Evaluating whether the proportional odds models to analyse ordinal outcomes in COVID-19 clinical trials is providing clinically interpretable treatment effects: A systematic review

Abstract

Background After an initial recommendation from the World Health Organisation, trials of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 often include an ordinal clinical status outcome, which comprises a series of ordered categorical variables, typically ranging from ‘Alive and discharged from hospital’ to ‘Dead’. These ordinal outcomes are often analysed using a proportional odds model, which provides a common odds ratio as an overall measure of effect, which is generally interpreted as the odds ratio for being in a higher category. The common odds ratio relies on the assumption of proportional odds, which implies an identical odds ratio across all ordinal categories; however, there is generally no statistical or biological basis for which this assumption should hold; and when violated, the common odds ratio may be a biased representation of the odds ratios for particular categories within the ordinal outcome. In this study, we aimed to evaluate to what extent the common odds ratio in published COVID-19 trials differed to simple binary odds ratios for clinically important outcomes. Methods We conducted a systematic review of randomised trials evaluating interventions for patients hospitalised with COVID-19, which used a proportional odds model to analyse an ordinal clinical status outcome, published between January 2020 and May 2021. We assessed agreement between the common odds ratio and the odds ratio from a standard logistic regression model for three clinically important binary outcomes: ‘Alive’, ‘Alive without mechanical ventilation’, and ‘Alive and discharged from hospital’. Results Sixteen randomised clinical trials, comprising 38 individual comparisons, were included in this study; of these, only 6 trials (38%) formally assessed the proportional odds assumption. The common odds ratio differed by more than 25% compared to the binary odds ratios in 55% of comparisons for the outcome ‘Alive’, 37% for ‘Alive without mechanical ventilation’, and 24% for ‘Alive and discharged from hospital’. In addition, the common odds ratio systematically underestimated the odds ratio for the outcome ‘Alive’ by –16.8% (95% confidence interval: –28.7% to –2.9%, p = 0.02), though differences for the other outcomes were smaller and not statistically significant (–8.4% for ‘Alive without mechanical ventilation’ and 3.6% for ‘Alive and discharged from hospital’). The common odds ratio was statistically significant for 18% of comparisons, while the binary odds ratio was significant in 5%, 16%, and 3% of comparisons for the outcomes ‘Alive’, ‘Alive without mechanical ventilation’, and ‘Alive and discharged from hospital’, respectively. Conclusion The common odds ratio from proportional odds models often differs substantially to odds ratios from clinically important binary outcomes, and similar to composite outcomes, a beneficial common OR from a proportional odds model does not necessarily indicate a beneficial effect on the most important categories within the ordinal outcome.