Treatment effect measures under nonproportional hazards.

In a clinical trial with a time‐to‐event endpoint the treatment effect can be measured in various ways. Under proportional hazards all reasonable measures (such as the hazard ratio and the difference in restricted mean survival time) are consistent in the following sense: Take any control group survival distribution such that the hazard rate remains above zero; if there is no benefit by any measure there is no benefit by all measures, and as the magnitude of treatment benefit increases by any measure it increases by all measures. Under nonproportional hazards, however, survival curves can cross, and the direction of the effect for any pair of measures can be inconsistent. In this paper we critically evaluate a variety of treatment effect measures in common use and identify flaws with them. In particular, we demonstrate that a treatment's benefit has two distinct and independent dimensions which can be measured by the difference in the survival rate at the end of follow‐up and the difference in restricted mean survival time, and that commonly used measures do not adequately capture both dimensions. We demonstrate that a generalized hazard difference, which can be estimated by the difference in exposure‐adjusted subject incidence rates, captures both dimensions, and that its inverse, the number of patient‐years of follow‐up that results in one fewer event (the NYNT), is an easily interpretable measure of the magnitude of clinical benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]