Background: Composite outcomes, which combine multiple types of clinical events into a single outcome, are common in clinical trials. The usual analysis considers the time to first occurrence of any event in the composite. The major criticisms of such an approach are (1) this implicitly treats the outcomes as if they were of equal importance, but they often vary in terms of clinical relevance and severity, (2) study participants often experience more than one type of event, and (3) often less severe events occur before more severe ones, but the usual analysis disregards any information beyond that first event. Methods: A novel approach, referred to as the win ratio, which addresses the aforementioned criticisms of composite outcomes, is illustrated with a re-analysis of data on fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular disease time-to-event outcomes reported for the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. In this trial, 12,866 participants were randomized to a special intervention group ( n = 6428) or a usual care ( n = 6438) group. Non-fatal outcomes were ranked by risk of cardiovascular disease death up to 20 years after trial. In one approach, participants in the special intervention and usual care groups were first matched on coronary heart disease risk at baseline and time of enrollment. Each matched pair was categorized as a winner or loser depending on which one experienced a cardiovascular disease death first. If neither died of cardiovascular disease causes, they were evaluated on the most severe non-fatal outcome. This process continued for all the non-fatal outcomes. A second win ratio statistic, obtained from Cox partial likelihood, was also estimated. This statistic provides a valid estimate of the win ratio using multiple events if the marginal and conditional survivor functions of each outcome satisfy proportional hazards. Loss ratio statistics (inverse of win ratios) are compared to hazard ratios from the usual first event analysis. A larger 11-event composite was also considered. Results: For the 7-event cardiovascular disease composite, the previously reported first event analysis based on 581 events in the special intervention group and 652 events in the usual care group yielded a hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) of 0.89 (0.79–0.99), compared to 0.86 (0.77–0.97) and 0.91 (0.81–1.02) for the severity ranked estimates. Results for the 11-event composite also confirmed the findings of the first event analysis. Conclusion: The win ratio analysis was able to leverage information collected past the first experienced event and rank events by severity. The results were similar to and confirmed previously reported traditional first event analysis. The win ratio statistic is a useful adjunct to the traditional first event analysis for trials with composite outcomes.

Summary A number of statistical approaches have been proposed for incorporating supplemental information in randomized clinical trials. Existing methods often compare the marginal treatment effects to evaluate the degree of consistency between sources. Dissimilar marginal treatment effects would either lead to increased bias or down-weighting of the supplemental data. This represents a limitation in the presence of treatment effect heterogeneity, in which case the marginal treatment effect may differ between the sources solely due to differences between the study populations. We introduce the concept of covariate-adjusted exchangeability, in which differences in the marginal treatment effect can be explained by differences in the distributions of the effect modifiers. The potential outcomes framework is used to conceptualize covariate-adjusted and marginal exchangeability. We utilize a linear model and the existing multisource exchangeability models framework to facilitate borrowing when marginal treatment effects are dissimilar but covariate-adjusted exchangeability holds. We investigate the operating characteristics of our method using simulations. We also illustrate our method using data from two clinical trials of very low nicotine content cigarettes. Our method has the ability to incorporate supplemental information in a wider variety of situations than when only marginal exchangeability is considered.

The goal of this paper is to estimate peer influence in video gaming time among adolescents. Using a nationally representative sample of the U.S. school-aged adolescents in 2009–2010, we estimate a structural model that accounts for the potential biases in the estimate of the peer effect. Our peer group is exogenously assigned and includes one year older adolescents in the same school grade as the respondent. The peer measure is based on peers’ own reports of video gaming time. We find that an additional one hour of playing video games per week by older grade-mates results in .47 hours increase in video gaming time by male responders. We do not find significant peer effect among female responders. Effective policies aimed at influencing the time that adolescents spend video gaming should take these findings into account.

Definitive clinical trials are resource intensive, often requiring a large number of participants over several years. One approach to improve the efficiency of clinical trials is to incorporate historical information into the primary trial analysis. This approach has tremendous potential in the areas of pediatric or rare disease trials, where achieving reasonable power is difficult. In this article, we introduce a novel Bayesian group‐sequential trial design based on Multisource Exchangeability Models, which allows for dynamic borrowing of historical information at the interim analyses. Our approach achieves synergy between group sequential and adaptive borrowing methodology to attain improved power and reduced sample size. We explore the frequentist operating characteristics of our design through simulation and compare our method to a traditional group‐sequential design. Our method achieves earlier stopping of the primary study while increasing power under the alternative hypothesis but has a potential for type I error inflation under some null scenarios. We discuss the issues of decision boundary determination, power and sample size calculations, and the issue of information accrual. We present our method for a continuous and binary outcome, as well as in a linear regression setting.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.