Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Technical advance

Introducing a new estimator and test for the weighted all-cause hazard ratio

Authors: Ann-Kathrin Ozga, Geraldine Rauch

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The rationale for the use of composite time-to-event endpoints is to increase the number of expected events and thereby the power by combining several event types of clinical interest. The all-cause hazard ratio is the standard effect measure for composite endpoints where the all-cause hazard function is given as the sum of the event-specific hazards. However, the effect of the individual components might differ, in magnitude or even in direction, which leads to interpretation difficulties. Moreover, the individual event types often are of different clinical relevance which further complicates interpretation. Our working group recently proposed a new weighted effect measure for composite endpoints called the ‘weighted all-cause hazard ratio’. By imposing relevance weights for the components, the interpretation of the composite effect becomes more ‘natural’. Although the weighted all-cause hazard ratio seems an elegant solution to overcome interpretation problems, the originally published approach has several shortcomings: First, the proposed point estimator requires pre-specification of a parametric survival model. Second, no closed formula for a corresponding test statistic was provided. Instead, a permutation test was proposed. Third, no clear guidance for the choice of the relevance weights was provided. In this work, we will overcome these problems.

Methods

Within this work a new non-parametric estimator and a related closed formula test statistic are presented. Performance of the new estimator and test is compared to the original ones by a Monte-Carlo simulation study.

Results

The original parametric estimator is sensible to miss-specifications of the survival model. The new non-parametric estimator turns out to be very robust even if the required assumptions are not met. The new test shows considerably better power properties than the permutation test, is computationally much less expensive but might not preserve type one error in all situations. A scheme for choosing the relevance weights in the planning stage is provided.

