Search

In applied time-to-event analysis, a flexible parametric approach is to model the hazard rate as a piecewise constant function of time. However, the change points and values of the piecewise constant hazard are usually unknown and need to be estimated. In this paper, we develop a fully data-driven procedure for piecewise constant hazard estimation. We work in a general counting process framework which nests a wide range of popular models in time-to-event analysis including Cox's proportional hazards model with potentially high-dimensional covariates, competing risks models as well as more general multi-state models. To construct our estimator, we set up a regression model for the increments of the Breslow estimator and then use fused lasso techniques to approximate the piecewise constant signal in this regression model. In the theoretical part of the paper, we derive the convergence rate of our estimator as well as some results on how well the change points of the piecewise constant hazard are approximated by our method. We complement the theory by both simulations and a real data example, illustrating that our results apply in rather general event histories such as multi-state models.

The Fine-Gray model for the subdistribution hazard is commonly used for estimating associations between covariates and competing risks outcomes. When there are missing values in the covariates included in a given model, researchers may wish to multiply impute them. Assuming interest lies in estimating the risk of only one of the competing events, this paper develops a substantive-model-compatible multiple imputation approach that exploits the parallels between the Fine-Gray model and the standard (single-event) Cox model. In the presence of right-censoring, this involves first imputing the potential censoring times for those failing from competing events, and thereafter imputing the missing covariates by leveraging methodology previously developed for the Cox model in the setting without competing risks. In a simulation study, we compared the proposed approach to alternative methods, such as imputing compatibly with cause-specific Cox models. The proposed method performed well (in terms of estimation of both subdistribution log hazard ratios and cumulative incidences) when data were generated assuming proportional subdistribution hazards, and performed satisfactorily when this assumption was not satisfied. The gain in efficiency compared to a complete-case analysis was demonstrated in both the simulation study and in an applied data example on competing outcomes following an allogeneic stem cell transplantation. For individual-specific cumulative incidence estimation, assuming proportionality on the correct scale at the analysis phase appears to be more important than correctly specifying the imputation procedure used to impute the missing covariates.

The SAVVY project aims to improve the analyses of adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials through the use of survival techniques appropriately dealing with varying follow-up times and competing events (CEs). This paper summarizes key features and conclusions from the various SAVVY papers. Through theoretical investigations using simulations and in an empirical study including randomized clinical trials from several sponsor organisations, biases from ignoring varying follow-up times or CEs are investigated. The bias of commonly used estimators of the absolute and relative AE risk is quantified. Furthermore, we provide a cursory assessment of how pertinent guidelines for the analysis of safety data deal with the features of varying follow-up time and CEs. SAVVY finds that for both, avoiding bias and categorization of evidence with respect to treatment effect on AE risk into categories, the choice of the estimator is key and more important than features of the underlying data such as percentage of censoring, CEs, amount of follow-up, or value of the gold-standard. The choice of the estimator of the cumulative AE probability and the definition of CEs are crucial. SAVVY recommends using the Aalen-Johansen estimator (AJE) with an appropriate definition of CEs whenever the risk for AEs is to be quantified. There is an urgent need to improve the guidelines of reporting AEs so that incidence proportions or one minus Kaplan-Meier estimators are finally replaced by the AJE with appropriate definition of CEs., Comment: 17 pages, 1 Figure, 4 Tables. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:2008.07881

When planning an oncology clinical trial, the usual approach is to assume proportional hazards and even an exponential distribution for time-to-event endpoints. Often, besides the gold-standard endpoint overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) is considered as a second confirmatory endpoint. We use a survival multistate model to jointly model these two endpoints and find that neither exponential distribution nor proportional hazards will typically hold for both endpoints simultaneously. The multistate model provides a stochastic process approach to model the dependency of such endpoints neither requiring latent failure times nor explicit dependency modelling such as copulae. We use the multistate model framework to simulate clinical trials with endpoints OS and PFS and show how design planning questions can be answered using this approach. In particular, non-proportional hazards for at least one of the endpoints are naturally modelled as well as their dependency to improve planning. We consider an oncology trial on non-small-cell lung cancer as a motivating example from which we derive relevant trial design questions. We then illustrate how clinical trial design can be based on simulations from a multistate model. Key applications are co-primary endpoints and group-sequential designs. Simulations for these applications show that the standard simplifying approach may very well lead to underpowered or overpowered clinical trials. Our approach is quite general and can be extended to more complex trial designs, further endpoints, and other therapeutic areas. An R package is available on CRAN., Comment: 28 pages, 3 tables, 12 figures

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 (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 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 favourable 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.

