A Nonparametric Global Win Probability Approach to the Analysis and Sizing of Randomized Controlled Trials With Multiple Endpoints of Different Scales and Missing Data: Beyond O'Brien-Wei-Lachin

Overview

Journal Stat Med

Publisher Wiley

Specialty Public Health

Date 2024 Oct 17

PMID 39415652

Authors

Guangyong Zou

Lily Zou

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Multiple primary endpoints are commonly used in randomized controlled trials to assess treatment effects. When the endpoints are measured on different scales, the O'Brien rank-sum test or the Wei-Lachin test for stochastic ordering may be used for hypothesis testing. However, the O'Brien-Wei-Lachin (OWL) approach is unable to handle missing data and adjust for baseline measurements. We present a nonparametric approach for data analysis that encompasses the OWL approach as a special case. Our approach is based on quantifying an endpoint-specific treatment effect using the probability that a participant in the treatment group has a better score than (or a win over) a participant in the control group. The average of the endpoint-specific win probabilities (WinPs), termed the global win probability (gWinP), is used to quantify the global treatment effect, with the null hypothesis gWinP = 0.50. Our approach involves converting the data for each endpoint to endpoint-specific win fractions, and modeling the win fractions using multivariate linear mixed models to obtain estimates of the endpoint-specific WinPs and the associated variance-covariance matrix. Focusing on confidence interval estimation for the gWinP, we derive sample size formulas for clinical trial design. Simulation results demonstrate that our approach performed well in terms of bias, interval coverage percentage, and assurance of achieving a pre-specified precision for the gWinP. Illustrative code for implementing the methods using SAS PROC RANK and PROC MIXED is provided.

References

Finkelstein D, Schoenfeld D . Combining mortality and longitudinal measures in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1999; 18(11):1341-54. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19990615)18:11<1341::aid-sim129>3.0.co;2-7. View

Zou G, Smith E, Zou L, Qiu S, Shu D . A rank-based approach to design and analysis of pretest-posttest randomized trials, with application to COVID-19 ordinal scale data. Contemp Clin Trials. 2023; 126:107085. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2023.107085. View

Huang P, Woolson R, OBrien P . A rank-based sample size method for multiple outcomes in clinical trials. Stat Med. 2008; 27(16):3084-104. PMC: 3163145. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3182. View

Feagan B, Greenberg G, Wild G, Fedorak R, Pare P, McDonald J . Treatment of ulcerative colitis with a humanized antibody to the alpha4beta7 integrin. N Engl J Med. 2005; 352(24):2499-507. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa042982. View

Roy J, Lin X, Ryan L . Scaled marginal models for multiple continuous outcomes. Biostatistics. 2003; 4(3):371-83. DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/4.3.371. View

Zimmermann H, Rahlfs V . Comments on number-needed-to-treat derived from ordinal scales. Stat Methods Med Res. 2014; 23(1):107-10. DOI: 10.1177/0962280212469202. View

Teixeira-Pinto A, Normand S . Correlated bivariate continuous and binary outcomes: issues and applications. Stat Med. 2009; 28(13):1753-73. PMC: 2818753. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3588. View

Vickerstaff V, Ambler G, King M, Nazareth I, Omar R . Are multiple primary outcomes analysed appropriately in randomised controlled trials? A review. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015; 45(Pt A):8-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.07.016. View

Huque M, Sankoh A . A reviewer's perspective on multiple endpoint issues in clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 1997; 7(4):545-64. DOI: 10.1080/10543409708835206. View

10.

DeLong E, Delong D, Clarke-Pearson D . Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988; 44(3):837-45. View

11.

Siddiqui O . MMRM versus MI in dealing with missing data--a comparison based on 25 NDA data sets. J Biopharm Stat. 2011; 21(3):423-36. DOI: 10.1080/10543401003777995. View

12.

Wang B, Ogburn E, Rosenblum M . Analysis of covariance in randomized trials: More precision and valid confidence intervals, without model assumptions. Biometrics. 2019; 75(4):1391-1400. DOI: 10.1111/biom.13062. View

13.

Valentine J, Aloe A . How to communicate effect sizes for continuous outcomes: a review of existing options and introducing a new metric. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 72:84-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.10.017. View

14.

Yoon F, Fitzmaurice G, Lipsitz S, Horton N, Laird N, Normand S . Alternative methods for testing treatment effects on the basis of multiple outcomes: simulation and case study. Stat Med. 2011; 30(16):1917-32. PMC: 3116112. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4262. View

15.

Roy J, Lin X . Latent variable models for longitudinal data with multiple continuous outcomes. Biometrics. 2000; 56(4):1047-54. DOI: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.01047.x. View

16.

Kieburtz K, Tilley B, Elm J, Babcock D, Hauser R, Ross G . Effect of creatine monohydrate on clinical progression in patients with Parkinson disease: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015; 313(6):584-93. PMC: 4349346. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.120. View

17.

Zou G . Confidence interval estimation for treatment effects in cluster randomization trials based on ranks. Stat Med. 2021; 40(14):3227-3250. DOI: 10.1002/sim.8918. View

18.

Tyler K, Normand S, Horton N . The use and abuse of multiple outcomes in randomized controlled depression trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2010; 32(2):299-304. PMC: 3071542. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2010.12.007. View

19.

OBrien P . Procedures for comparing samples with multiple endpoints. Biometrics. 1984; 40(4):1079-87. View

20.

Zou G, Zou L, Choi Y . Distribution-Free Approach to the Design and Analysis of Randomized Stroke Trials With the Modified Rankin Scale. Stroke. 2022; 53(10):3025-3031. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.037744. View