Cargando…

An approach to trial design and analysis in the era of non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect

BACKGROUND: Most randomized controlled trials with a time-to-event outcome are designed and analysed under the proportional hazards assumption, with a target hazard ratio for the treatment effect in mind. However, the hazards may be non-proportional. We address how to design a trial under such condi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Royston, Patrick, Parmar, Mahesh KB
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4133607/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25098243
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-314
_version_ 1782330762969743360
author Royston, Patrick
Parmar, Mahesh KB
author_facet Royston, Patrick
Parmar, Mahesh KB
author_sort Royston, Patrick
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Most randomized controlled trials with a time-to-event outcome are designed and analysed under the proportional hazards assumption, with a target hazard ratio for the treatment effect in mind. However, the hazards may be non-proportional. We address how to design a trial under such conditions, and how to analyse the results. METHODS: We propose to extend the usual approach, a logrank test, to also include the Grambsch-Therneau test of proportional hazards. We test the resulting composite null hypothesis using a joint test for the hazard ratio and for time-dependent behaviour of the hazard ratio. We compute the power and sample size for the logrank test under proportional hazards, and from that we compute the power of the joint test. For the estimation of relevant quantities from the trial data, various models could be used; we advocate adopting a pre-specified flexible parametric survival model that supports time-dependent behaviour of the hazard ratio. RESULTS: We present the mathematics for calculating the power and sample size for the joint test. We illustrate the methodology in real data from two randomized trials, one in ovarian cancer and the other in treating cellulitis. We show selected estimates and their uncertainty derived from the advocated flexible parametric model. We demonstrate in a small simulation study that when a treatment effect either increases or decreases over time, the joint test can outperform the logrank test in the presence of both patterns of non-proportional hazards. CONCLUSIONS: Those designing and analysing trials in the era of non-proportional hazards need to acknowledge that a more complex type of treatment effect is becoming more common. Our method for the design of the trial retains the tools familiar in the standard methodology based on the logrank test, and extends it to incorporate a joint test of the null hypothesis with power against non-proportional hazards. For the analysis of trial data, we propose the use of a pre-specified flexible parametric model that can represent a time-dependent hazard ratio if one is present.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4133607
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41336072014-08-16 An approach to trial design and analysis in the era of non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect Royston, Patrick Parmar, Mahesh KB Trials Methodology BACKGROUND: Most randomized controlled trials with a time-to-event outcome are designed and analysed under the proportional hazards assumption, with a target hazard ratio for the treatment effect in mind. However, the hazards may be non-proportional. We address how to design a trial under such conditions, and how to analyse the results. METHODS: We propose to extend the usual approach, a logrank test, to also include the Grambsch-Therneau test of proportional hazards. We test the resulting composite null hypothesis using a joint test for the hazard ratio and for time-dependent behaviour of the hazard ratio. We compute the power and sample size for the logrank test under proportional hazards, and from that we compute the power of the joint test. For the estimation of relevant quantities from the trial data, various models could be used; we advocate adopting a pre-specified flexible parametric survival model that supports time-dependent behaviour of the hazard ratio. RESULTS: We present the mathematics for calculating the power and sample size for the joint test. We illustrate the methodology in real data from two randomized trials, one in ovarian cancer and the other in treating cellulitis. We show selected estimates and their uncertainty derived from the advocated flexible parametric model. We demonstrate in a small simulation study that when a treatment effect either increases or decreases over time, the joint test can outperform the logrank test in the presence of both patterns of non-proportional hazards. CONCLUSIONS: Those designing and analysing trials in the era of non-proportional hazards need to acknowledge that a more complex type of treatment effect is becoming more common. Our method for the design of the trial retains the tools familiar in the standard methodology based on the logrank test, and extends it to incorporate a joint test of the null hypothesis with power against non-proportional hazards. For the analysis of trial data, we propose the use of a pre-specified flexible parametric model that can represent a time-dependent hazard ratio if one is present. BioMed Central 2014-08-07 /pmc/articles/PMC4133607/ /pubmed/25098243 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-314 Text en © Royston and Parmar; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Methodology
Royston, Patrick
Parmar, Mahesh KB
An approach to trial design and analysis in the era of non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect
title An approach to trial design and analysis in the era of non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect
title_full An approach to trial design and analysis in the era of non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect
title_fullStr An approach to trial design and analysis in the era of non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect
title_full_unstemmed An approach to trial design and analysis in the era of non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect
title_short An approach to trial design and analysis in the era of non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect
title_sort approach to trial design and analysis in the era of non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4133607/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25098243
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-314
work_keys_str_mv AT roystonpatrick anapproachtotrialdesignandanalysisintheeraofnonproportionalhazardsofthetreatmenteffect
AT parmarmaheshkb anapproachtotrialdesignandanalysisintheeraofnonproportionalhazardsofthetreatmenteffect
AT roystonpatrick approachtotrialdesignandanalysisintheeraofnonproportionalhazardsofthetreatmenteffect
AT parmarmaheshkb approachtotrialdesignandanalysisintheeraofnonproportionalhazardsofthetreatmenteffect