Comparison of total event analysis and first event analysis in relation to heterogeneity in cardiovascular trials
Shun-Fu Lee1,2, Chinthanie Ramasundarahettige3, Hertzel C Gerstein3,4
1Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, 237 Barton Street East Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, L8L 2X2, Canada. shunfu.lee@phri.ca.
Insights
Analyzing total cardiovascular events, not just the first, improves understanding. The Andersen-Gill and Lin-Wei-Yang-Ying models showed better power and accuracy, especially with high heterogeneity.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular research
- Biostatistics
- Clinical trial analysis
Background:
- Analyzing total events in cardiovascular trials offers deeper participant health insights than time-to-first event analysis.
- Accounting for between-subject heterogeneity is crucial for accurate multiple-event analyses.
Purpose of the Study:
- Compare effect sizes from first event vs. total event analyses in three major cardiovascular trials.
- Evaluate the impact of heterogeneity on total event analysis methods.
- Assess the performance of various statistical models in capturing treatment effects across multiple events.
Main Methods:
- Compared Cox model (first event) with Negative Binomial, Andersen-Gill (AG), Prentice-Williams-Peterson (PWP), Wei-Lin-Weissfeld (WLW), and Lin-Wei-Yang-Ying (LWYY) models (total events).
- Analyzed data from ORIGIN, COMPASS, and TRANSCEND trials, assessing hazard ratios (HRs), risk ratios (RRs), and confidence intervals (CIs).
- Used simulations to evaluate Type I error, power, and mean squared error (MSE) under varying heterogeneity levels.
Main Results:
- Total event approaches demonstrated approximately 5% higher statistical power than the Cox model.
- Power decreased significantly with increasing heterogeneity across all methods.
- AG, PWP gap, and LWYY models showed superior power for total event analysis.
- AG and LWYY models achieved the lowest mean squared error, indicating greater accuracy.
Conclusions:
- High heterogeneity, where few patients have many events, impacts analysis, especially with low overall incidence.
- Effect size and CI width remained consistent across methods with low heterogeneity.
- AG and LWYY models slightly outperformed other total event analysis methods, particularly in scenarios with high heterogeneity.
Background:
In cardiovascular (CV) trials, analyzing the total number of events, rather than just time-to-first event, enhances understanding of participants' health. Adapting Cox models to account for between-subject heterogeneity in multiple events and understanding its impact plays crucial roles in total event analysis.
Method:
This study compares effect sizes from first event and total event analyses in three cardiovascular trials: ORIGIN (N = 12,537, median follow-up of 6.2 years), COMPASS (N = 18,278, median follow-up of 1.8 years), TRANSCEND (N = 5,926, median follow-up of 1.1 years). It also examines the impact of heterogeneity, measured by the negative binomial overdispersion parameter. Treatment effects were assessed using the Cox model for first events and the negative binomial (NB), Andersen-Gill (AG), Prentice-Williams-Peterson (PWP), Wei-Lin-Weissfeld (WLW), and Lin-Wei-Yang-Ying (LWYY) models for total events. Hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios (RRs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and CI widths were reported. The risk ratio applies to negative binomial. The first composite was consisted of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, cardiovascular death. Simulations assessed Type I error, power, and mean squared error across the different approaches.
Results:
In ORIGIN, the incidence per 100 years increased from 2.9 to 3.8 for the first composite with a heterogeneity of 2.4. The HR or RR for the first composite was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.94-1.12, CI width = 0.18) using Cox, 1.01 (95% CI, 0.92-1.11, CI width = 0.19) for NB, 1.01 (95% CI, 0.94-1.09, CI width = 0.15) for AG, 1.02 (95% CI, 0.94-1.10, CI width = 0.16) for PWP total, 1.01 (95% CI, 0.94-1.09, CI width = 0.15) for PWP gap, 1.03 (95% CI, 0.94-1.12, CI width = 0.18) for WLW and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.92-1.11, CI width = 0.19) for LWYY. Similar trends were observed in other studies. Our simulation results showed that total event approaches had approximately 5% higher power than the Cox model, though power declined exponentially across all methods with increasing heterogeneity. Among the total event methods, AG, PWP gap, and LWYY demonstrated better power, with AG and LWYY also achieving the smallest mean squared error (MSE).
Conclusions:
High heterogeneity arises when a small number of patients experience a disproportionately large number of events. This effect is more pronounced when the overall event incidence is low and few patients experience any events. The effect size and CI width stayed consistent with low heterogeneity across different approaches. Power decreased with high heterogeneity. The AG and LWYY approaches slightly outperformed the other approaches.
Clinical Trial Registration:
ORIGIN (NCT00069784), COMPASS (NCT01776424), TRANSCEND (NCT00153101).
More Related Videos
08:36Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
Published on: April 19, 2024
18:11A Research Method For Detecting Transient Myocardial Ischemia In Patients With Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome Using Continuous ST-segment Analysis
Published on: December 28, 2012
Related Concept Videos
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
One-Way ANOVA: Equal Sample Sizes
Different sample means can result in different values for the variance estimate: variance between samples. This is because the variance between samples is calculated as the product of the sample size and the variance between the...
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...
One-Way ANOVA
Statistical Significance
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
