Planning and evaluating clinical trials with composite time-to-first-event endpoints in a competing risk framework

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 32, Issue 21, 2013, Pages 3595-3608

  Rauch, G ^a   Beyersmann, J ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Competing risks; Composite endpoints; Multiple testing; Sample size calculation; Time to event data

Indexed keywords

VORAPAXAR;

ARTICLE; ATHEROSCLEROSIS; CARDIOVASCULAR MORTALITY; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COMPETING RISK FRAMEWORK; COMPOSITE TIME TO FIRST EVENT ENDPOINT; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG EFFICACY; HEART INFARCTION; HEART MUSCLE REVASCULARIZATION; HUMAN; INTERVENTION STUDY; INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROCESS MODEL; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK REDUCTION; SAMPLE SIZE; STRATEGIC PLANNING; SURVIVAL PREDICTION; THROMBOSIS; THROMBOSIS PREVENTION;

COMPETING RISKS; COMPOSITE ENDPOINTS; MULTIPLE TESTING; SAMPLE SIZE CALCULATION; TIME-TO-EVENT DATA;

ANGIOTENSIN II TYPE 1 RECEPTOR BLOCKERS; ATHEROSCLEROSIS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; DIABETIC NEPHROPATHIES; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; LOSARTAN; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; THROMBIN;

