Weighted analysis of composite endpoints with simultaneous inference for flexible weight constraints

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 442-454

  Duc, Anh Nguyen ^a   Wolbers, Marcel ^a,b  

^a OXFORD UNIVERSITY CLINICAL RESEARCH UNIT   (Viet Nam)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

chi bar square distribution; composite endpoint; conic constraints; multiplicity adjustment; simultaneous confidence intervals; weighted analyses

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROBABILITY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SAMPLE SIZE; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT FAILURE; TYPHOID FEVER; WEIGHTED ANALYSIS; BIOASSAY; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; HUMAN; PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; TIME FACTOR; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT;

ANTI-BACTERIAL AGENTS; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; STATISTICS AS TOPIC; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT FAILURE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TYPHOID FEVER;

EID: 85000910713     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.7147     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. 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.
2. Freemantle N, Calvert M. Weighing the pros and cons for composite outcomes in clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2007; 60: 658–659.
3. Cordoba G, Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Bae H, Gøtzsche PC. Definition, reporting, and interpretation of composite outcomes in clinical trials: systematic review. British Medical Journal 2010; 341: c3920.
4. Sankoh AJ, Li H, D'Agostino RB. Use of composite endpoints in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 2014; 33: 4709–4714.
5. Ferreira-González I, Permanyer-Miralda G, Busse JW, Bryant DM, Montori VM, Alonso-Coello P, Walter SD, Guyatt GH. Methodologic discussions for using and interpreting composite endpoints are limited, but still identify major concerns. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2007; 60: 651–657; discussion 658–662.
6. Hong KS, Ali LK, Selco SL, Fonarow GC, Saver JL. Weighting components of composite end points in clinical trials: an approach using disability-adjusted life-years. Stroke 2011; 42: 1722–1729.
7. Sampson UK, Metcalfe C, Pfeffer MA, Solomon SD, Zou KH. Composite outcomes: weighting component events according to severity assisted interpretation but reduced statistical power. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2010; 63: 1156–1158.
8. Mascha EJ, Sessler DI. Statistical grand rounds: design and analysis of studies with binary- event composite endpoints: guidelines for anesthesia research. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2011; 112: 1461–1471.
9. Bakal Ja, Westerhout CM, Armstrong PW. Impact of weighted composite compared to traditional composite endpoints for the design of randomized controlled trials. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2015; 24(6): 980–988.
10. Armstrong PW, Westerhout CM, Van de Werf F, Califf RM, Welsh RC, Wilcox RG, Bakal Ja. Refining clinical trial composite outcomes: an application to the Assessment of the Safety and Efficacy of a New Thrombolytic-3 (ASSENT-3) trial. American Heart Journal 2011; 161: 848–54.
11. Tong BC, Huber JC, Ascheim DD, Puskas JD, Ferguson BT, Blackstone EH, Smith PK. Weighting composite endpoints in clinical trials: essential evidence for the heart team. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2012; 94: 1908–1913.
12. Pepe MS, Fleming TR. Weighted Kaplan–Meier statistics: a class of distance tests for censored survival data. Biometrics 1989; 45: 497–507.
13. Pepe MS. Inference for events with dependent risks in multiple endpoint studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1991; 86: 770–778.
14. Luo X, Turnbull BW. Comparing two treatments with multiple competing risks endpoints. Statistica Sinica 1999; 9: 985–997.
15. Royston P, Parmar M. Restricted mean survival time: an alternative to the hazard ratio for the design and analysis of randomized trials with a time-to-event outcome. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2013; 13: 1–15.
16. Buyse M. Generalized pairwise comparisons of prioritized outcomes in the two-sample problem. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29: 3245–3257.
17. 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: 176–182.
18. Rauch G, Jahn-Eimermacher A, Brannath W, Kieser M. Opportunities and challenges of combined effect measures based on prioritized outcomes. Statistics in Medicine 2014; 33: 1104–1120.
19. Datta S, Satten GA. Validity of the Aalen–Johansen estimators of stage occupation probabilities and nelsonaalen estimators of integrated transition hazards for non-Markov models. Statistics and Probability Letters 2001; 55: 403–411.
20. Allignol A, Schumacher M, Beyersmann J. Empirical transition matrix of multi-state models: the etm Package. Journal of Statistical Software 2011; 38: 1–15.
21. Davison A, Hinkley D. Bootstrap Methods and their Application. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
22. Shapiro A. Scheffe's method for constructing simultaneous confidence intervals subject to cone constraints. Statistics & Probability Letters 2003; 64: 403–406.
23. Scheffé H. A method for judging all contrasts in the analysis of variance. Biometrika 1953; 40: 87–104.
24. Kudo A. A multivariate analogue of the one-sided test. Biometrika 1963; 50: 403–418.
25. Shapiro A. Towards a unified theory of inequality constrained testing in multivariate analysis. International Statistical Review 1988; 56: 49–62.
26. Qu L. varComp: variance component models, 2013. R package version 0.1-317, Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=varComp [accessed on 10 September 2016].
27. Pandit A, Arjyal A, Day JN, Paudyal B, Dangol S, Zimmerman MD, Yadav B, Stepniewska K, Campbell JI, Dolecek C, Farrar JJ, Basnyat B. An open randomized comparison of gatifloxacin versus cefixime for the treatment of uncomplicated enteric fever. PloS One 2007; 2: e542.
28. Huque MF, 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.
29. Dmitrienko A, D'Agostino RS. Traditional multiplicity adjustment methods in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 2013; 32: 5172–5218.
30. DasGupta A, Cai TT, Brown LD. Interval estimation for a binomial proportion. Statistical Science 2001; 16: 101–133.
31. Wolbers M, Koller MT, Witteman JC, Steyerberg EW. Prognostic models with competing risks: methods and application to coronary risk prediction. Epidemiology 2009; 20: 555–561.
32. Andersen PK, Geskus RB, de Witte T, Putter H. Competing risks in epidemiology: possibilities and pitfalls. International Journal of Epidemiology 2012; 41: 861–870.