Search

Background: Non-proportional hazards are common with time-to-event data but the majority of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are designed and analysed using approaches which assume the treatment effect follows proportional hazards (PH). Recent advances in oncology treatments have identified two forms of non-PH of particular importance - a time lag until treatment becomes effective, and an early effect of treatment that ceases after a period of time. In sample size calculations for treatment effects on time-to-event outcomes where information is based on the number of events rather than the number of participants, there is crucial importance in correct specification of the baseline hazard rate amongst other considerations. Under PH, the shape of the baseline hazard has no effect on the resultant power and magnitude of treatment effects using standard analytical approaches. However, in a non-PH context the appropriateness of analytical approaches can depend on the shape of the underlying hazard.Methods: A simulation study was undertaken to assess the impact of clinically plausible non-constant baseline hazard rates on the power, magnitude and coverage of commonly utilized regression-based measures of treatment effect and tests of survival curve difference for these two forms of non-PH used in RCTs with time-to-event outcomes.Results: In the presence of even mild departures from PH, the power, average treatment effect size and coverage were adversely affected. Depending on the nature of the non-proportionality, non-constant event rates could further exacerbate or somewhat ameliorate the losses in power, treatment effect magnitude and coverage observed. No single summary measure of treatment effect was able to adequately describe the full extent of a potentially time-limited treatment benefit whilst maintaining power at nominal levels.Conclusions: Our results show the increased importance of considering plausible potentially non-constant event rates when non-proportionality of treatment effects could be anticipated. In planning clinical trials with the potential for non-PH, even modest departures from an assumed constant baseline hazard could appreciably impact the power to detect treatment effects depending on the nature of the non-PH. Comprehensive analysis plans may be required to accommodate the description of time-dependent treatment effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most clinical trials with time-to-event primary outcomes are designed assuming constant event rates and proportional hazards over time. Non-constant event rates and non-proportional hazards are seen increasingly frequently in trials. The objectives of this review were firstly to identify whether non-constant event rates and time-dependent treatment effects were allowed for in sample size calculations of trials, and secondly to assess the methods used for the analysis and reporting of time-to-event outcomes including how researchers accounted for non-proportional treatment effects.Methods: We reviewed all original reports published between January and June 2017 in four high impact medical journals for trials for which the primary outcome involved time-to-event analysis. We recorded the methods used to analyse and present the main outcomes of the trial and assessed the reporting of assumptions underlying these methods. The sample size calculation was reviewed to see if the effect of either non-constant hazard rates or anticipated non-proportionality of the treatment effect was allowed for during the trial design.Results: From 446 original reports we identified 66 trials with a time-to-event primary outcome encompassing trial start dates from July 1995 to November 2014. The majority of these trials (73%) had sample size calculations that used standard formulae with a minority of trials (11%) using simulation for anticipated changing event rates and/or non-proportional hazards. Well-established analytical methods, Kaplan-Meier curves (98%), the log rank test (88%) and the Cox proportional hazards model (97%), were used almost exclusively for the main outcome. Parametric regression models were considered in 11% of the reports. Of the trials reporting inference from the Cox model, only 11% reported any results of testing the assumption of proportional hazards.Conclusions: Our review confirmed that when designing trials with time-to-event primary outcomes, methodologies assuming constant event rates and proportional hazards were predominantly used despite potential efficiencies in sample size needed or power achieved using alternative methods. The Cox proportional hazards model was used almost exclusively to present inferential results, yet testing and reporting of the pivotal assumption underpinning this estimation method was lacking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]