Cargando…
Confidence limits for the averted infections ratio estimated via the counterfactual placebo incidence rate
OBJECTIVES: The averted infections ratio (AIR) is a novel measure for quantifying the preservation-of-effect in active-control non-inferiority clinical trials with a time-to-event outcome. In the main formulation, the AIR requires an estimate of the counterfactual placebo incidence rate. We describe...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
De Gruyter
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9204757/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35880996 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/scid-2021-0002 |
_version_ | 1784728993325383680 |
---|---|
author | Dunn, David T. Stirrup, Oliver T. Glidden, David V. |
author_facet | Dunn, David T. Stirrup, Oliver T. Glidden, David V. |
author_sort | Dunn, David T. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: The averted infections ratio (AIR) is a novel measure for quantifying the preservation-of-effect in active-control non-inferiority clinical trials with a time-to-event outcome. In the main formulation, the AIR requires an estimate of the counterfactual placebo incidence rate. We describe two approaches for calculating confidence limits for the AIR given a point estimate of this parameter, a closed-form solution based on a Taylor series expansion (delta method) and an iterative method based on the profile-likelihood. METHODS: For each approach, exact coverage probabilities for the lower and upper confidence limits were computed over a grid of values of (1) the true value of the AIR (2) the expected number of counterfactual events (3) the effectiveness of the active-control treatment. RESULTS: Focussing on the lower confidence limit, which determines whether non-inferiority can be declared, the coverage achieved by the delta method is either less than or greater than the nominal coverage, depending on the true value of the AIR. In contrast, the coverage achieved by the profile-likelihood method is consistently accurate. CONCLUSIONS: The profile-likelihood method is preferred because of better coverage properties, but the simpler delta method is valid when the experimental treatment is no less effective than the control treatment. A complementary Bayesian approach, which can be applied when the counterfactual incidence rate can be represented as a prior distribution, is also outlined. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9204757 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | De Gruyter |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92047572022-07-06 Confidence limits for the averted infections ratio estimated via the counterfactual placebo incidence rate Dunn, David T. Stirrup, Oliver T. Glidden, David V. Stat Commun Infect Dis Article OBJECTIVES: The averted infections ratio (AIR) is a novel measure for quantifying the preservation-of-effect in active-control non-inferiority clinical trials with a time-to-event outcome. In the main formulation, the AIR requires an estimate of the counterfactual placebo incidence rate. We describe two approaches for calculating confidence limits for the AIR given a point estimate of this parameter, a closed-form solution based on a Taylor series expansion (delta method) and an iterative method based on the profile-likelihood. METHODS: For each approach, exact coverage probabilities for the lower and upper confidence limits were computed over a grid of values of (1) the true value of the AIR (2) the expected number of counterfactual events (3) the effectiveness of the active-control treatment. RESULTS: Focussing on the lower confidence limit, which determines whether non-inferiority can be declared, the coverage achieved by the delta method is either less than or greater than the nominal coverage, depending on the true value of the AIR. In contrast, the coverage achieved by the profile-likelihood method is consistently accurate. CONCLUSIONS: The profile-likelihood method is preferred because of better coverage properties, but the simpler delta method is valid when the experimental treatment is no less effective than the control treatment. A complementary Bayesian approach, which can be applied when the counterfactual incidence rate can be represented as a prior distribution, is also outlined. De Gruyter 2021-11-24 /pmc/articles/PMC9204757/ /pubmed/35880996 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/scid-2021-0002 Text en © 2021 David T. Dunn et al., published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |
spellingShingle | Article Dunn, David T. Stirrup, Oliver T. Glidden, David V. Confidence limits for the averted infections ratio estimated via the counterfactual placebo incidence rate |
title | Confidence limits for the averted infections ratio estimated via the counterfactual placebo incidence rate |
title_full | Confidence limits for the averted infections ratio estimated via the counterfactual placebo incidence rate |
title_fullStr | Confidence limits for the averted infections ratio estimated via the counterfactual placebo incidence rate |
title_full_unstemmed | Confidence limits for the averted infections ratio estimated via the counterfactual placebo incidence rate |
title_short | Confidence limits for the averted infections ratio estimated via the counterfactual placebo incidence rate |
title_sort | confidence limits for the averted infections ratio estimated via the counterfactual placebo incidence rate |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9204757/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35880996 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/scid-2021-0002 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dunndavidt confidencelimitsfortheavertedinfectionsratioestimatedviathecounterfactualplaceboincidencerate AT stirrupolivert confidencelimitsfortheavertedinfectionsratioestimatedviathecounterfactualplaceboincidencerate AT gliddendavidv confidencelimitsfortheavertedinfectionsratioestimatedviathecounterfactualplaceboincidencerate |