Literature DB >> 34047366

Sample size formula for general win ratio analysis.

Lu Mao1, KyungMann Kim1, Xinran Miao1.   

Abstract

Originally proposed for the analysis of prioritized composite endpoints, the win ratio has now expanded into a broad class of methodology based on general pairwise comparisons. Complicated by the non-i.i.d. structure of the test statistic, however, sample size estimation for the win ratio has lagged behind. In this article, we develop general and easy-to-use formulas to calculate sample size for win ratio analysis of different outcome types. In a nonparametric setting, the null variance of the test statistic is derived using U-statistic theory in terms of a dispersion parameter called the standard rank deviation, an intrinsic characteristic of the null outcome distribution and the user-defined rule of comparison. The effect size can be hypothesized either on the original scale of the population win ratio, or on the scale of a "usual" effect size suited to the outcome type. The latter approach allows one to measure the effect size by, for example, odds/continuation ratio for totally/partially ordered outcomes and hazard ratios for composite time-to-event outcomes. Simulation studies show that the derived formulas provide accurate estimates for the required sample size across different settings. As illustration, real data from two clinical studies of hepatic and cardiovascular diseases are used as pilot data to calculate sample sizes for future trials.
© 2021 The International Biometric Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  U-statistic; Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test; composite outcomes; partial order; power analysis; standard rank deviation

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34047366      PMCID: PMC8627514          DOI: 10.1111/biom.13501

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   1.701


  17 in total

1.  Combining mortality and longitudinal measures in clinical trials.

Authors:  D M Finkelstein; D A Schoenfeld
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1999-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Power calculation for clinical trials when the outcome is a composite ranking of survival and a nonfatal outcome.

Authors:  R P McMahon; F E Harrell
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  2000-08

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

Authors:  Ionut Bebu; John M Lachin
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2015-09-08       Impact factor: 5.899

5.  Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  William C Cushman; Gregory W Evans; Robert P Byington; David C Goff; Richard H Grimm; Jeffrey A Cutler; Denise G Simons-Morton; Jan N Basile; Marshall A Corson; Jeffrey L Probstfield; Lois Katz; Kevin A Peterson; William T Friedewald; John B Buse; J Thomas Bigger; Hertzel C Gerstein; Faramarz Ismail-Beigi
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-03-14       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  The win ratio: a new approach to the analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials based on clinical priorities.

Authors:  Stuart J Pocock; Cono A Ariti; Timothy J Collier; Duolao Wang
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2011-09-06       Impact factor: 29.983

7.  A win ratio approach to the re-analysis of Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial.

Authors:  Ales Kotalik; Anne Eaton; Qinshu Lian; Carlos Serrano; John Connett; James D Neaton
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2019-08-07       Impact factor: 2.486

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.  Effect of High-Dose Trivalent vs Standard-Dose Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine on Mortality or Cardiopulmonary Hospitalization in Patients With High-risk Cardiovascular Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Orly Vardeny; KyungMann Kim; Jacob A Udell; Jacob Joseph; Akshay S Desai; Michael E Farkouh; Sheila M Hegde; Adrian F Hernandez; Allison McGeer; H Keipp Talbot; Inder Anand; Deepak L Bhatt; Christopher P Cannon; David DeMets; J Michael Gaziano; Shaun G Goodman; Kristin Nichol; Matthew C Tattersall; Jonathan L Temte; Janet Wittes; Clyde Yancy; Brian Claggett; Yi Chen; Lu Mao; Thomas C Havighurst; Lawton S Cooper; Scott D Solomon
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2021-01-05       Impact factor: 157.335

10.  Tafamidis Treatment for Patients with Transthyretin Amyloid Cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  Mathew S Maurer; Jeffrey H Schwartz; Balarama Gundapaneni; Perry M Elliott; Giampaolo Merlini; Marcia Waddington-Cruz; Arnt V Kristen; Martha Grogan; Ronald Witteles; Thibaud Damy; Brian M Drachman; Sanjiv J Shah; Mazen Hanna; Daniel P Judge; Alexandra I Barsdorf; Peter Huber; Terrell A Patterson; Steven Riley; Jennifer Schumacher; Michelle Stewart; Marla B Sultan; Claudio Rapezzi
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-08-27       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  1 in total

1.  On restricted mean time in favor of treatment.

Authors:  Lu Mao
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2021-09-25       Impact factor: 2.571

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.