Dataset Information

Sizing clinical trials when comparing bivariate time-to-event outcomes.

ABSTRACT: Clinical trials with multiple primary time-to-event outcomes are common. Use of multiple endpoints creates challenges in the evaluation of power and the calculation of sample size during trial design particularly for time-to-event outcomes. We present methods for calculating the power and sample size for randomized superiority clinical trials with two correlated time-to-event outcomes. We do this for independent and dependent censoring for three censoring scenarios: (i) the two events are non-fatal; (ii) one event is fatal (semi-competing risk); and (iii) both are fatal (competing risk). We derive the bivariate log-rank test in all three censoring scenarios and investigate the behavior of power and the required sample sizes. Separate evaluations are conducted for two inferential goals, evaluation of whether the test intervention is superior to the control on: (1) all of the endpoints (multiple co-primary) or (2) at least one endpoint (multiple primary). Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

SUBMITTER: Sugimoto T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5533151 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sizing clinical trials when comparing bivariate time-to-event outcomes.

Sugimoto Tomoyuki T Hamasaki Toshimitsu T Evans Scott R SR Sozu Takashi T

Statistics in medicine 20170124 9

Clinical trials with multiple primary time-to-event outcomes are common. Use of multiple endpoints creates challenges in the evaluation of power and the calculation of sample size during trial design particularly for time-to-event outcomes. We present methods for calculating the power and sample size for randomized superiority clinical trials with two correlated time-to-event outcomes. We do this for independent and dependent censoring for three censoring scenarios: (i) the two events are non-fa ...[more]

PMID: 28120524

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn recent years there is increasing interest in modeling the effect of early longitudinal biomarker data on future time-to-event or other outcomes. Sometimes investigators are also interested in knowing whether the variability of biomarkers is independently predictive of clinical outcomes. This question in most applications is addressed via a two-stage approach where summary statistics such as variance are calculated in the first stage and then used in models as covariates to predict clinical outcome in the second stage. The objective of this study is to compare the relative performance of various methods in estimating the effect of biomarker variability.MethodsA joint model and 4 different two-stage approaches (naïve, landmark analysis, time-dependent Cox model, and regression calibration) were illustrated using data from a large multi-center randomized phase III trial, the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS), regarding the association between the variability of intraocular pressure (IOP) and the development of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). The model performance was also evaluated in terms of bias using simulated data from the joint model of longitudinal IOP and time to POAG. The parameters for simulation were chosen after OHTS data, and the association between longitudinal and survival data was introduced via underlying, unobserved, and error-free parameters including subject-specific variance.ResultsIn the OHTS data, joint modeling and two-stage methods reached consistent conclusion that IOP variability showed no significant association with the risk of POAG. In the simulated data with no association between IOP variability and time-to-POAG, all the two-stage methods (except the naïve approach) provided a reliable estimation. When a moderate effect of IOP variability on POAG was imposed, all the two-stage methods underestimated the true association as compared with the joint modeling while the model-based two-stage method (regression calibration) resulted in the least bias.ConclusionRegression calibration and joint modelling are the preferred methods in assessing the effect of biomarker variability. Two-stage methods with sample-based measures should be used with caution unless there exists a relatively long series of longitudinal measurements and/or strong effect size (NCT00000125).

Project description:BackgroundRandomized Controlled Trials almost invariably utilize the hazard ratio calculated with a Cox proportional hazard model as a treatment efficacy measure. Despite the widespread adoption of HRs, these provide a limited understanding of the treatment effect and may even provide a biased estimate when the assumption of proportional hazards in the Cox model is not verified by the trial data. Additional treatment effect measures on the survival probability or the time scale may be used to supplement HRs but a framework for the simultaneous generation of these measures is lacking.MethodsBy splitting follow-up time at the nodes of a Gauss Lobatto numerical quadrature rule, techniques for Poisson Generalized Additive Models (PGAM) can be adopted for flexible hazard modeling. Straightforward simulation post-estimation transforms PGAM estimates for the log hazard into estimates of the survival function. These in turn were used to calculate relative and absolute risks or even differences in restricted mean survival time between treatment arms. We illustrate our approach with extensive simulations and in two trials: IPASS (in which the proportionality of hazards was violated) and HEMO a long duration study conducted under evolving standards of care on a heterogeneous patient population.FindingsPGAM can generate estimates of the survival function and the hazard ratio that are essentially identical to those obtained by Kaplan Meier curve analysis and the Cox model. PGAMs can simultaneously provide multiple measures of treatment efficacy after a single data pass. Furthermore, supported unadjusted (overall treatment effect) but also subgroup and adjusted analyses, while incorporating multiple time scales and accounting for non-proportional hazards in survival data.ConclusionsBy augmenting the HR conventionally reported, PGAMs have the potential to support the inferential goals of multiple stakeholders involved in the evaluation and appraisal of clinical trial results under proportional and non-proportional hazards.

Dataset Information

Sizing clinical trials when comparing bivariate time-to-event outcomes.

Publications

Sizing clinical trials when comparing bivariate time-to-event outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets