Victor Novack1,2, Jeremy R Beitler3, Maayan Yitshak-Sade1,4, B Taylor Thompson5, David A Schoenfeld6, Gordon Rubenfeld7, Daniel Talmor2, Samuel M Brown8. 1. Clinical Research Center, Soroka University Medical Center, Beer Sheva, Israel. 2. Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 3. Center for Acute Respiratory Failure and Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY. 4. Exposure, Epidemiology, and Risk Program, Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA. 5. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 6. Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 7. Sunnybrook Hospital Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 8. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Intermountain Medical Center and University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Survival from acute respiratory distress syndrome is improving, and outcomes beyond mortality may be important for testing new treatments. The "ventilator-free days" score, is an established composite that equates ventilation on day 28 to death. A hierarchical outcome treating death as a worse than prolonged ventilation would enhance face validity, but performance characteristics and reporting of such an outcome are unknown. We therefore evaluated the performance of a novel hierarchical composite endpoint, the Alive and Ventilator Free score. DESIGN: Using data from four Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network clinical trials, we compared Alive and Ventilator Free to the ventilator-free days score. Alive and Ventilator Free compares each patient with every other patient in a win-lose-tie for each comparison. Duration of mechanical ventilation is only compared if both patients survived. We evaluated power of Alive and Ventilator Free versus ventilator-free days score under various circumstances. SETTING: ICUs within the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network. PATIENTS: Individuals enrolled in four Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network trials. INTERVENTIONS: None for this analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Within the four trials (n = 2,410 patients), Alive and Ventilator Free and ventilator-free days score had similar power, with Alive and Ventilator Free slightly more powerful when a mortality difference was present, and ventilator-free days score slightly more powerful with a difference in duration of mechanical ventilation. Alive and Ventilator Free less often found in favor of treatments that increased mortality and increased days free of ventilation among survivors. CONCLUSIONS: A hierarchical composite endpoint, Alive and Ventilator Free, preserves statistical power while improving face validity. Alive and Ventilator Free is less prone to favor a treatment with discordant effects on survival and days free of ventilation. This general approach can support complex outcome hierarchies with multiple constituent outcomes. Approaches to interpretation of differences in Alive and Ventilator Free are also presented.
OBJECTIVES: Survival from acute respiratory distress syndrome is improving, and outcomes beyond mortality may be important for testing new treatments. The "ventilator-free days" score, is an established composite that equates ventilation on day 28 to death. A hierarchical outcome treating death as a worse than prolonged ventilation would enhance face validity, but performance characteristics and reporting of such an outcome are unknown. We therefore evaluated the performance of a novel hierarchical composite endpoint, the Alive and Ventilator Free score. DESIGN: Using data from four Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network clinical trials, we compared Alive and Ventilator Free to the ventilator-free days score. Alive and Ventilator Free compares each patient with every other patient in a win-lose-tie for each comparison. Duration of mechanical ventilation is only compared if both patients survived. We evaluated power of Alive and Ventilator Free versus ventilator-free days score under various circumstances. SETTING: ICUs within the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network. PATIENTS: Individuals enrolled in four Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network trials. INTERVENTIONS: None for this analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Within the four trials (n = 2,410 patients), Alive and Ventilator Free and ventilator-free days score had similar power, with Alive and Ventilator Free slightly more powerful when a mortality difference was present, and ventilator-free days score slightly more powerful with a difference in duration of mechanical ventilation. Alive and Ventilator Free less often found in favor of treatments that increased mortality and increased days free of ventilation among survivors. CONCLUSIONS: A hierarchical composite endpoint, Alive and Ventilator Free, preserves statistical power while improving face validity. Alive and Ventilator Free is less prone to favor a treatment with discordant effects on survival and days free of ventilation. This general approach can support complex outcome hierarchies with multiple constituent outcomes. Approaches to interpretation of differences in Alive and Ventilator Free are also presented.
