Search

As a reaction to the pandemic of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), a multitude of clinical trials for the treatment of SARS‐CoV‐2 or the resulting corona disease 2019 (COVID‐19) are globally at various stages from planning to completion. Although some attempts were made to standardize study designs, this was hindered by the ferocity of the pandemic and the need to set up clinical trials quickly. We take the view that a successful treatment of COVID‐19 patients (i) increases the probability of a recovery or improvement within a certain time interval, say 28 days; (ii) aims to expedite favorable events within this time frame; and (iii) does not increase mortality over this time period. On this background, we discuss the choice of endpoint and its analysis. Furthermore, we consider consequences of this choice for other design aspects including sample size and power and provide some guidance on the application of adaptive designs in this particular context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The assessment of safety is an important aspect of the evaluation of new therapies in clinical trials, with analyses of adverse events being an essential part of this. Standard methods for the analysis of adverse events such as the incidence proportion, that is the number of patients with a specific adverse event out of all patients in the treatment groups, do not account for both varying follow‐up times and competing risks. Alternative approaches such as the Aalen–Johansen estimator of the cumulative incidence function have been suggested. Theoretical arguments and numerical evaluations support the application of these more advanced methodology, but as yet there is to our knowledge only insufficient empirical evidence whether these methods would lead to different conclusions in safety evaluations. The Survival analysis for AdVerse events with VarYing follow‐up times (SAVVY) project strives to close this gap in evidence by conducting a meta‐analytical study to assess the impact of the methodology on the conclusion of the safety assessment empirically. Here we present the rationale and statistical concept of the empirical study conducted as part of the SAVVY project. The statistical methods are presented in unified notation, and examples of their implementation in R and SAS are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A pregnancy may end up with (at least) three possible events: live birth, spontaneous abortion, or elective termination, yielding a competing risks issue when studying an association between a risk factor and a pregnancy outcome. Cumulative incidences (probabilities to end up with the different outcomes depending on gestational age) can be estimated via the Aalen–Johansen estimate. Another issue is that women are usually not entering such an observational study from the first day of pregnancy, resulting in delayed entries. As in traditional survival analysis, this can be solved by considering "at risk" at a given gestational age only for those women who entered the study before that age. However, the number of women at risk at an early gestational age might be extremely low, such that the estimates of cumulative incidence may increase exaggeratedly at that age because of a single event. One solution to reduce the problem has been recently proposed in the literature, which is to ignore simply those early events, creating a small mean bias but enhancing stability of estimates. In the present paper, we propose an alternative computationally simple approach to tackle this problem that consists to postpone to later gestational ages (rather than to ignore) those early events. The two approaches are compared with respect to bias, stability, and sensitivity on the smoothing parameter via simulations reproducing realistic pregnancy scenarios, and are illustrated with data from a study on the effects of statins on pregnancy outcomes. We also outline that all three approaches are asymptotically equivalent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: We consider modeling competing risks data in high dimensions using a penalized cause‐specific hazards (CSHs) approach. CSHs have conceptual advantages that are useful for analyzing molecular data. First, working on hazards level can further understanding of the underlying biological mechanisms that drive transition hazards. Second, CSH models can be used to extend the multistate framework for high‐dimensional data. The CSH approach is implemented by fitting separate proportional hazards models for each event type (iCS). In the high‐dimensional setting, this might seem too complex and possibly prone to overfitting. Therefore, we consider an extension, namely “linking” the separate models by choosing penalty tuning parameters that in combination yield best prediction of the incidence of the event of interest (penCR). We investigate whether this extension is useful with respect to prediction accuracy and variable selection. The two approaches are compared to the subdistribution hazards (SDH) model, which is an established method that naturally achieves “linking” by working on incidence level, but loses interpretability of the covariate effects. Our simulation studies indicate that in many aspects, iCS is competitive to penCR and the SDH approach. There are some instances that speak in favor of linking the CSH models, for example, in the presence of opposing effects on the CSHs. We conclude that penalized CSH models are a viable solution for competing risks models in high dimensions. Linking the CSHs can be useful in some particular cases; however, simple models using separately penalized CSH are often justified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Survival analysis has established itself as a major statistical technique in medical research. Applications in hospital epidemiology, however, are only beginning to emerge. One reason for this delay is that usually complete follow-up of patients in hospital is feasible. This overview discusses where survival techniques provide additional insight into hospital epidemiology, and where they are, in fact, needed even in the absence of right-censoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]