Dataset Information

Are restricted mean survival time methods especially useful for noninferiority trials?

ABSTRACT:

Background

Restricted mean survival time methods compare the areas under the Kaplan-Meier curves up to a time τ for the control and experimental treatments. Extraordinary claims have been made about the benefits (in terms of dramatically smaller required sample sizes) when using restricted mean survival time methods as compared to proportional hazards methods for analyzing noninferiority trials, even when the true survival distributions satisfy proportional hazardss.

Methods

Through some limited simulations and asymptotic power calculations, the authors compare the operating characteristics of restricted mean survival time and proportional hazards methods for analyzing both noninferiority and superiority trials under proportional hazardss to understand what relative power benefits there are when using restricted mean survival time methods for noninferiority testing.

Results

In the setting of low-event rates, very large targeted noninferiority margins, and limited follow-up past τ, restricted mean survival time methods have more power than proportional hazards methods. For superiority testing, proportional hazards methods have more power. This is not a small-sample phenomenon but requires a low-event rate and a large noninferiority margin.

Conclusion

Although there are special settings where restricted mean survival time methods have a power advantage over proportional hazards methods for testing noninferiority, the larger issue in these settings is defining appropriate noninferiority margins. We find the restricted mean survival time methods lacking in these regards.

SUBMITTER: Freidlin B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8329935 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRestricted mean survival time is a measure of average survival time up to a specified time point. There has been an increased interest in using restricted mean survival time to compare treatment arms in randomized clinical trials because such comparisons do not rely on proportional hazards or other assumptions about the nature of the relationship between survival curves.MethodsThis article addresses the question of whether covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials that compare restricted mean survival times improves precision of the estimated treatment effect (difference in restricted mean survival times between treatment arms). Although precision generally increases in linear models when prognostic covariates are added, this is not necessarily the case in non-linear models. For example, in logistic and Cox regression, the standard error of the estimated treatment effect does not decrease when prognostic covariates are added, although the situation is complicated in those settings because the estimand changes as well. Because estimation of restricted mean survival time in the manner described in this article is also based on a model that is non-linear in the covariates, we investigate whether the comparison of restricted mean survival times with adjustment for covariates leads to a reduction in the standard error of the estimated treatment effect relative to the unadjusted estimator or whether covariate adjustment provides no improvement in precision. Chen and Tsiatis suggest that precision will increase if covariates are chosen judiciously. We present results of simulation studies that compare unadjusted versus adjusted comparisons of restricted mean survival time between treatment arms in randomized clinical trials.ResultsWe find that for comparison of restricted means in a randomized clinical trial, adjusting for covariates that are associated with survival increases precision and therefore statistical power, relative to the unadjusted estimator. Omitting important covariates results in less precision but estimates remain unbiased.ConclusionWhen comparing restricted means in a randomized clinical trial, adjusting for prognostic covariates can improve precision and increase power.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare restricted mean survival time- (RMST-) based methods with traditional survival methods when multiple covariates are of interest.Methods4405 osteosarcomas were captured from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program Database. RMST-based methods included group comparison using Kaplan-Meier (KM) method, pseudovalue (PV) regression, and inverse probability of censoring probability (IPCW) regressions with group-specific and individual weights. Log-rank test, Wilcoxon test, Cox regression, and its extension with time-dependent variables were selected as traditional methods. Proportional hazard (PH) assumption and homogeneity of censoring mechanism assumption were assessed. We estimated hazard ratio (HR) and difference in RMST and explored their relationships.ResultsWhen covariate violated PH assumption, time-varying HR was inconvenient to report as a single value but PH assumption-free RMST allowed to report a single value of difference in RMST. In univariable analyses, using the difference in RMST calculated by KM method as reference, PV regressions (slope = 1.02 and R 2 = 0.98) and IPCW regressions with group-specific weights (slope = 0.98 and R 2 = 0.99) gave more consistent estimation than IPCW with individual weights (slope = 0.31 and R 2 = 0.06), moreover, PV regressions presented more robust statistical power than IPCW regressions with group-specific weights. In multivariable analyses, IPCW regression with group-specific weights was limited when multiple covariates violated homogeneity of censoring mechanism assumption. For covariates met PH assumption, well-fitted logarithmic relationships between HR and difference in RMST estimated by PV regression were observed in both univariable and multivariable analyses (R 2 = 0.97 and R 2 = 0.94, respectively), which supported the robustness of PV regression and possible conversion between the two effect measures.ConclusionsDifference in RMST is more interpretable than time-varying HR. The performance supports KM method and PV regression to be the preferred ones in RMST-based methods. IPCW regression can be an alternative sensitivity analysis. We encourage adoption of both traditional methods and RMST-based methods to present effects of covariates comprehensively.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment effect is typically summarized in terms of relative risk reduction or number needed to treat ("conventional effect summary"). Restricted mean survival time (RMST) summarizes treatment effect in terms of a gain or loss in event-free days. Older adults' preference between the two effect summary measures has not been studied.MethodsWe conducted a mixed methods study using a quantitative survey and qualitative semi-structured interviews. For the survey, we enrolled 102 residents with hypertension at five senior housing facilities (mean age 81.3 years, 82 female, 95 white race). We randomly assigned respondents to either RMST-based (n = 49) or conventional decision aid (n = 53) about the benefits and harms of intensive versus standard blood pressure-lowering strategies and compared decision conflict scale (DCS) responses (range: 0 [no conflict] to 100 [maximum conflict]; <25 is associated with implementing decisions). We used a purposive sample of 23 survey respondents stratified by both their random assignment and DCS from the survey. Inductive qualitative thematic analysis explored complementary perspectives on preferred ways of summarizing treatment effects.ResultsThe mean (standard deviation) total DCS was 22.0 (14.3) for the conventional decision aid group and 16.7 (14.1) for the RMST-based decision aid group (p = 0.06), but the proportion of participants with a DCS <25 was higher in the RMST-based group (26 [49.1%] vs 34 [69.4%]; p = 0.04). Qualitative interviews suggested that, regardless of effect summary measure, older individuals' preference depended on their ability to clearly comprehend quantitative information, clarity of presentation in the visual aid, and inclusion of desired information.ConclusionsWhen choosing a blood pressure-lowering strategy, older adults' perceived uncertainty may be reduced with a time-based effect summary, although our study was underpowered to detect a statistically significant difference. Given highly variable individual preferences, it may be useful to present both conventional and RMST-based information in decision aids.