Authors: Ignacio Ferreira-González; Gaietà Permanyer-Miralda; Jason W Busse; Dianne M Bryant; Victor M Montori; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Stephen D Walter; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2007-02-23 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Roger G Spragg; Gordon R Bernard; William Checkley; J Randall Curtis; Ognjen Gajic; Gordon Guyatt; Jesse Hall; Elliott Israel; Manu Jain; Dale M Needham; Adrienne G Randolph; Gordon D Rubenfeld; David Schoenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Lorraine B Ware; Duncan Young; Andrea L Harabin Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2010-03-11 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Laurent Papazian; Jean-Marie Forel; Arnaud Gacouin; Christine Penot-Ragon; Gilles Perrin; Anderson Loundou; Samir Jaber; Jean-Michel Arnal; Didier Perez; Jean-Marie Seghboyan; Jean-Michel Constantin; Pierre Courant; Jean-Yves Lefrant; Claude Guérin; Gwenaël Prat; Sophie Morange; Antoine Roch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-09-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Elizabeth Colantuoni; Daniel O Scharfstein; Chenguang Wang; Mohamed D Hashem; Andrew Leroux; Dale M Needham; Timothy D Girard Journal: BMJ Date: 2018-01-03
Authors: Emily Fish; Victor Novack; Valerie M Banner-Goodspeed; Todd Sarge; Stephen Loring; Daniel Talmor Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-10-06 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Elizabeth Colantuoni; Mounica Koneru; Narjes Akhlaghi; Ximin Li; Mohamed D Hashem; Victor D Dinglas; Karin J Neufeld; Michael O Harhay; Dale M Needham Journal: Trials Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Michael O Harhay; Jonathan D Casey; Marina Clement; Sean P Collins; Étienne Gayat; Michelle Ng Gong; Samir Jaber; Pierre-François Laterre; John C Marshall; Michael A Matthay; Rhonda E Monroe; Todd W Rice; Eileen Rubin; Wesley H Self; Alexandre Mebazaa Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Samuel M Brown; Ithan D Peltan; Brandon Webb; Naresh Kumar; Nathan Starr; Colin Grissom; Whitney R Buckel; Raj Srivastava; Estelle S Harris; Lindsay M Leither; Stacy A Johnson; Robert Paine; Tom Greene Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2020-08
Authors: Michael O Harhay; Alessandro Gasparini; Allan J Walkey; Gary E Weissman; Michael J Crowther; Sarah J Ratcliffe; James A Russell Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2020-04-29
Authors: Zelalem Temesgen; Charles D Burger; Jason Baker; Christopher Polk; Claudia Libertin; Colleen Kelley; Vincent C Marconi; Robert Orenstein; Cameron Durrant; Dale Chappell; Omar Ahmed; Gabrielle Chappell; Andrew D Badley Journal: medRxiv Date: 2021-05-05
Authors: Bonnie E Lonze; Peter Spiegler; Russell N Wesson; Nada Alachkar; Eva Petkova; Elaina P Weldon; Rebecca A Dieter; Yi Li; Max Quinn; Aprajita Mattoo; Irfana Soomro; Steven M Cohen; Sherry Leung; Cecilia L Deterville; B Mark Landrum; Muhammad Imran Ali; David J Cohen; Andrew L Singer; Ayan Sen; Edward Chong; Judith S Hochman; Andrea B Troxel; Robert A Montgomery Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2022-05-17 Impact factor: 9.296
Authors: Frank M P van Haren; John G Laffey; Antonio Artigas; Clive Page; Marcus J Schultz; David Cosgrave; Bairbre McNicholas; Thomas L Smoot; Quentin Nunes; Alice Richardson; Hwan-Jin Yoon; Lex M van Loon; Angajendra Ghosh; Simone Said; Rakshit Panwar; Roger Smith; John D Santamaria; Barry Dixon Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2022-02-20 Impact factor: 3.716