Generalized pairwise comparison methods to analyze (non)prioritized composite endpoints

Abstract

In the analysis of composite endpoints in a clinical trial, time to first event analysis techniques such as the logrank test and Cox proportional hazard test do not take into account the multiplicity, importance, and the severity of events in the composite endpoint. Several generalized pairwise comparison analysis methods have been described recently that do allow to take these aspects into account. These methods have the additional benefit that all types of outcomes can be included, such as longitudinal quantitative outcomes, to evaluate the full treatment effect. Four of the generalized pairwise comparison methods, ie, the Finkelstein-Schoenfeld, the Buyse, unmatched Pocock, and adapted O'Brien test, are summarized. They are compared to each other and to the logrank test by means of simulations while specifically evaluating the effect of correlation between components of the composite endpoint on the power to detect a treatment difference. These simulations show that prioritized generalized pairwise comparison methods perform very similarly, are sensitive to the priority rank of the components in the composite endpoint, and do not measure the true treatment effect from the second priority-ranked component onward. The nonprioritized pairwise comparison test does not suffer from these limitations and correlation affects only its variance. KEYWORDS composite endpoint, generalized pairwise comparison, logrank, net benefit, win ratio Statistics in Medicine. 2019;38:5641-5656.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sim

Win odds: An adaptation of the win ratio to include ties

“…Luo et al, 2 Bebu and Lachin, 3 and Dong et al 4 developed inference methods, such as variance estimators and confidence intervals. Wang and Pocock, 5 Oakes, 6 Luo et al, 7 Dong et al, 8‐10 Verbeeck et al, 11,12 and Mao and Wang 13 added to the body of methods, for example, by proposing weighted or stratified versions. The win ratio has been applied in clinical trials, first retrospectively, 4,14‐21 then also prospectively, 22‐27 and even as the primary analysis 28‐31 …”

Exact Bootstrap and Permutation Distribution of Wins and Losses in a Hierarchical Trial

“…It is quite possible that for many pairs of patients the overall comparison will remain 0. It is also possible to have non-transitive comparisons; that is, three patients such that u ij = 1, u jk = 1, and u ki = 1 (Verbeeck et al, 2018).…”

The inverse-probability-of-censoring weighting (IPCW) adjusted win ratio statistic: an unbiased estimator in the presence of independent censoring

“…The win ratio and the net benefit (Buyse, 2010;Péron et al, 2016 and2018) build on generalized pairwise comparisons (GPC), introduced by Buyse (2010). Verbeeck et al (2019 and comprehensively compare the win ratio, the net benefit and related methods.…”