Search

ObjectivesTo examine reactions to the proposed improvements to standard Kaplan-Meier plots, the standard way to present time-to-event data, and to understand which (if any) facilitated better depiction of (1) the state of patients over time, and (2) uncertainty over time in the estimates of survival.DesignA survey of stakeholders' opinions on the proposals.SettingA web-based survey, open to international participation, for those with an interest in visualisation of time-to-event data.Participants1174 people participated in the survey over a 6-week period. Participation was global (although primarily Europe and North America) and represented a wide range of researchers (primarily statisticians and clinicians).Main outcome measuresTwo outcome measures were of principal importance: (1) participants' opinions of each proposal compared with a 'standard' Kaplan-Meier plot; and (2) participants' overall ranking of the proposals (including the standard).ResultsMost proposals were more popular than the standard Kaplan-Meier plot. The most popular proposals in the two categories, respectively, were an extended table beneath the plot depicting the numbers at risk, censored and having experienced an event at periodic timepoints, and CIs around each Kaplan-Meier curve.ConclusionsThis study produced a high response number, reflecting the importance of graphics for time-to-event data. Those producing and publishing Kaplan-Meier plots-both authors and journals-should, as a starting point, consider using the combination of the two favoured proposals.

Accurate frequentist performance of a method is desirable in confirmatory clinical trials, but is not sufficient on its own to justify the use of a missing data method. Reference‐based conditional mean imputation, with variance estimation justified solely by its frequentist performance, has the surprising and undesirable property that the estimated variance becomes smaller the greater the number of missing observations; as explained under jump‐to‐reference it effectively forces the true treatment effect to be exactly zero for patients with missing data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The population-level summary measure is a key component of the estimand for clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes. This is particularly the case for non-inferiority trials, because different summary measures imply different null hypotheses. Most trials are designed using the hazard ratio as summary measure, but recent studies suggested that the difference in restricted mean survival time might be more powerful, at least in certain situations. In a recent letter, we conjectured that differences between summary measures can be explained using the concept of the non-inferiority frontier and that for a fair simulation comparison of summary measures, the same analysis methods, making the same assumptions, should be used to estimate different summary measures. The aim of this article is to make such a comparison between three commonly used summary measures: hazard ratio, difference in restricted mean survival time and difference in survival at a fixed time point. In addition, we aim to investigate the impact of using an analysis method that assumes proportional hazards on the operating characteristics of a trial designed with any of the three summary measures. Methods: We conduct a simulation study in the proportional hazards setting. We estimate difference in restricted mean survival time and difference in survival non-parametrically, without assuming proportional hazards. We also estimate all three measures parametrically, using flexible survival regression, under the proportional hazards assumption. Results: Comparing the hazard ratio assuming proportional hazards with the other summary measures not assuming proportional hazards, relative performance varies substantially depending on the specific scenario. Fixing the summary measure, assuming proportional hazards always leads to substantial power gains compared to using non-parametric methods. Fixing the modelling approach to flexible parametric regression assuming proportional hazards, difference in restricted mean survival time is most often the most powerful summary measure among those considered. Conclusion: When the hazards are likely to be approximately proportional, reflecting this in the analysis can lead to large gains in power for difference in restricted mean survival time and difference in survival. The choice of summary measure for a non-inferiority trial with time-to-event outcomes should be made on clinical grounds; when any of the three summary measures discussed here is equally justifiable, difference in restricted mean survival time is most often associated with the most powerful test, on the condition that it is estimated under proportional hazards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Missing data due to loss to follow-up or intercurrent events are unintended, but unfortunately inevitable in clinical trials. Since the true values of missing data are never known, it is necessary to assess the impact of untestable and unavoidable assumptions about any unobserved data in sensitivity analysis. This tutorial provides an overview of controlled multiple imputation (MI) techniques and a practical guide to their use for sensitivity analysis of trials with missing continuous outcome data. These include δ- and reference-based MI procedures. In δ-based imputation, an offset term, δ, is typically added to the expected value of the missing data to assess the impact of unobserved participants having a worse or better response than those observed. Reference-based imputation draws imputed values with some reference to observed data in other groups of the trial, typically in other treatment arms. We illustrate the accessibility of these methods using data from a pediatric eczema trial and a chronic headache trial and provide Stata code to facilitate adoption. We discuss issues surrounding the choice of δ in δ-based sensitivity analysis. We also review the debate on variance estimation within reference-based analysis and justify the use of Rubin's variance estimator in this setting, since as we further elaborate on within, it provides information anchored inference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although covariate adjustment in the analysis of randomised trials can be beneficial, adjustment for continuous covariates is complicated by the fact that the association between covariate and outcome must be specified. Misspecification of this association can lead to reduced power, and potentially incorrect conclusions regarding treatment efficacy.Methods: We compared several methods of adjustment to determine which is best when the