Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Crit Care Explor. 2024 Sep 20;6(10):e1152. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000001152. eCollection 2024 Oct 1.
Patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure are at high risk of death and prolonged time on the ventilator. Interventions often aim to reduce both mortality and time on the ventilator. Many methods have been proposed for analyzing these endpoints as a single composite outcome (days alive and free of ventilation), but it is unclear which analytical method provides the best performance. Thus, we aimed to determine the analysis method with the highest statistical power for use in clinical trials.
Using statistical simulation, we compared multiple methods for analyzing days alive and free of ventilation: the t, Wilcoxon rank-sum, and Kryger Jensen and Lange tests, as well as the proportional odds, hurdle-Poisson, and competing risk models. We compared 14 scenarios relating to: 1) varying baseline distributions of mortality and duration of ventilation, which were based on data from a registry of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and 2) the varying effects of treatment on mortality and duration of ventilation.
All methods have good control of type 1 error rates (i.e., avoid false positive findings). When data are simulated using a proportional odds model, the t test and ordinal models have the highest relative power (92% and 90%, respectively), followed by competing risk models. When the data are simulated using survival models, the competing risk models have the highest power (100% and 92%), followed by the t test and a ten-category ordinal model. All models struggled to detect the effect of the intervention when the treatment only affected one of mortality and duration of ventilation. Overall, the best performing analytical strategy depends on the respective effects of treatment on survival and duration of ventilation and the underlying distribution of the outcomes. The evaluated models each provide a different interpretation for the treatment effect, which must be considered alongside the statistical power when selecting analysis models.
急性低氧性呼吸衰竭患者死亡风险高,需要长时间使用呼吸机。干预措施通常旨在降低死亡率和呼吸机使用时间。许多方法已被提出用于分析这些终点作为单一综合结果(存活天数和无通气天数),但不清楚哪种分析方法提供最佳性能。因此,我们旨在确定用于临床试验的统计功效最高的分析方法。
我们使用统计模拟比较了分析存活天数和无通气天数的多种方法:t 检验、Wilcoxon 秩和检验、Kryger Jensen 和 Lange检验,以及比例优势、障碍泊松和竞争风险模型。我们比较了与以下 14 种情况相关的 14 种情况:1)基于急性低氧性呼吸衰竭患者登记处的数据,死亡率和通气持续时间的基线分布不同;2)治疗对死亡率和通气持续时间的影响不同。
所有方法的第一类错误率(即避免假阳性发现)都控制得很好。当使用比例优势模型模拟数据时,t 检验和有序模型具有最高的相对功效(分别为 92%和 90%),其次是竞争风险模型。当使用生存模型模拟数据时,竞争风险模型具有最高的功效(100%和 92%),其次是 t 检验和十分类有序模型。当治疗仅影响死亡率和通气持续时间之一时,所有模型都难以检测到干预的效果。总体而言,最佳表现的分析策略取决于治疗对生存和通气持续时间的各自影响以及结果的基础分布。评估的模型为治疗效果提供了不同的解释,在选择分析模型时,必须将其与统计功效结合考虑。