Survival analysis for AdVerse events with VarYing follow-up times (SAVVY): Rationale and statistical concept of a meta-analytic study

The assessment of safety is an important aspect of the evaluation of new therapies in clinical trials, with analyses of adverse events being an essential part of this. Standard methods for the analysis of adverse events such as the incidence proportion, i.e. the number of patients with a specific adverse event out of all patients in the treatment groups, do not account for both varying follow-up times and competing risks. Alternative approaches such as the Aalen-Johansen estimator of the cumulative incidence function have been suggested. Theoretical arguments and numerical evaluations support the application of these more advanced methodology, but as yet there is to our knowledge only insufficient empirical evidence whether these methods would lead to different conclusions in safety evaluations. The Survival analysis for AdVerse events with VarYing follow-up times (SAVVY) project strives to close this gap in evidence by conducting a meta-analytical study to assess the impact of the methodology on the conclusion of the safety assessment empirically. Here we present the rationale and statistical concept of the empirical study conducted as part of the SAVVY project. The statistical methods are presented in unified notation and examples of their implementation in R and SAS are provided

Survival analysis for AdVerse events with VarYing follow-up times (SAVVY) -- comparison of adverse event risks in randomized controlled trials

Analyses of adverse events (AEs) are an important aspect of the evaluation of experimental therapies. The SAVVY (Survival analysis for AdVerse events with Varying follow-up times) project aims to improve the analyses of AE data in clinical trials through the use of survival techniques appropriately dealing with varying follow-up times, censoring, and competing events (CE). In an empirical study including seventeen randomized clinical trials the effect of varying follow-up times, censoring, and competing events on comparisons of two treatment arms with respect to AE risks is investigated. The comparisons of relative risks (RR) of standard probability-based estimators to the gold-standard Aalen-Johansen estimator or hazard-based estimators to an estimated hazard ratio (HR) from Cox regression are done descriptively, with graphical displays, and using a random effects meta-analysis on AE level. The influence of different factors on the size of the bias is investigated in a meta-regression. We find that for both, avoiding bias and categorization of evidence with respect to treatment effect on AE risk into categories, the choice of the estimator is key and more important than features of the underlying data such as percentage of censoring, CEs, amount of follow-up, or value of the gold-standard RR. There is an urgent need to improve the guidelines of reporting AEs so that incidence proportions are finally replaced by the Aalen-Johansen estimator - rather than by Kaplan-Meier - with appropriate definition of CEs. For RRs based on hazards, the HR based on Cox regression has better properties than the ratio of incidence densities

Survival analysis for AdVerse events with VarYing follow-up times (SAVVY) -- estimation of adverse event risks

The SAVVY project aims to improve the analyses of adverse event (AE) data in clinical trials through the use of survival techniques appropriately dealing with varying follow-up times and competing events (CEs). Although statistical methodologies have advanced, in AE analyses often the incidence proportion, the incidence density, or a non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimator (KME) are used, which either ignore censoring or CEs. In an empirical study including randomized clinical trials from several sponsor organisations, these potential sources of bias are investigated. The main aim is to compare the estimators that are typically used in AE analysis to the Aalen-Johansen estimator (AJE) as the gold-standard. Here, one-sample findings are reported, while a companion paper considers consequences when comparing treatment groups. Estimators are compared with descriptive statistics, graphical displays and with a random effects meta-analysis. The influence of different factors on the size of the bias is investigated in a meta-regression. Comparisons are conducted at the maximum follow-up time and at earlier evaluation time points. CEs definition does not only include death before AE but also end of follow-up for AEs due to events possibly related to the disease course or the treatment. Ten sponsor organisations provided 17 trials including 186 types of AEs. The one minus KME was on average about 1.2-fold larger than the AJE. Leading forces influencing bias were the amount of censoring and of CEs. As a consequence, the average bias using the incidence proportion was less than 5%. Assuming constant hazards using incidence densities was hardly an issue provided that CEs were accounted for. There is a need to improve the guidelines of reporting risks of AEs so that the KME and the incidence proportion are replaced by the AJE with an appropriate definition of CEs