Using a Clinically Interpretable End Point Composed of Multiple Outcomes to Evaluate Totality of Treatment Effect in Comparative Oncology Studies

No abstrac

How to Quantify and Interpret Treatment Effects in Comparative Clinical Studies of COVID-19.

Clinical trials of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) draw intense public attention. More than ever, valid, transparent, and intuitive summaries of the treatment effects, including efficacy and harm, are needed. In recently published and ongoing randomized comparative trials evaluating treatments for COVID-19, time to a positive outcome, such as recovery or improvement, has repeatedly been used as either the primary or key secondary end point. Because patients may die before recovery or improvement, data analysis of this end point faces a competing risk problem. Commonly used survival analysis techniques, such as the Kaplan-Meier method, often are not appropriate for such situations. Moreover, almost all trials have quantified treatment effects by using the hazard ratio, which is difficult to interpret for a positive event, especially in the presence of competing risks. Using 2 recent trials evaluating treatments (remdesivir and convalescent plasma) for COVID-19 as examples, a valid, well-established yet underused procedure is presented for estimating the cumulative recovery or improvement rate curve across the study period. Furthermore, an intuitive and clinically interpretable summary of treatment efficacy based on this curve is also proposed. Clinical investigators are encouraged to consider applying these methods for quantifying treatment effects in future studies of COVID-19

Quantifying treatment effects in trials with multiple event-time outcomes

Background: Data on the occurrence times of multiple outcomes, reflecting the temporal profile of disease burden/progression, have been used to estimate treatment effects in various recent randomized trials. Most procedures for analyzing these data require specific model assumptions. When the assumptions are not met, the results may be misleading. Robust, model-free procedures for study design and analysis that enable clinically meaningful interpretations are warranted. Methods: For each treatment group, we constructed and summarized the estimated mean cumulative count of events over time by the area under the curve (AUC), which can be interpreted as the mean total event-free time lost from multiple undesirable outcomes. A higher curve, and resulting larger AUC, implies a worse treatment. The treatment effect is quantified by the ratio and/or difference of AUCs. The timing and occurrence of recurrent heart failure hospitalizations (HFHs) and cardiovascular (CV) death from Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction (PARAGON-HF), comparing sacubitril/valsartan with valsartan, are presented for illustration. We also discuss the design of future studies on the basis of the proposed method. Results: With 48 months of follow-up, estimated AUCs, representing the total event-free time lost to HFHs and CV death, were 11.3 and 13.1 event-months for sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan, respectively. The ratio of these AUCs was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.00; P=0.049), a 14% reduction of disease burden favoring combination therapy. A future study, similar to PARAGON-HF, designed using the new proposal would require fewer patients would than a conventional time-to-first-event analysis. Conclusions: The proposed method is robust and model-free and provides a clinically interpretable, time-scale summary of the treatment effect. (Funded by National Institutes of Health.

Utility of Restricted Mean Survival Time Analysis for Heart Failure Clinical Trial Evaluation and Interpretation

The study sought to demonstrate the statistical and utilitarian properties of restricted mean survival time (RMST) and restricted mean time lost (RMTL) for assessing treatments for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction