6,7, G Molenberghs1,8, J Tijssen2,4.   

Abstract

In the analysis of composite endpoints in a clinical trial, time to first event analysis techniques such as the logrank test and Cox proportional hazard test do not take into account the multiplicity, importance, and the severity of events in the composite endpoint. Several generalized pairwise comparison analysis methods have been described recently that do allow to take these aspects into account. These methods have the additional benefit that all types of outcomes can be included, such as longitudinal quantitative outcomes, to evaluate the full treatment effect. Four of the generalized pairwise comparison methods, ie, the Finkelstein-Schoenfeld, the Buyse, unmatched Pocock, and adapted O'Brien test, are summarized. They are compared to each other and to the logrank test by means of simulations while specifically evaluating the effect of correlation between components of the composite endpoint on the power to detect a treatment difference. These simulations show that prioritized generalized pairwise comparison methods perform very similarly, are sensitive to the priority rank of the components in the composite endpoint, and do not measure the true treatment effect from the second priority-ranked component onward. The nonprioritized pairwise comparison test does not suffer from these limitations and correlation affects only its variance.
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords:  composite endpoint; generalized pairwise comparison; logrank; net benefit; win ratio

Year:  2019        PMID: 31659790     DOI: 10.1002/sim.8388

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


  3 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

Review 2.  Clinical Trial Design Principles and Outcomes Definitions for Device-Based Therapies for Hypertension: A Consensus Document From the Hypertension Academic Research Consortium.

Authors:  David E Kandzari; Felix Mahfoud; Michael A Weber; Raymond Townsend; Gianfranco Parati; Naomi D L Fisher; Melvin D Lobo; Michael Bloch; Michael Böhm; Andrew S P Sharp; Roland E Schmieder; Michel Azizi; Markus P Schlaich; Vasilios Papademetriou; Ajay J Kirtane; Joost Daemen; Atul Pathak; Christian Ukena; Philipp Lurz; Guido Grassi; Martin Myers; Aloke V Finn; Marie-Claude Morice; Roxana Mehran; Peter Jüni; Gregg W Stone; Mitchell W Krucoff; Paul K Whelton; Konstantinos Tsioufis; Donald E Cutlip; Ernest Spitzer
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2022-03-14       Impact factor: 29.690

3.  Highlighting the Unique Challenges Presented by Device Trials in Heart Failure.

Authors:  Douglas L Mann
Journal:  JACC Basic Transl Sci       Date:  2022-04-04
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.