Opportunities and challenges of combined effect measures based on prioritized outcomes

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 33, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 1104-1120

  Rauch, Geraldine ^a   Jahn Eimermacher, Antje ^b   Brannath, Werner ^c   Kieser, Meinhard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^b JOHANNES GUTENBERG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Composite endpoints; Multiple testing; Prioritized outcomes; Time to event data; Weighting procedure

Indexed keywords

ROSIGLITAZONE;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL STUDY; DEATH; HAZARD RATIO; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OUTCOME VARIABLE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

COMPOSITE ENDPOINTS; MULTIPLE TESTING; PRIORITIZED OUTCOMES; TIME-TO-EVENT DATA; WEIGHTING PROCEDURE;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84896708631     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.6010     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. 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.
2. Freemantle N, Calvert M. Composite and surrogate outcomes in randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal 2007; 334:756-757.
3. Chi GYH. Some issues with composite endpoints in clinical trials. Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology 2005; 19:609-619.
4. Buyse M. Generalized pairwise comparisons of prioritized outcomes in the two-sample problem. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29:3245-57.
5. Pocock SJ, Ariti CA, Collier TJ, Wang D. The win ratio: a new approach to the analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials based on clinical priorities. European Heart Journal 2012; 33:176-82.
6. Moser BK, McCann MH. Reformulating the hazard ratio to enhance communication with clinical investigators. Clinical Trails 2008; 5:248-252.
7. Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazard model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1999; 94:496-509.
8. Beyersmann J, Allignol A, Schuhmacher M. Competing Risks and Multistate Models with R. Springer: New York, 2012.
9. Rauch G, Beyersmann J. Planning and evaluating clinical trials with composite time-to-first-event endpoints in a competing risk framework. Statistics in Medicine 2013. DOI: 10.1002/sim.5798. Epub ahead of print.
10. 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; 368:1096-105.
11. Rauch G, Kieser M, Ulrich S, Doherty P, Rauch B, Schneider S, Riemer T, Senges J. 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 2012, DOI: 10.1177/2047487312460518. Epub ahead of print.
12. Hallstrom AP, Litwin PE, Weaver WD. A method of assigning scores to the components of a composite outcome: an example from the MITI trial. Controlled Clinical Trials 1992; 13:148-155.
13. Tarone RE, Ware J. On distribution-free tests for equality of survival distributions. Biometrika 1977; 64:156-160.
14. Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 1979; 6:65-70.
15. Westfall PH, Krishen A. Optimally weighted, fixed sequence, and gatekeeping multiple testing procedures. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 2001; 99:25-40.
16. Bauer P, Röhmel J, Maurer W, Hothorn L. Testing strategies in multi-dose experiments including active control. Statistics in Medicine 1998; 17:2133-2146.
17. 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.
18. Chen X, Luo X, Caprizzi T. The application of enhanced gatekeeping strategies. Statistics in Medicine 2005; 24:1385-1397.
19. Wiens BL. A fixed sequence Bonferroni procedure for testing multiple endpoints. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2003; 2:211-215.
20. Wiens BL, Dmitrienko A. The fallback procedure for evaluating a single family of hypotheses. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 2005; 15:929-942.
21. Bretz F, Maurer W, Brannath W, Posch M. A graphical approach to sequentially rejective multiple test procedures. Statistics in Medicine 2009; 28:586-604.
22. Bretz F, Posch M, Glimm E, Klingmueller F, Maurer W, Rohmeyer K. Graphical approaches for multiple comparison procedures using weighted Bonferroni, Simes, or parametric tests. Biometrical Journal 2011; 53:1-20.
23. 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.
24. Dmitrienko A, Tamhane AC, Wang X, Chen X. Stepwise gatekeeping procedures in clinical trial applications. Biometrical Journal 2006; 48:984-991.
25. Dmitrienko A, Tamhane AC, Wiens BL. General multistage gatekeeping procedures. Biometrical Journal 2008; 50:667-677.
26. Kay R, Schumacher M. Unbiased assessment of treatment effects on disease recurrence and survival in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 1983; 2:41-58.