EID: 84883133298     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.5798     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Mathoulin-Pelissier S, Gourgou-Bourgade S, Bonnetain F, Kramar A. Survival end point reporting in randomized cancer clinical trials: a review of major journals. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2008; 26:3721-3726.
2. Lim E, Brown A, Helmy A, Mussa S, Altman DG. Composite outcomes in cardiovascular research: a survey of randomized trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 2008; 149:612-617.
3. Ferreira-Gonzàles I, Permanyer-Miralda G, Domingo-Salvany A, Busse JW, Heels-Ansdell D, Montori VM, Akl EA, Bryant DM, Alonso-Coello P, Alonso J, Worster A, Upadhye S, Jaeschke R, Schünemann HJ, Pacheco-Huergo V, Wu P, Mills EJ, Guyatt GH. Problems with the use of composite end points in cardiovascular trials: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal 2007; 334:786-793.
4. Kleist P. Composite endpoints for clinical trials: current perspectives. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Medicine 2007; 21:187-198.
5. Lubsen J, Kirwan BA. Combined endpoints: can we use them? Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21:2959-7290.
6. Wittkop L, Smith C, Fox Z, Sabin C, Richert L, Aboulke JP, Phillips A, Chêne G, Babiker A, Thiébaut R. Methodological issues in the use of composite endpoints in clinical trials: example from the HIV field. Clinical Trials 2010; 7:19-35.
7. ICH guideline, Statistical principles for clinical trials (E9), 1999. http://www.emea.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002928.pdf (accessed 25.03.2013).
8. Bethel MA, Holman R, Haffner SM, Califf RM, Huntsman-Labed A, Hua TA, Murray J. Determining the most appropriate components for a composite clinical trial outcome. American Heart Journal 2008; 156:633-640.
9. Freemantle N, Calvert M, Wood J, Eastaugh J, Griffin C. Composite outcomes in randomized trials-greater precision but with greater uncertainty? Journal of the American Medical Association 2003; 289:2554-2559.
10. Freemantle N, Calvert M. Composite and surrogate outcomes in randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal 2007; 334:756-757.
11. Chi GYH. Some issues with composite endpoints in clinical trials. Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology 2005; 19:609-619.
12. CPMP Guideline. Points to consider on multiplicity issues in clinical trials, 2002. http://www.emea.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003640.pdf (accessed 25.03.2013).
13. Allignol A, Schumacher M, Wanner C, Drechsler C, Beyersmann J. Understanding competing risks: a simulation point of view. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2011; 11(86):1-15.
14. Putter H, Fiocco M, Geskus R. Tutorial in biostatistics: competing risks and multi-state models. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26:2277-2432.
15. Gómez G, Lagakos SW. Statistical considerations when using a composite endpoint for comparing treatment groups. Statistics in Medicine 2013; 32:715-738.
16. Schoenfeld DA. Sample-size formula for the proportional-hazards regression model. Biometrics 1983; 39:499-503.
17. Barthel FMS, Babiker A, Royston P, Parmar MKB. Evaluation of sample size and power for multi-arm survival trials allowing for non-uniform accrual, non-proportional hazards, loss to follow-up and cross-over. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25:2521-2542.
18. Andersen P, Borgan Ø, Gill R, Keiding N. Statistical Models Based on Counting Processes. Springer: New York, 1993.
19. Kim H. Cumulative incidence in competing risks data and competing risks regression analysis. Clinical Cancer Research 2007; 13:559-565.
20. Latouche A, Porcher R. Sample size calculations in the presence of competing risks. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26:5370-5380.
21. Tai B, Grundy R, Machin D. On the importance of accounting for competing risks in pediatric brain cancer: II. Regression modeling and sample size. International Journal of Radiation, Oncology, Biology, Physics 2010; 79:1139-1146.
22. Schulgen G, Olschewski M, Krane V, Wanner C, Ruf G, Schumacher M. Sample sizes for clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints and competing risks. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2005; 26:386-396.
23. Maki E. Power and sample size considerations in clinical trials with competing risk endpoints. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2006; 5:159-171.
24. Fine J, Gray R. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1999; 94:496-509.
25. Koller M, Stijnen T, Steyerberg E, Lubsen J. Meta-analyses of chronic disease trials with competing causes of death may yield biased odds ratios. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008; 61:365-372.
26. Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 1979; 6:65-70.
27. Westfall PH, Krishen A. Optimally weighted, fixed sequence, and gatekeeping multiple testing procedures. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 2001; 99:25-40.
28. Bauer P, Röhmel J, Maurer W, Hothorn L. Testing strategies in multi-dose experiments including active control. Statistics in Medicine 1998; 17:2133-2146.
29. Dmitrienko A, Offen WW, Westfall PH. Gatekeeping strategies for clinical trials that do not require all primary effects to be significant. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22:2387-2400.
30. Chen X, Luo X, Caprizzi T. The application of enhanced gatekeeping strategies. Statistics in Medicine 2005; 24:1385-1397.
31. Wiens BL. A fixed sequence Bonferroni procedure for testing multiple endpoints. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2003; 2:211-215.
32. Wiens BL, Dmitrienko A. The fallback procedure for evaluating a single family of hypotheses. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 2005; 15:929-942.
33. Bretz F, Maurer W, Brannath W, Posch M. A graphical approach to sequentially rejective multiple test procedures. Statistics in Medicine 2009; 28:586-604.
34. Huque F, Alosh M, Bhore R. Addressing multiplicity issues of a composite endpoint and its components in clinical trials. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 2011; 21:610-634.
35. The DREAM Trial Investigators. Effect of rosiglitazone on the frequency of diabetes in patients with impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006; 368:1096-1105.
36. Beyersmann J, Allignol A, Schuhmacher M. Competing Risks and Multistate Models with R. Springer: New York, 2012.
37. Wu L, Cook RJ. Misspecification of Cox regression models with composite endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 2012; 31:3545-3562.
38. D'Agostino RB Sr., Massaro JM, Sullivan LM. Non-inferiority trials: design concept and issues-the encounters of academic consultants in statistics. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25:1097-1099.
39. Chow S, Shao J, Wang H. Sample Size Calculations in Clinical Research. Chapman & Hall: Boca Raton, 2008.
40. Jung S, Kang S, McCall L, Blumenstein B. Sample size computation for two-sample noninferiority logrank test. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 2005; 15:969-979.
41. Follmann DA. Regression analysis based on pairwise ordering of patients' clinical histories. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21:3353-3367.
42. Kulathinal S, Gasbarra D. Testing equality of cause-specific hazard rates corresponding to m competing risks among k groups. Lifetime Data Analysis 2002; 8:147-161.
43. Kay R, Schumacher M. Unbiased assessment of treatment effects on disease recurrence and survival in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 1983; 2:41-58.
44. Bender R, Augustin T, Blettner M. Generating survival times to simulate Cox proportional hazards models. Statistics in Medicine 2005; 24:1713-1723.
45. Beyersmann J, Latouche A, Buchholz A, Schumacher M. Simulating competing risks data in survival analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2009; 28:956-971.
46. Brenner MB, the RENAAL Study Investigators. Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. New England Journal of Medicine 2001; 345:861-869.
47. Wellek S. Testing Statistical Hypotheses of Equivalence and Non-inferiority, 2nded. Chapman & Hall: Boca Raton, 2010.
48. Morrow DA, Braunwald E, Bonaca MP, Ameriso SF, Dalby AJ, Fish MP, Fox KA, Lipka LJ, Liu X, Nicolau JC, Ophuis AJ, Paolasso E, Scirica BM, Spinar J, Theroux P, Wiviott SD, Strony J, Murphy SA. Vorapaxar in the secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events. New England Journal of Medicine 2012; 366:1404-1413.
49. Morrow DA, the TRA 2°P-TIMI 50 Investigators.Evaluation of a novel antiplatelet agent for secondary prevention in patients with a history of atherosclerotic disease: design and rationale for the Thrombin-Receptor Antagonist in Secondary Prevention of Atherothrombotic Ischemic Events (TRA2P)-TIMI 50 trial. American Heart Journal 2009; 158(3):335-341.
50. Freitag G, Lange S, Munk A. Non-parametric assessment of non-inferiority with censored data. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25:1201-1217.