Analyses of adverse events (AEs) are an important aspect of the evaluation of experimental therapies. The SAVVY (Survival analysis for AdVerse events with Varying follow-up times) project aims to improve the analyses of AE data in clinical trials through the use of survival techniques appropriately dealing with varying follow-up times, censoring, and competing events (CE). In an empirical study including seventeen randomized clinical trials the effect of varying follow-up times, censoring, and competing events on comparisons of two treatment arms with respect to AE risks is investigated. The comparisons of relative risks (RR) of standard probability-based estimators to the gold-standard Aalen-Johansen estimator or hazard-based estimators to an estimated hazard ratio (HR) from Cox regression are done descriptively, with graphical displays, and using a random effects meta-analysis on AE level. The influence of different factors on the size of the bias is investigated in a meta-regression. We find that for both, avoiding bias and categorization of evidence with respect to treatment effect on AE risk into categories, the choice of the estimator is key and more important than features of the underlying data such as percentage of censoring, CEs, amount of follow-up, or value of the gold-standard RR. There is an urgent need to improve the guidelines of reporting AEs so that incidence proportions are finally replaced by the Aalen-Johansen estimator - rather than by Kaplan-Meier - with appropriate definition of CEs. For RRs based on hazards, the HR based on Cox regression has better properties than the ratio of incidence densities.

The SAVVY project aims to improve the analyses of adverse event (AE) data in clinical trials through the use of survival techniques appropriately dealing with varying follow-up times and competing events (CEs). Although statistical methodologies have advanced, in AE analyses often the incidence proportion, the incidence density, or a non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimator (KME) are used, which either ignore censoring or CEs. In an empirical study including randomized clinical trials from several sponsor organisations, these potential sources of bias are investigated. The main aim is to compare the estimators that are typically used in AE analysis to the Aalen-Johansen estimator (AJE) as the gold-standard. Here, one-sample findings are reported, while a companion paper considers consequences when comparing treatment groups. Estimators are compared with descriptive statistics, graphical displays and with a random effects meta-analysis. The influence of different factors on the size of the bias is investigated in a meta-regression. Comparisons are conducted at the maximum follow-up time and at earlier evaluation time points. CEs definition does not only include death before AE but also end of follow-up for AEs due to events possibly related to the disease course or the treatment. Ten sponsor organisations provided 17 trials including 186 types of AEs. The one minus KME was on average about 1.2-fold larger than the AJE. Leading forces influencing bias were the amount of censoring and of CEs. As a consequence, the average bias using the incidence proportion was less than 5%. Assuming constant hazards using incidence densities was hardly an issue provided that CEs were accounted for. There is a need to improve the guidelines of reporting risks of AEs so that the KME and the incidence proportion are replaced by the AJE with an appropriate definition of CEs.

The Aalen-Johansen estimator generalizes the Kaplan-Meier estimator for independently left-truncated and right-censored survival data to estimating the transition probability matrix of a time-inhomogeneous Markov model with finite state space. Such multi-state models have a wide range of applications for modelling complex courses of a disease over the course of time, but the Markov assumption may often be in doubt. If censoring is entirely unrelated to the multi-state data, it has been noted that the Aalen-Johansen estimator, standardized by the initial empirical distribution of the multi-state model, still consistently estimates the state occupation probabilities. Recently, this result has been extended to transition probabilities using landmarking, which is, inter alia, useful for dynamic prediction. We complement these results in three ways. Firstly, delayed study entry is a common phenomenon in observational studies, and we extend the earlier results to multi-state data also subject to left-truncation. Secondly, we present a rigorous proof of consistency of the Aalen-Johansen estimator for state occupation probabilities, on which also correctness of the landmarking approach hinges, correcting, simplifying and extending the earlier result. Thirdly, our rigorous proof motivates wild bootstrap resampling. Our developments for left-truncation are motivated by a prospective observational study on the occurrence and the impact of a multi-resistant infectious organism in patients undergoing surgery. Both the real data example and simulation studies are presented. Studying wild bootstrap is motivated by the fact that, unlike drawing with replacement from the data, it is desirable to have a technique that works both with non-Markov models subject to random left-truncation and right-censoring and with Markov models where left-truncation and right-censoring need not be entirely random., Comment: 21 pages with 3 figures

