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.
Abstract

Related Concept Videos

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups01:20

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

Survival analysis is a cornerstone of medical research, used to evaluate the time until an event of interest occurs, such as death, disease recurrence, or recovery. Unlike standard statistical methods, survival analysis is particularly adept at handling censored data—instances where the event has not occurred for some participants by the end of the study or remains unobserved. To address these unique challenges, specialized techniques like the Kaplan-Meier estimator, log-rank test, and...
158
One-Way ANOVA: Equal Sample Sizes01:15

One-Way ANOVA: Equal Sample Sizes

One-Way ANOVA can be performed on three or more samples with equal or unequal sample sizes. When one-way ANOVA is performed on two datasets with samples of equal sizes, it can be easily observed that the computed F statistic is highly sensitive to the sample mean.
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...
3.2K
Hazard Ratio01:12

Hazard Ratio

The hazard ratio (HR) is a widely used measure in clinical trials to compare the risk of events, such as death or disease recurrence, between two groups over time. It reflects the ratio of hazard rates—the instantaneous risk of the event occurring—between a treatment group and a control group. This measure provides valuable insights into the relative effectiveness of a treatment by assessing how the risk of an event differs between the two groups.
For example, in a clinical trial...
92
One-Way ANOVA01:18

One-Way ANOVA

One-way ANOVA analyzes more than three samples categorized by one factor. For example, it can compare the average mileage of sports bikes. Here, the data is categorized by one factor - the company. However, one-way ANOVA cannot be used to simultaneously compare the sample mean of three or more samples categorized by two factors. An example of two factors would be sports bikes from different companies driven in different terrains, such as a desert or snowy landscape. Here, two-way ANOVA is used...
7.9K
Statistical Significance01:50

Statistical Significance

Once data is collected from both the experimental and the control groups, a statistical analysis is conducted to find out if there are meaningful differences between the two groups. A statistical analysis determines how likely any difference found is due to chance (and thus not meaningful). In psychology, group differences are considered meaningful, or significant, if the odds that these differences occurred by chance alone are 5 percent or less. Stated another way, if we repeated this...
20.1K
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches01:23

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
124