Planning and evaluating clinical trials with composite time‐to‐first‐event endpoints in a competing risk framework

Composite endpoints combine several events of interest within a single variable. These are often time-to-first-event data, which are analyzed via survival analysis techniques. To demonstrate the significance of an overall clinical benefit, it is sufficient to assess the test problem formulated for the composite. However, the effect observed for the composite does not necessarily reflect the effects for the components. Therefore, it would be desirable that the sample size for clinical trials using composite endpoints provides enough power not only to detect a clinically relevant superiority for the composite but also to address the components in an adequate way. The single components of a composite endpoint assessed as time-to-first-event define competing risks. We consider multiple test problems based on the cause-specific hazards of competing events to address the problem of analyzing both a composite endpoint and its components. Thereby, we use sequentially rejective test procedures to reduce the power loss to a minimum. We show how to calculate the sample size for the given multiple test problem by using a simply applicable simulation tool in SAS. Our ideas are illustrated by two clinical study examples.

[1]  Ralph B D'Agostino,et al.  Non‐inferiority trials: continued advancements in concepts and methodology (special papers for the 25th anniversary of Statistics in Medicine 25(7)) , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  Problems with use of composite end points in cardiovascular trials: systematic review of randomised controlled trials , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  H. Watanabe,et al.  Points to Consider on Multiplicity Issues in Clinical Trials , 2006 .

[4]  S. Holm A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure , 1979 .

[5]  M. Laakso,et al.  Effect of rosiglitazone on the frequency of diabetes in patients with impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose: a randomised controlled trial , 2006, The Lancet.

[6]  Marc P. Bonaca,et al.  Vorapaxar in the secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  P. Westfall,et al.  Gatekeeping strategies for clinical trials that do not require all primary effects to be significant , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

[8]  Martin Schumacher,et al.  Understanding competing risks: a simulation point of view , 2011, BMC medical research methodology.

[9]  W. Brannath,et al.  A graphical approach to sequentially rejective multiple test procedures , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  Xun Chen,et al.  The application of enhanced parallel gatekeeping strategies , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  J. Lubsen,et al.  Combined endpoints: can we use them? , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  S. Mathoulin-Pélissier,et al.  Survival end point reporting in randomized cancer clinical trials: a review of major journals. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  D. Schoenfeld,et al.  Sample-size formula for the proportional-hazards regression model. , 1983, Biometrics.

[14]  N. Freemantle,et al.  Composite and surrogate outcomes in randomised controlled trials , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  Martin Schumacher,et al.  Competing Risks and Multistate Models with R , 2011 .

[16]  D. Altman,et al.  Composite Outcomes in Cardiovascular Research: A Survey of Randomized Trials , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[17]  Mohamed Alosh,et al.  Addressing Multiplicity Issues of a Composite Endpoint and Its Components in Clinical Trials , 2011, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[18]  R Porcher,et al.  Sample size calculations in the presence of competing risks , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[19]  Martin Schumacher,et al.  Simulating competing risks data in survival analysis , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  D. Follmann Regression analysis based on pairwise ordering of patients' clinical histories , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[21]  S Lange,et al.  Non‐parametric assessment of non‐inferiority with censored data , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[22]  P Royston,et al.  Evaluation of sample size and power for multi‐arm survival trials allowing for non‐uniform accrual, non‐proportional hazards, loss to follow‐up and cross‐over , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[23]  Robert Gray,et al.  A Proportional Hazards Model for the Subdistribution of a Competing Risk , 1999 .

[24]  S. Lagakos,et al.  Statistical considerations when using a composite endpoint for comparing treatment groups , 2013, Statistics in medicine.

[25]  Haesook T. Kim Cumulative Incidence in Competing Risks Data and Competing Risks Regression Analysis , 2007, Clinical Cancer Research.

[26]  Dario Gasbarra,et al.  Testing equality of cause-specific hazard rates corresponding to m competing risks among K groups , 2002 .

[27]  Theo Stijnen,et al.  Meta-analyses of chronic disease trials with competing causes of death may yield biased odds ratios. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[28]  Dankmar Böhning,et al.  A comparison of three different models for estimating relative risk in meta‐analysis of clinical trials under unobserved heterogeneity , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[29]  B. Brenner,et al.  Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[30]  D. Machin,et al.  On the importance of accounting for competing risks in pediatric brain cancer: II. Regression modeling and sample size. , 2011, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[31]  S. Chow,et al.  Sample Size Calculations In Clinical Research , 2007 .

[32]  Abdel Babiker,et al.  Methodological issues in the use of composite endpoints in clinical trials: examples from the HIV field , 2010, Clinical trials.

[33]  R. Califf,et al.  Determining the most appropriate components for a composite clinical trial outcome. , 2008, American heart journal.

[34]  Ellen Maki,et al.  Power and sample size considerations in clinical trials with competing risk endpoints , 2006, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[35]  R. Cook,et al.  Misspecification of Cox regression models with composite endpoints , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[36]  Ralf Bender,et al.  Generating survival times to simulate Cox proportional hazards models , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[37]  H Putter,et al.  Tutorial in biostatistics: competing risks and multi‐state models , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[38]  B. Wiens A fixed sequence Bonferroni procedure for testing multiple endpoints , 2003 .

[39]  P. Westfall,et al.  Optimally weighted, fixed sequence and gatekeeper multiple testing procedures , 2001 .

[40]  Elena Losina,et al.  Evaluation of exposure-specific risks from two independent samples: A simulation study , 2011, BMC medical research methodology.

[41]  Sin-Ho Jung,et al.  Sample Size Computation for Two-Sample Noninferiority Log-Rank Test , 2005, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[42]  Martin Schumacher,et al.  Sample sizes for clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints and competing risks. , 2005, Contemporary clinical trials.

[43]  G. Chi Some issues with composite endpoints in clinical trials , 2005, Fundamental & clinical pharmacology.

[44]  B. Brenner,et al.  Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy , 2002 .

[45]  L. Hothorn,et al.  Testing strategies in multi-dose experiments including active control. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[46]  Niels Keiding,et al.  Statistical Models Based on Counting Processes , 1993 .

[47]  M Schumacher,et al.  Unbiased assessment of treatment effects on disease recurrence and survival in clinical trials. , 1983, Statistics in medicine.

[48]  R. Kay Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials , 1998, The Journal of international medical research.

[49]  Marc P. Bonaca,et al.  Evaluation of a novel antiplatelet agent for secondary prevention in patients with a history of atherosclerotic disease: design and rationale for the Thrombin-Receptor Antagonist in Secondary Prevention of Atherothrombotic Ischemic Events (TRA 2 degrees P)-TIMI 50 trial. , 2009, American heart journal.

[50]  P. Kleist Composite Endpoints for Clinical Trials , 2007, International Journal of Pharmaceutical Medicine.

[51]  Nick Freemantle,et al.  Composite outcomes in randomized trials: greater precision but with greater uncertainty? , 2003, JAMA.

[52]  R. D'Agostino,et al.  Non‐inferiority trials: design concepts and issues – the encounters of academic consultants in statistics , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[53]  B. Wiens,et al.  The Fallback Procedure for Evaluating a Single Family of Hypotheses , 2005, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.