Safety analyses in terms of adverse events (AEs) are an important aspect of benefit-risk assessments of therapies. Compared to efficacy analyses AE analyses are often rather simplistic. The probability of an AE of a specific type is typically estimated by the incidence proportion, sometimes the incidence density or the Kaplan-Meier estimator are proposed. But these analyses either do not account for censoring, rely on a too restrictive parametric model, or ignore competing events. With the non-parametric Aalen-Johansen estimator as the gold-standard, these potential sources of bias are investigated in a data example from oncology and in simulations, both in the one-sample and in the two-sample case. As the estimators may have large variances at the end of follow-up, the estimators are not only compared at the maximal event time but also at two quantiles of the observed times. To date, consequences for safety comparisons have hardly been investigated in the literature. The impact of using different estimators for group comparisons is unclear, as, for example, the ratio of two both underestimating or overestimating estimators may or may not be comparable to the ratio of the gold-standard estimator. Therefore, the ratio of the AE probabilities is also calculated based on different approaches. By simulations investigating constant and non-constant hazards, different censoring mechanisms and event frequencies, we show that ignoring competing events is more of a problem than falsely assuming constant hazards by use of the incidence density and that the choice of the AE probability estimator is crucial for group comparisons., Comment: 27 pages, 5 figures

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, i.e. 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.

In this paper, we derive the joint distribution of progression-free and overall survival as a function of transition probabilities in a multistate model. No assumptions on copulae or latent event times are needed and the model is allowed to be non-Markov. From the joint distribution, statistics of interest can then be computed. As an example, we provide closed formulas and statistical inference for Pearson's correlation coefficient between progression-free and overall survival in a parametric framework. The example is inspired by recent approaches to quantify the dependence between progression-free survival, a common primary outcome in phase III trials in oncology, and overall survival. We complement these approaches by providing methods of statistical inference while at the same time working within a much more parsimonious modelling framework. Our approach is completely general and can be applied to other measures of dependence. We also discuss extensions to nonparametric inference. Our analytical results are illustrated using a large randomized clinical trial in breast cancer.

The analysis of adverse events (AEs) is a key component in the assessment of a drug's safety profile. Inappropriate analysis methods may result in misleading conclusions about a therapy's safety and consequently its benefit-risk ratio. The statistical analysis of AEs is complicated by the fact that the follow-up times can vary between the patients included in a clinical trial. This paper takes as its focus the analysis of AE data in the presence of varying follow-up times within the benefit assessment of therapeutic interventions. Instead of approaching this issue directly and solely from an analysis point of view, we first discuss what should be estimated in the context of safety data, leading to the concept of estimands. Although the current discussion on estimands is mainly related to efficacy evaluation, the concept is applicable to safety endpoints as well. Within the framework of estimands, we present statistical methods for analysing AEs with the focus being on the time to the occurrence of the first AE of a specific type. We give recommendations which estimators should be used for the estimands described. Furthermore, we state practical implications of the analysis of AEs in clinical trials and give an overview of examples across different indications. We also provide a review of current practices of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies with respect to the evaluation of safety data. Finally, we describe problems with meta-analyses of AE data and sketch possible solutions.

We rigorously extend the widely used wild bootstrap resampling technique to the multivariate Nelson-Aalen estimator under Aalen's multiplicative intensity model. Aalen's model covers general Markovian multistate models including competing risks subject to independent left-truncation and right-censoring. This leads to various statistical applications such as asymptotically valid confidence bands or tests for equivalence and proportional hazards. This is exemplified in a data analysis examining the impact of ventilation on the duration of intensive care unit stay. The finite sample properties of the new procedures are investigated in a simulation study., Comment: Tobias Bluhmki and Dennis Dobler are authors with equal contribution, 3 figures, 3 tables

This paper introduces the new data-dependent multiplier bootstrap for non-parametric analysis of survival data, possibly subject to competing risks. The new resampling procedure includes both the general wild bootstrap and the weird bootstrap as special cases. The data may be subject to independent right-censoring and left-truncation. We rigorously prove asymptotic correctness which has in particular been pending for the weird bootstrap. As a consequence, pointwise as well as time-simultaneous inference procedures for, amongst others, the classical survival setting are deduced. We report simulation results and a real data analysis of the cumulative cardiovascular event probability. The simulation results suggest that both the weird bootstrap and use of non-standard multipliers in the wild bootstrap may perform preferably., Comment: 16 pages, 2 figures

Competing risks model time to first event and type of first event. An example from hospital epidemiology is the incidence of hospital-acquired infection, which has to account for hospital discharge of non-infected patients as a competing risk. An illness-death model would allow to further study hospital outcomes of infected patients. Such a model typically relies on a Markov assumption. However, it is conceivable that the future course of an infected patient does not only depend on the time since hospital admission and current infection status but also on the time since infection. We demonstrate how a modified competing risks model can be used for nonparametric estimation of transition probabilities when the Markov assumption is violated.