Conclusion

We recommend to use the non-parametric estimator along with the new test to assess the weighted all-cause hazard ratio. Concrete guidance for the choice of the relevance weights is now available. Thus, applying the weighted all-cause hazard ratio in clinical applications is both - feasible and recommended.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Cox DR. Regression models and life-tables. J Royal Stat Soc Ser B (Methodol). 1972; 34(2):187–220. Cox DR. Regression models and life-tables. J Royal Stat Soc Ser B (Methodol). 1972; 34(2):187–220.
2.
go back to reference Lubsen J, Kirwan BA. Combined endpoints: can we use them?Stat Med. 2002; 21(19):2959–7290.CrossRef Lubsen J, Kirwan BA. Combined endpoints: can we use them?Stat Med. 2002; 21(19):2959–7290.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Rauch G, Beyersmann J. Planning and evaluating clinical trials with composite time-to-first-event endpoints in a competing risk framework. Stat Med. 2013; 32(21):3595–608.CrossRef Rauch G, Beyersmann J. Planning and evaluating clinical trials with composite time-to-first-event endpoints in a competing risk framework. Stat Med. 2013; 32(21):3595–608.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Bethel MA, Holman R, Haffner SM, Califf RM, Huntsman-Labed A, Hua TA, Murray J. Determing the most appropriate components for a composite clinical trial outcome. Am Heart J. 2008; 156(4):633–40.CrossRef Bethel MA, Holman R, Haffner SM, Califf RM, Huntsman-Labed A, Hua TA, Murray J. Determing the most appropriate components for a composite clinical trial outcome. Am Heart J. 2008; 156(4):633–40.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Freemantle N, Calvert M. Composite and surrogate outcomes in randomised controlled trials. Am Heart J. 2007; 334(1):756–7. Freemantle N, Calvert M. Composite and surrogate outcomes in randomised controlled trials. Am Heart J. 2007; 334(1):756–7.
7.
go back to reference Freemantle N, Calvert M, Wood J, Eastaugh J, Griffin C. Composite outcomes in randomized trials - greater precision but with greater uncertainty?J Am Med Assoc. 2003; 289(19):756–7.CrossRef Freemantle N, Calvert M, Wood J, Eastaugh J, Griffin C. Composite outcomes in randomized trials - greater precision but with greater uncertainty?J Am Med Assoc. 2003; 289(19):756–7.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Pocock SJ, Ariti CA, Collier TJ, Wang D. The win ratio: a new approach to the analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials based on clinical priorities. Eur Heart J. 2012; 33(2):176–82.CrossRef Pocock SJ, Ariti CA, Collier TJ, Wang D. The win ratio: a new approach to the analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials based on clinical priorities. Eur Heart J. 2012; 33(2):176–82.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Buyse M. Generalized pairwise comparisons of prioritized outcomes in the two-sample problem. Stat Med. 2010; 29(30):3245–57.CrossRef Buyse M. Generalized pairwise comparisons of prioritized outcomes in the two-sample problem. Stat Med. 2010; 29(30):3245–57.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Péron J, Buyse M, Ozenne B, Roche L, Roy P. An extension of generalized pairwise comparisons for prioritized outcomes in the presence of censoring. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016; 27(4):1230–9.CrossRef Péron J, Buyse M, Ozenne B, Roche L, Roy P. An extension of generalized pairwise comparisons for prioritized outcomes in the presence of censoring. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016; 27(4):1230–9.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Lachin JM, Bebu I. Application of the wei lachin multivariate one-directional test to multiple event-time outcomes. Clin Trials. 2015; 12(6):627–33.CrossRef Lachin JM, Bebu I. Application of the wei lachin multivariate one-directional test to multiple event-time outcomes. Clin Trials. 2015; 12(6):627–33.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Bebu I, Lachin JM. Large sample inference of a win ratio analysis of a composite outcome based on prioritized outcomes. Biostatistics. 2016; 17(1):178–87.CrossRef Bebu I, Lachin JM. Large sample inference of a win ratio analysis of a composite outcome based on prioritized outcomes. Biostatistics. 2016; 17(1):178–87.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Rauch G, Jahn-Eimermacher A, Brannath W, Kieser M. Opportunities and challenges of combined effect measures based on prioritized outcomes. Stat Med. 2014; 33(7):1104–20.CrossRef Rauch G, Jahn-Eimermacher A, Brannath W, Kieser M. Opportunities and challenges of combined effect measures based on prioritized outcomes. Stat Med. 2014; 33(7):1104–20.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Rauch G, Kunzmann K, Kieser M, Wegscheider K, Koenig J, Eulenburg C. A weighted combined effect measure for the analysis of a composite time-to-first-event endpoint with components of different clinical relevance. Stat Med. 2018; 37(5):749–67.CrossRef Rauch G, Kunzmann K, Kieser M, Wegscheider K, Koenig J, Eulenburg C. A weighted combined effect measure for the analysis of a composite time-to-first-event endpoint with components of different clinical relevance. Stat Med. 2018; 37(5):749–67.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Lin RS, León LF. Estimation of treatment effects in weighted log-rank tests. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017; 8(1):147–55.CrossRef Lin RS, León LF. Estimation of treatment effects in weighted log-rank tests. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017; 8(1):147–55.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Matsumoto M, Nishimura T. Mersenne twister. a 623-dimensionally equidistributed uniform pseudorandom number generator. ACM Trans Model Comput Simul. 1998; 8(1):3–30.CrossRef Matsumoto M, Nishimura T. Mersenne twister. a 623-dimensionally equidistributed uniform pseudorandom number generator. ACM Trans Model Comput Simul. 1998; 8(1):3–30.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Bender R, Augustin T, M B. Generating survival times to simulate cox proportional hazards models. Stat Med. 2005; 24(11):1713–23.CrossRef Bender R, Augustin T, M B. Generating survival times to simulate cox proportional hazards models. Stat Med. 2005; 24(11):1713–23.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Kleinbaum DG, Klein M. Survival Analysis, A Self-Learning Text, Third Edition. New York: Springer; 2012. Kleinbaum DG, Klein M. Survival Analysis, A Self-Learning Text, Third Edition. New York: Springer; 2012.
21.
go back to reference Pletcher SD. Model fitting and hypothesis testing for age-specific mortality data. J Evolution Biol. 1999; 12(3):430–9.CrossRef Pletcher SD. Model fitting and hypothesis testing for age-specific mortality data. J Evolution Biol. 1999; 12(3):430–9.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Introducing a new estimator and test for the weighted all-cause hazard ratio
Authors
Ann-Kathrin Ozga
Geraldine Rauch
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0765-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019 Go to the issue