Suppr超能文献

多时间事件终点方法的研究:慢性髓细胞白血病数据分析。

Investigations of methods for multiple time-to-event endpoints: A chronic myeloid leukemia data analysis.

机构信息

Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health (Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Tropical Disease Research), Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.

Department of Statistics, School of Economics, Jinan University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.

出版信息

J Eval Clin Pract. 2023 Feb;29(1):211-217. doi: 10.1111/jep.13752. Epub 2022 Aug 9.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In randomized controlled trials, multiple time-to-event endpoints are commonly used to determine treatment effects. However, choosing an appropriate method to address multiple endpoints, according to different purposes of clinical practice, is a challenge for researchers.

METHODS

We applied single endpoint, composite endpoint and win ratio analysis to chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) data to illustrate the distinctions with different multiple endpoints, including relapse, recovery and death after transplantation.

RESULTS

Regarding relapse and death, the hazard ratio in single endpoint analysis (HR ) were 1.281 (95% CI: 1.061-1.546) and hazard ratio in composite endpoint analysis (HR ) were 1.286 (95% CI: 1.112-1.486) and 1/WR (win ratio) was 1.292 (95% CI: 1.115-1.497) indicated a similar negative effect for non-prophylaxis patients. However, when considering recovery and death, the corresponding HR  = 1.280 (95% CI: 1.056-1.552) may not be enough to describe the effect on death with nonproportional hazards (p < 0.05), and for the composite endpoint analysis, the HR  = 0.828 (95% CI: 0.740-0.926) cannot quantify and interpret the clinical effect on the composite endpoint with the combination of recovery and death, while the 1/WR = 1.351 (95% CI: 1.207-1.513) showed an unfavourable effect for non-prophylaxis patients CONCLUSIONS: When dealing with multiple endpoints, single endpoints, researchers may choose single endpoints, composite endpoints and WR analysis due to different clinical applications and purposes. However, both single and composite endpoint analyses are hazard-based measures, and thus, the proportional hazards assumption should be considered. Moreover, composite endpoint analysis should be applied for endpoints with similar clinical meanings but not opposing implications. Win ratio analysis can be considered for different clinical importance of multiple endpoints, but the meaning of 'winner' needs to be specified for desired or undesired endpoints.

摘要

背景

在随机对照试验中,常使用多个生存时间终点来评估治疗效果。然而,根据临床实践的不同目的,选择适当的方法来处理多个终点是研究者面临的挑战。

方法

我们应用单终点、复合终点和赢率分析方法,对慢性髓性白血病(CML)数据进行分析,以说明不同的多个终点(包括移植后复发、恢复和死亡)之间的区别。

结果

对于复发和死亡,单终点分析的风险比(HR)为 1.281(95%CI:1.061-1.546),复合终点分析的 HR 为 1.286(95%CI:1.112-1.486),赢率(WR)为 1.292(95%CI:1.115-1.497),这表明非预防组患者的复发和死亡有类似的负面效应。然而,当考虑恢复和死亡时,相应的 HR=1.280(95%CI:1.056-1.552)可能不足以描述非比例风险下的死亡效应(p<0.05),而对于复合终点分析,HR=0.828(95%CI:0.740-0.926)无法量化和解释恢复和死亡复合终点的临床效果,而 WR=1.351(95%CI:1.207-1.513)则显示非预防组患者的不利影响。

结论

在处理多个终点时,研究者可能会根据不同的临床应用和目的选择单终点、复合终点和 WR 分析。然而,单终点和复合终点分析都是基于风险的衡量方法,因此应考虑比例风险假设。此外,应将复合终点分析应用于具有相似临床意义但无相反含义的终点。对于多个终点的不同临床重要性,可以考虑赢率分析,但需要为期望或不期望的终点指定“赢家”的含义。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验