Conventional methods for analyzing composite endpoints in clinical trials often only focus on the time to the first occurrence of all events in the composite. Therefore, they have inherent limitations because the individual patients' first event can be the outcome of lesser clinical importance. To overcome this limitation, the concept of the win ratio (WR), which accounts for the relative priorities of the components and gives appropriate priority to the more clinically important event, was examined. For example, because mortality has a higher priority than hospitalization, it is reasonable to give a higher priority when obtaining the WR. In this paper, we evaluate three innovative WR methods (stratified matched, stratified unmatched, and unstratified unmatched) for two and multiple components under binary and survival composite endpoints. We compare these methods to traditional ones, including the Cox regression, O'Brien's rank-sum-type test, and the contingency table for controlling study Type I error rate. We also incorporate these approaches into two-stage enrichment designs with the possibility of sample size adaptations to gain efficiency for rare disease studies.
翻译:临床试验中分析复合终点的常规方法往往只侧重于首次发生所有事件的时间到时间,因此,这些方法具有内在的局限性,因为个别病人的第一次事件可能是临床重要性较低的结果。为了克服这一局限性,研究了占各组成部分相对优先事项并适当优先处理较临床重要事件的双赢率概念。例如,由于死亡率高于住院治疗,因此在获得RW时有理由给予更高的优先地位。在本文件中,我们评估了在二进制和生存复合终点下两种和多种组成部分的WWR创新方法(批准匹配、分级不匹配和未分级不匹配)。我们将这些方法与传统方法,包括Cox回归、O'Brien的排名和类型测试以及控制研究类型I错误率的应急表进行了比较。我们还将这些方法纳入两阶段浓缩设计,并有可能为罕见疾病研究进行抽样规模调整以提高效率。