TY - JOUR
T1 - Statistical Power and Performance of Strategies to Analyze Composites of Survival and Duration of Ventilation in Clinical Trials
AU - Chen, Ziming
AU - Harhay, Michael O
AU - Fan, Eddy
AU - Granholm, Anders
AU - McAuley, Daniel F
AU - Urner, Martin
AU - Yarnell, Christopher J
AU - Goligher, Ewan C
AU - Heath, Anna
N1 - Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - BACKGROUND: 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.METHODS: 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.RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: 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.
AB - BACKGROUND: 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.METHODS: 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.RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: 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.
KW - Humans
KW - Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
KW - Respiration, Artificial/mortality
KW - Clinical Trials as Topic/methods
KW - Time Factors
KW - Survival Analysis
KW - Models, Statistical
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85204999721&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/CCE.0000000000001152
DO - 10.1097/CCE.0000000000001152
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 39302988
SN - 2639-8028
VL - 6
SP - e1152
JO - Critical care explorations
JF - Critical care explorations
IS - 10
ER -