association between covariate and outcome is unknown. We assessed (a) dichotomisation or categorisation; (b) assuming a linear association with outcome; (c) using fractional polynomials with one (FP1) or two (FP2) polynomial terms; and (d) using restricted cubic splines with 3 or 5 knots. We evaluated each method using simulation and through a re-analysis of trial datasets.Results: Methods which kept covariates as continuous typically had higher power than methods which used categorisation. Dichotomisation, categorisation, and assuming a linear association all led to large reductions in power when the true association was non-linear. FP2 models and restricted cubic splines with 3 or 5 knots performed best overall.Conclusions: For the analysis of randomised trials we recommend (1) adjusting for continuous covariates even if their association with outcome is unknown; (2) keeping covariates as continuous; and (3) using fractional polynomials with two polynomial terms or restricted cubic splines with 3 to 5 knots when a linear association is in doubt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recruitment to clinical trials is often problematic, with many trials failing to recruit to their target sample size. As a result, patient care may be based on suboptimal evidence from underpowered trials or non-randomised studies.Methods: For many conditions patients will require treatment on several occasions, for example, to treat symptoms of an underlying chronic condition (such as migraines, where treatment is required each time a new episode occurs), or until they achieve treatment success (such as fertility, where patients undergo treatment on multiple occasions until they become pregnant). We describe a re-randomisation design for these scenarios, which allows each patient to be independently randomised on multiple occasions. We discuss the circumstances in which this design can be used.Results: The re-randomisation design will give asymptotically unbiased estimates of treatment effect and correct type I error rates under the following conditions: (a) patients are only re-randomised after the follow-up period from their previous randomisation is complete; (b) randomisations for the same patient are performed independently; and (c) the treatment effect is constant across all randomisations. Provided the analysis accounts for correlation between observations from the same patient, this design will typically have higher power than a parallel group trial with an equivalent number of observations.Conclusions: If used appropriately, the re-randomisation design can increase the recruitment rate for clinical trials while still providing an unbiased estimate of treatment effect and correct type I error rates. In many situations, it can increase the power compared to a parallel group design with an equivalent number of observations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Adjustment for prognostic covariates can lead to increased power in the analysis of randomized trials. However, adjusted analyses are not often performed in practice. Methods We used simulation to examine the impact of covariate adjustment on 12 outcomes from 8 studies across a range of therapeutic areas. We assessed (1) how large an increase in power can be expected in practice; and (2) the impact of adjustment for covariates that are not prognostic. Results Adjustment for known prognostic covariates led to large increases in power for most outcomes. When power was set to 80% based on an unadjusted analysis, covariate adjustment led to a median increase in power to 92.6% across the 12 outcomes (range 80.6 to 99.4%). Power was increased to over 85% for 8 of 12 outcomes, and to over 95% for 5 of 12 outcomes. Conversely, the largest decrease in power from adjustment for covariates that were not prognostic was from 80% to 78.5%. Conclusions Adjustment for known prognostic covariates can lead to substantial increases in power, and should be routinely incorporated into the analysis of randomized trials. The potential benefits of adjusting for a small number of possibly prognostic covariates in trials with moderate or large sample sizes far outweigh the risks of doing so, and so should also be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Sensitivity analyses are an important tool for understanding the extent to which the results of randomised trials depend upon the assumptions of the analysis. There is currently no guidance governing the choice of sensitivity analyses. Discussion We provide a principled approach to choosing sensitivity analyses through the consideration of the following questions: 1) Does the proposed sensitivity analysis address the same question as the primary analysis? 2) Is it possible for the proposed sensitivity analysis to return a different result to the primary analysis? 3) If the results do differ, is there any uncertainty as to which will be believed? Answering all of these questions in the affirmative will help researchers to identify relevant sensitivity analyses. Treating analyses as sensitivity analyses when one or more of the answers are negative can be misleading and confuse the interpretation of studies. The value of these questions is illustrated with several examples. Summary By removing unreasonable analyses that might have been performed, these questions will lead to relevant sensitivity analyses, which help to assess the robustness of trial results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The majority of studies of surgical outcome focus on measures of function and pain. Increasingly, however, the desire to include domains such as patients’ satisfaction and expectations had led to the development of simple measures and their inclusion into clinical studies. The purpose of this study was to determine patients’ pre-operative expectations of and post-operative satisfaction with the outcome of their spinal surgery. Methods: As part of the FASTER randomised controlled trial, patients were asked pre-operatively to quantify their expected improvement in pain and health status at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months following surgery using 100 mm visual analogue scales (VAS), and to indicate their confidence in achieving this result and also the importance of this recovery to them. Patients were then asked to rate their satisfaction with the improvement achieved at each post-operative review using 100 mm VAS. Results: Although differences between patients’ expectation and achievement were minimal 6 weeks post-operatively, there was a clear discrepancy at 6 months and 1 year, with patient expectations far exceeding achievement. There were significant correlations between failure to achieve expectations and the importance patients attached to this recovery at each post-operative assessment, but not with their confidence in achieving this result. Satisfaction levels remained high despite expectations not being met, with discectomy patients being more satisfied than decompression patients. Conclusions: Patients’ pre-operative expectations of surgical outcome exceed their long-term achievement. The more importance the patient attached to a good outcome, the larger is the discrepancy between expectation and achievement. Despite this, satisfaction levels remained high. The impact of unrealistic expectations on outcome remains unclear. