Literature DB >> 35345957

On recurrent-event win ratio.

Lu Mao1, KyungMann Kim1, Yi Li1.   

Abstract

The win ratio approach proposed by Pocock et al. (2012) has become a popular tool for analyzing composite endpoints of death and non-fatal events like hospitalization. Its standard version, however, draws on the non-fatal event only through the first occurrence. For statistical efficiency and clinical interpretability, we construct and compare different win ratio variants that make fuller use of recurrent events. We pay special attention to a variant called last-event-assisted win ratio, which compares two patients on the cumulative frequency of the non-fatal event, with ties broken by the time of its latest episode. It is shown that last-event-assisted win ratio uses more data than the standard win ratio does but reduces to the latter when the non-fatal event occurs at most once. We further prove that last-event-assisted win ratio rejects the null hypothesis with large probability if the treatment stochastically delays all events. Simulations under realistic settings show that the last-event-assisted win ratio test consistently enjoys higher power than the standard win ratio and other competitors. Analysis of a real cardiovascular trial provides further evidence for the practical advantages of the last-event-assisted win ratio. Finally, we discuss future work to develop meaningful effect size estimands based on the extended rules of comparison. The R-code for the proposed methods is included in the package WR openly available on the Comprehensive R Archive Network.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cardiovascular trials; U-statistics; composite endpoints; prioritized outcomes; stochastic order; stratified analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35345957      PMCID: PMC9246892          DOI: 10.1177/09622802221084134

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res        ISSN: 0962-2802            Impact factor:   2.494


  31 in total

Review 1.  Exercise and heart failure: A statement from the American Heart Association Committee on exercise, rehabilitation, and prevention.

Authors:  Ileana L Piña; Carl S Apstein; Gary J Balady; Romualdo Belardinelli; Bernard R Chaitman; Brian D Duscha; Barbara J Fletcher; Jerome L Fleg; Jonathan N Myers; Martin J Sullivan
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2003-03-04       Impact factor: 29.690

2.  Semiparametric regression for the weighted composite endpoint of recurrent and terminal events.

Authors:  Lu Mao; D Y Lin
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 5.899

3.  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

4.  Graphing the Win Ratio and its components over time.

Authors:  Dianne M Finkelstein; David A Schoenfeld
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2018-09-11       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  An alternative approach to confidence interval estimation for the win ratio statistic.

Authors:  Xiaodong Luo; Hong Tian; Surya Mohanty; Wei Yann Tsai
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2014-08-25       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  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

7.  The win ratio approach to analyzing composite outcomes: An application to the EVOLVE trial.

Authors:  Safa Abdalla; Maria E Montez-Rath; Patrick S Parfrey; Glenn M Chertow
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2016-04-11       Impact factor: 2.226

8.  Adjusting win statistics for dependent censoring.

Authors:  Gaohong Dong; Bo Huang; Duolao Wang; Johan Verbeeck; Jiuzhou Wang; David C Hoaglin
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2020-11-28       Impact factor: 1.894

9.  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

10.  Comparison of Time-to-First Event and Recurrent-Event Methods in Randomized Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Brian Claggett; Stuart Pocock; L J Wei; Marc A Pfeffer; John J V McMurray; Scott D Solomon
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2018-08-07       Impact factor: 29.690

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.