Competing time-to-event endpoints in cardiology trials: A simulation study to illustrate the importance of an adequate statistical analysis

European Journal of Preventive Cardiology

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 74-80

  Rauch, Geraldine ^a   Kieser, Meinhard ^a   Ulrich, Sandra ^b   Doherty, Patrick ^c   Rauch, Bernhard ^d   Schneider, Steffen ^e   Riemer, Thomas ^e   Senges, Jochen ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN   (Germany)

^c YORK ST JOHN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d Heart Center Ludwigshafen   (Germany)

^e Institut fuer Herzinfarktforschung   (Germany)

Author keywords

Clinical trials methodology; competing risks; composite endpoint; simulation; statistical methods; survival analysis; time to event outcomes

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CARDIOLOGY; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); CONTROLLED STUDY; EFFECT SIZE; HAZARD RATIO; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN; KAPLAN MEIER METHOD; LOG RANK TEST; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SAMPLE SIZE; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

CLINICAL TRIALS METHODOLOGY; COMPETING RISKS; COMPOSITE ENDPOINT; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL METHODS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TIME-TO-EVENT OUTCOMES;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CARDIOLOGY; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84890505058     PISSN: 20474873     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/2047487312460518     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Kip KE, Hollabaugh K, Marroquin OC, et al. The problem with composite end points in cardiovascular studies: The story of major adverse cardiac events and percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 ; 51: 701-707
2. Czernichow S, Kengne AP, Huxley RR, et al. Comparison of waist-to-hip ratio and other obesity indices as predictors of cardiovascular disease risk in people with type-2 diabetes: A prospective cohort study from ADVANCE. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2011 ; 18: 312-319
3. Putter H, Fiocco M, Geskus R. Tutorial in biostatistics: Competing risks and multi-state models. Stat Med. 2007 ; 26: 2277-2432
4. Chan PS. Keeping apples and oranges separate: Reassessing clinical trials that use composite end points as their primary outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 ; 48: 850-850
5. Støvring H, Harmsen CG, Wisløff T, et al. A competing risk approach for the European Heart SCORE model based on cause-specific and all-cause mortality. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2012 ;:
6. Rao SR, Schoenfeld DA. Survival methods. Circulation. 2007 ; 115: 109-113
7. Koller MT, Raatz H, Steyerberg EW, et al. Competing risks and the clinical community: Irrelevance or ignorance?. Stat Med. 2011 ; 31 (11-12). 1089-1097
8. Beyersmann J, Schumacher M, Allignol A Competing risks and the multistate models with R. Gentleman R Hornik K Parmigiani G, ed. New York: Springer ; 2012: 41-54.
9. Lunn M, McNeil D. Applying Cox regression to competing risks. Biometrics. 1995 ; 51: 524-532
10. Gaynor JJ, Feuer EJ, Tan CC, et al. On the use of cause-specific failure and conditional failure probabilities: Examples from clinical oncology data. J Am Stat Assoc. 1993 ; 88: 400-409
11. Gooley TA, Leisenring W, Crowley J, et al. Estimation of failure probabilities in the presence of competing risks: New representation of old estimators. Stat Med. 1999 ; 18: 695-706
12. Pintilie M Competing risks - A practical perspective. Barnett V, ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons ; 2006: 55-63.
13. Gray RJ. A class of k-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat. 1988 ; 16: 1141-1154
14. Pepe MS, Mori M. Inference for events with dependent risks in multiple endpoint studies. J Am Stat Assoc. 1991 ; 86: 770-778
15. Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazard model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999 ; 94: 496-509
16. Dignam JJ, Zhang Q, Kocherginsky MN. The use and interpretation of competing risks regression models. Clin Cancer Res. 2012 ; 18: 2301-2308
17. Kay R, Schumacher M. Unbiased assessment of treatment effects on disease recurrence and survival in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1983 ; 2: 4-58
18. Allignoll A, Schumacher M, Wanner C, et al. Understanding competing risks: A simulation point of view. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 ; 11: 86-86
19. ICH E9 Guideline. Statistical principles for clinical trials, http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ich/036396en.pdf. (1999, accessed 26 April 2012).
20. Chi GYH. Some issues with composite endpoints in clinical trials. Fund Clin Pharmacol. 2005 ; 19: 609-619
21. CPMP Guideline. Points to consider on multiplicity issues in clinical trials, http://www.tga.gov.au/pdf/euguide/ewp090899en.pdf. (2002, accessed 26 April 2012).
22. Rauch B, Schiele R, Schneider S, et al. OMEGA, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to test the effect of highly purified omega-3 fatty acids on top of modern guideline-adjusted therapy after myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2010 ; 122: 2152-2159