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: When multiple prognostic factors are adjusted for in the analysis of a randomised trial, it is unclear (1) whether it is necessary to account for each of the strata, formed by all combinations of the prognostic factors (stratified analysis), when randomisation has been balanced within each stratum (stratified randomisation), or whether adjusting for the main effects alone will suffice, and (2) the best method of adjustment in terms of type I error rate and power, irrespective of the randomisation method. Methods: We used simulation to (1) determine if a stratified analysis is necessary after stratified randomisation, and (2) to compare different methods of adjustment in terms of power and type I error rate. We considered the following methods of analysis: adjusting for covariates in a regression model, adjusting for each stratum using either fixed or random effects, and Mantel-Haenszel or a stratified Cox model depending on outcome. Results: Stratified analysis is required after stratified randomisation to maintain correct type I error rates when (a) there are strong interactions between prognostic factors, and (b) there are approximately equal number of patients in each stratum. However, simulations based on real trial data found that type I error rates were unaffected by the method of analysis (stratified vs unstratified), indicating these conditions were not met in real datasets. Comparison of different analysis methods found that with small sample sizes and a binary or time-to-event outcome, most analysis methods lead to either inflated type I error rates or a reduction in power; the lone exception was a stratified analysis using random effects for strata, which gave nominal type I error rates and adequate power. Conclusions: It is unlikely that a stratified analysis is necessary after stratified randomisation except in extreme scenarios. Therefore, the method of analysis (accounting for the strata, or adjusting only for the covariates) will not generally need to depend on the method of randomisation used. Most methods of analysis work well with large sample sizes, however treating strata as random effects should be the analysis method of choice with binary or time-to-event outcomes and a small sample size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In a five-arm randomized clinical trial (RCT) with stratified randomization across 54 sites, we encountered low primary outcome event proportions, resulting in multiple sites with zero events either overall or in one or more study arms. In this paper, we systematically evaluated different statistical methods of accounting for center in settings with low outcome event proportions.Methods: We conducted a simulation study and a reanalysis of a completed RCT to compare five popular methods of estimating an odds ratio for multicenter trials with stratified randomization by center: (i) no center adjustment, (ii) random intercept model, (iii) Mantel-Haenszel model, (iv) generalized estimating equation (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation structure, and (v) GEE with small sample correction (GEE-small sample correction). We varied the number of total participants (200, 500, 1000, 5000), number of centers (5, 50, 100), control group outcome percentage (2%, 5%, 10%), true odds ratio (1, > 1), intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) (0.025, 0.075), and distribution of participants across the centers (balanced, skewed).Results: Mantel-Haenszel methods generally performed poorly in terms of power and bias and led to the exclusion of participants from the analysis because some centers had no events. Failure to account for center in the analysis generally led to lower power and type I error rates than other methods, particularly with ICC = 0.075. GEE had an inflated type I error rate except in some settings with a large number of centers. GEE-small sample correction maintained the type I error rate at the nominal level but suffered from reduced power and convergence issues in some settings when the number of centers was small. Random intercept models generally performed well in most scenarios, except with a low event rate (i.e., 2% scenario) and small total sample size (n ≤ 500), when all methods had issues.Discussion: Random intercept models generally performed best across most scenarios. GEE-small sample correction performed well when the number of centers was large. We do not recommend the use of Mantel-Haenszel, GEE, or models that do not account for center. When the expected event rate is low, we suggest that the statistical analysis plan specify an alternative method in the case of non-convergence of the primary method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When designing a clinical trial, explicitly defining the treatment estimands of interest (that which is to be estimated) can help to clarify trial objectives and ensure the questions being addressed by the trial are clinically meaningful. There are several challenges when defining estimands. Here, we discuss a number of these in the context of trials of treatments for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and make suggestions for how estimands should be defined for key outcomes. We suggest that treatment effects should usually be measured as differences in proportions (or risk or odds ratios) for outcomes such as death and requirement for ventilation, and differences in means for outcomes such as the number of days ventilated. We further recommend that truncation due to death should be handled differently depending on whether a patient- or resource-focused perspective is taken; for the former, a composite approach should be used, while for the latter, a while-alive approach is preferred. Finally, we suggest that discontinuation of randomised treatment should be handled from a treatment policy perspective, where non-adherence is ignored in the analysis (i.e. intention to treat). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An abstract of the article "Stratified randomisation: a hidden form of clustering?," by Brennan C. Kahan and colleagues, is presented.