Nested exposure case-control sampling: a sampling scheme to analyze rare time-dependent exposures

For large cohort studies with rare outcomes, the nested case-control design only requires data collection of small subsets of the individuals at risk. These are typically randomly sampled at the observed event times and a weighted, stratified analysis takes over the role of the full cohort analysis. Motivated by observational studies on the impact of hospital-acquired infection on hospital stay outcome, we are interested in situations, where not necessarily the outcome is rare, but time-dependent exposure such as the occurrence of an adverse event or disease progression is. Using the counting process formulation of general nested case-control designs, we propose three sampling schemes where not all commonly observed outcomes need to be included in the analysis. Rather, inclusion probabilities may be time-dependent and may even depend on the past sampling and exposure history. A bootstrap analysis of a full cohort data set from hospital epidemiology allows us to investigate the practical utility of the proposed sampling schemes in comparison to a full cohort analysis and a too simple application of the nested case-control design, if the outcome is not rare.

     

Estimating and comparing adverse event probabilities in the presence of varying follow-up times and competing events

Safety analyses of adverse events (AEs) are important in assessing benefit–risk of therapies but are often rather simplistic compared to efficacy analyses. AE probabilities are typically estimated by incidence proportions, sometimes incidence densities or Kaplan–Meier estimation are proposed. These analyses either do not account for censoring, rely on a too restrictive parametric model, or ignore competing events. With the non-parametric Aalen-Johansen estimator as the “gold standard”, that is, reference estimator, potential sources of bias are investigated in an example from oncology and in simulations, for both one-sample and two-sample scenarios. The Aalen-Johansen estimator serves as a reference, because it is the proper non-parametric generalization of the Kaplan–Meier estimator to multiple outcomes. Because of potential large variances at the end of follow-up, comparisons also consider further quantiles of the observed times. To date, consequences for safety comparisons have hardly been investigated, the impact of using different estimators for group comparisons being unclear. For example, the ratio of two both underestimating or overestimating estimators may not be comparable to the ratio of the reference, and our investigation also considers the ratio of AE probabilities. We find that ignoring competing events is more of a problem than falsely assuming constant hazards by the use of the incidence density and that the choice of the AE probability estimator is crucial for group comparisons.     

The wild bootstrap for multivariate Nelson–Aalen estimators

Lifetime Data Analysis - We rigorously extend the widely used wild bootstrap resampling technique to the multivariate Nelson–Aalen estimator under Aalen’s multiplicative intensity...     

A competing risks approach for nonparametric estimation of transition probabilities in a non-Markov illness-death model

Competing risks model time to first event and type of first event. An example from hospital epidemiology is the incidence of hospital-acquired infection, which has to account for hospital discharge of non-infected patients as a competing risk. An illness-death model would allow to further study hospital outcomes of infected patients. Such a model typically relies on a Markov assumption. However, it is conceivable that the future course of an infected patient does not only depend on the time since hospital admission and current infection status but also on the time since infection. We demonstrate how a modified competing risks model can be used for nonparametric estimation of transition probabilities when the Markov assumption is violated.     

On estimands and the analysis of adverse events in the presence of varying follow‐up times within the benefit assessment of therapies

The analysis of adverse events (AEs) is a key component in the assessment of a drug's safety profile. Inappropriate analysis methods may result in misleading conclusions about a therapy's safety and consequently its benefit‐risk ratio. The statistical analysis of AEs is complicated by the fact that the follow‐up times can vary between the patients included in a clinical trial. This paper takes as its focus the analysis of AE data in the presence of varying follow‐up times within the benefit assessment of therapeutic interventions. Instead of approaching this issue directly and solely from an analysis point of view, we first discuss what should be estimated in the context of safety data, leading to the concept of estimands. Although the current discussion on estimands is mainly related to efficacy evaluation, the concept is applicable to safety endpoints as well. Within the framework of estimands, we present statistical methods for analysing AEs with the focus being on the time to the occurrence of the first AE of a specific type. We give recommendations which estimators should be used for the estimands described. Furthermore, we state practical implications of the analysis of AEs in clinical trials and give an overview of examples across different indications. We also provide a review of current practices of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies with respect to the evaluation of safety data. Finally, we describe problems with meta‐analyses of AE data and sketch possible solutions.     

Multistate modeling of clinical hold in randomized clinical trials

A clinical hold order by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the sponsor of a clinical trial is a measure to delay a proposed or to suspend an ongoing clinical investigation. The phase III clinical trial START serves as motivating data example to explore implications and potential statistical approaches for a trial continuing after a clinical hold is lifted. In spite of a modified intention‐to‐treat (ITT) analysis introduced to account for the clinical hold by excluding patients potentially affected most by the clinical hold, results of the trial did not show a significant improvement of overall survival duration, and the question remains whether the negative result was an effect of the clinical hold. In this paper, we propose a multistate model incorporating the clinical hold as well as disease progression as intermediate events to investigate the impact of the clinical hold on the treatment effect. Moreover, we consider a simple counterfactual censoring approach as alternative strategy to the modified ITT analysis to deal with a clinical hold. Using a realistic simulation study informed by the START data and with a design based on our multistate model, we show that the modified ITT analysis used in the START trial was reasonable. However, the censoring approach will be shown to have some benefits in terms of power and flexibility.