Win ratio approach for analyzing composite time-to-event endpoint with opposite treatment effects in its components
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd..
There is an increasing interest in the use of win ratio with composite time-to-event due to its flexibility in combining component endpoints. Exploring this flexibility further, one interesting question is in assessing the impact when there is a difference in treatment effect in the component endpoints. For example, the active treatment may prolong the time to occurrence of the negative event such as death or ventilation; meanwhile, the treatment effect may also shorten the time to achieving positive events, such as recovery or improvement. Notably, this portrays a situation where the treatment effect on time to recovery is in a different direction of benefit compared to the time to ventilation or death. Under such circumstances, if a single endpoint is used, the benefit gained for other individual outcomes is not counted and is diminished. As consequence, the study may need a larger sample size to detect a significant effect of treatment. Such a scenario can be handled by win ratio in a novel way by ranking component events, which is different from the usual composite endpoint approach such as time-to-first event. To evaluate how the different directions of treatment effect on component endpoints will impact the win ratio analysis, we use a Clayton copula-based bivariate survival simulation to investigate the correlation of component time-to-event. Through simulation, we found that compared to the marginal model using single endpoints, the win ratio analysis on composite endpoint performs better, especially when the correlation between two events is weak. Then, we applied the methodology to an infectious disease progression simulated study motivated by COVID-19. The application demonstrates that the win ratio approach offers advantages in empirical power compared to the traditional Cox proportional hazard approach when there is a difference in treatment effect in the marginal events.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2022 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2022 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:21 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Pharmaceutical statistics - 21(2022), 6 vom: 14. Nov., Seite 1342-1356 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Liao, Ran [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Composite endpoint |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 16.11.2022 Date Revised 30.11.2022 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1002/pst.2248 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM34286999X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM34286999X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231226015116.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1002/pst.2248 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1142.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM34286999X | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)35766113 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Liao, Ran |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Win ratio approach for analyzing composite time-to-event endpoint with opposite treatment effects in its components |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2022 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 16.11.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 30.11.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. | ||
| 520 | |a There is an increasing interest in the use of win ratio with composite time-to-event due to its flexibility in combining component endpoints. Exploring this flexibility further, one interesting question is in assessing the impact when there is a difference in treatment effect in the component endpoints. For example, the active treatment may prolong the time to occurrence of the negative event such as death or ventilation; meanwhile, the treatment effect may also shorten the time to achieving positive events, such as recovery or improvement. Notably, this portrays a situation where the treatment effect on time to recovery is in a different direction of benefit compared to the time to ventilation or death. Under such circumstances, if a single endpoint is used, the benefit gained for other individual outcomes is not counted and is diminished. As consequence, the study may need a larger sample size to detect a significant effect of treatment. Such a scenario can be handled by win ratio in a novel way by ranking component events, which is different from the usual composite endpoint approach such as time-to-first event. To evaluate how the different directions of treatment effect on component endpoints will impact the win ratio analysis, we use a Clayton copula-based bivariate survival simulation to investigate the correlation of component time-to-event. Through simulation, we found that compared to the marginal model using single endpoints, the win ratio analysis on composite endpoint performs better, especially when the correlation between two events is weak. Then, we applied the methodology to an infectious disease progression simulated study motivated by COVID-19. The application demonstrates that the win ratio approach offers advantages in empirical power compared to the traditional Cox proportional hazard approach when there is a difference in treatment effect in the marginal events | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a composite endpoint | |
| 650 | 4 | |a copula | |
| 650 | 4 | |a non-parametric statistics | |
| 650 | 4 | |a win ratio | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Chakladar, Sujatro |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gamalo, Margaret |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Pharmaceutical statistics |d 2006 |g 21(2022), 6 vom: 14. Nov., Seite 1342-1356 |w (DE-627)NLM166361305 |x 1539-1612 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:21 |g year:2022 |g number:6 |g day:14 |g month:11 |g pages:1342-1356 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pst.2248 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 21 |j 2022 |e 6 |b 14 |c 11 |h 1342-1356 | ||