A win ratio approach for comparing crossing survival curves in clinical trials

ABSTRACT Many clinical trials include time-to-event or survival data as an outcome. To compare two survival distributions, the log-rank test is often used to produce a P-value for a statistical test of the null hypothesis that the two survival curves are identical. However, such a P-value does not provide the magnitude of the difference between the curves regarding the treatment effect. As a result, the P-value is often accompanied by an estimate of the hazard ratio from the proportional hazards model or Cox model as a measurement of treatment difference. However, one of the most important assumptions for Cox model is that the hazard functions for the two treatment groups are proportional. When the hazard curves cross, the Cox model could lead to misleading results and the log-rank test could also perform poorly. To address the problem of crossing curves in survival analysis, we propose the use of the win ratio method put forward by Pocock et al. as an estimand for analysing such data. The subjects in the test and control treatment groups are formed into all possible pairs. For each pair, the test treatment subject is labelled a winner or a loser if it is known who had the event of interest such as death. The win ratio is the total number of winners divided by the total number of losers and its standard error can be estimated using Bebu and Lachin method. Using real trial datasets and Monte Carlo simulations, this study investigates the power and type I error and compares the win ratio method with the log-rank test and Cox model under various scenarios of crossing survival curves with different censoring rates and distribution parameters. The results show that the win ratio method has similar power as the log-rank test and Cox model to detect the treatment difference when the assumption of proportional hazards holds true, and that the win ratio method outperforms log-rank test and Cox model in terms of power to detect the treatment difference when the survival curves cross.

[1]  Kyungeun Kim,et al.  On recurrent-event win ratio , 2022, Statistical methods in medical research.

[2]  J. Ganju,et al.  Sample size formula for a win ratio endpoint , 2022, Statistics in medicine.

[3]  E. Leifer,et al.  Event‐specific win ratios for inference with terminal and non‐terminal events , 2021, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  KyungMann Kim,et al.  Sample size formula for general win ratio analysis , 2021, Biometrics.

[5]  D. Hoaglin,et al.  Adjusting win statistics for dependent censoring , 2020, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[6]  S. Pocock,et al.  Prioritized Endpoints for Device-Based Hypertension Trials: the Win Ratio Methodology. , 2020, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[7]  S. Pocock,et al.  The win ratio approach for composite endpoints: practical guidance based on previous experience. , 2020, European heart journal.

[8]  Martin Posch,et al.  Delayed treatment effects, treatment switching and heterogeneous patient populations: How to design and analyze RCTs in oncology , 2020, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[9]  D. Hoaglin,et al.  The inverse-probability-of-censoring weighting (IPCW) adjusted win ratio statistic: an unbiased estimator in the presence of independent censoring , 2020, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics.

[10]  S. Solomon,et al.  Use of the Win Ratio in Cardiovascular Trials. , 2020, JACC. Heart failure.

[11]  G. Molenberghs,et al.  Defining Efficacy Estimands in Clinical Trials: Examples Illustrating ICH E9(R1) Guidelines , 2020, Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science.

[12]  D. Hoaglin,et al.  The Win Ratio: On Interpretation and Handling of Ties , 2019, Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research.

[13]  G. Koch,et al.  Adjusted win ratio with stratification: Calculation methods and interpretation , 2019, Statistical methods in medical research.

[14]  L. Sharples,et al.  Nonproportional Hazards for Time-to-Event Outcomes in Clinical Trials: JACC Review Topic of the Week. , 2019, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[15]  G. Molenberghs,et al.  Defining Efficacy Estimands in Clinical Trials: Examples Illustrating ICH E9(R1) Guidelines. , 2019, Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science.

[16]  Xun Chen,et al.  Design and monitoring of survival trials in complex scenarios , 2018, Statistics in medicine.

[17]  Sanjiv J. Shah,et al.  Tafamidis Treatment for Patients with Transthyretin Amyloid Cardiomyopathy , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  L. Mao,et al.  On the alternative hypotheses for the win ratio , 2018, Biometrics.

[19]  G. Knoll,et al.  The win ratio approach did not alter study conclusions and may mitigate concerns regarding unequal composite end points in kidney transplant trials. , 2018, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[20]  Duolao Wang,et al.  The stratified win ratio , 2018, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[21]  Xiaodong Luo,et al.  WWR: An R package for analyzing prioritized outcomes , 2017 .

[22]  L. F. León,et al.  Estimation of treatment effects in weighted log-rank tests , 2017, Contemporary clinical trials communications.

[23]  Xiaodong Luo,et al.  Weighted win loss approach for analyzing prioritized outcomes , 2017, Statistics in medicine.

[24]  M. Vandemeulebroecke,et al.  A generalized analytic solution to the win ratio to analyze a composite endpoint considering the clinical importance order among components , 2016, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[25]  P. Parfrey,et al.  The win ratio approach to analyzing composite outcomes: An application to the EVOLVE trial. , 2016, Contemporary clinical trials.

[26]  W. Tsai,et al.  An alternative approach to confidence interval estimation for the win ratio statistic , 2015, Biometrics.

[27]  Huilin Chen,et al.  Statistical Inference Methods for Two Crossing Survival Curves: A Comparison of Methods , 2015, PloS one.

[28]  Zhenyu Jia,et al.  Weighted Lin-Wang Tests for Crossing Hazards , 2014, Comput. Math. Methods Medicine.

[29]  S. Pocock,et al.  The win ratio: a new approach to the analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials based on clinical priorities , 2011, European heart journal.

[30]  L. Billingham,et al.  Crossing survival curves: alternatives to the log-rank test , 2011, Trials.

[31]  M. Buyse Generalized pairwise comparisons of prioritized outcomes in the two‐sample problem , 2010, Statistics in medicine.

[32]  David Kraus Adaptive Neyman's smooth tests of homogeneity of two samples of survival data , 2009 .

[33]  Peihua Qiu,et al.  A two‐stage procedure for comparing hazard rate functions , 2007 .

[34]  Peihua Qiu,et al.  Comparing two crossing hazard rates by Cox proportional hazards modelling , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[35]  Jun Yan Survival Analysis: Techniques for Censored and Truncated Data , 2004 .

[36]  Mikhail Nikulin,et al.  Analysis of survival data with cross-effects of survival functions. , 2004, Biostatistics.

[37]  A. Khasnis,et al.  Effects of Candesartan on Mortality and Morbidity in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: The CHARM-Overall Programme , 2004 .

[38]  M. Pfeffer,et al.  Effects of candesartan on mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure: the CHARM-Overall programme , 2003, The Lancet.

[39]  J. Klein,et al.  Survival Analysis: Techniques for Censored and Truncated Data , 1997 .

[40]  D. Stablein,et al.  A two-sample test sensitive to crossing hazards in uncensored and singly censored data. , 1985, Biometrics.

[41]  J. Lachin,et al.  Large sample inference for a win ratio analysis of a composite outcome based on prioritized components. , 2016, Biostatistics.

[42]  Jaymie Shanahan,et al.  A New Method For the Comparison Of Survival Distributions , 2013 .

[43]  Qiang Xu,et al.  A new method for the comparison of survival distributions , 2010, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[44]  Fushing Hsieh,et al.  On heteroscedastic hazards regression models: theory and application , 2001 .

[45]  M. Pagano,et al.  Survival analysis. , 1996, Nutrition.