arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2008.07883stat.AP

针对随访时间不定的不良事件的生存分析(SAVVY)——不良事件风险的估计

Survival analysis for AdVerse events with VarYing follow-up times (SAVVY) -- estimation of adverse event risks

Regina Stegherr, Claudia Schmoor, Jan Beyersmann, Kaspar Rufibach, Valentine Jehl, Andreas Brückner, Lewin Eisele, Thomas Künzel, Katrin Kupas, Frank Langer, Fr… 展开作者

Regina Stegherr, Claudia Schmoor, Jan Beyersmann, Kaspar Rufibach, Valentine Jehl, Andreas Brückner, Lewin Eisele, Thomas Künzel, Katrin Kupas, Frank Langer, Friedhelm Leverkus, Anja Loos, Christiane Norenberg, Florian Voss, Tim Friede

AI总结:

SAVVY项目通过比较Kaplan-Meier估计量、发生率比例和发生密度与Aalen-Johansen估计量,揭示忽略删失和竞争事件会导致不良事件风险估计偏倚,并建议以AJE作为金标准改进临床试验不良事件风险报告。

摘要:

SAVVY项目旨在通过使用能够恰当处理不同随访时间和竞争事件(CEs)的生存分析技术,改进临床试验中不良事件(AE)数据的分析。尽管统计方法已经有所发展,但在不良事件分析中,通常仍使用发生率比例、发生密度或非参数Kaplan-Meier估计量(KME),这些方法要么忽略删失,要么忽略竞争事件。在一项包含来自多个申办方组织的随机临床试验的经验研究中,对这些潜在的偏倚来源进行了考察。主要目的是将不良事件分析中通常使用的估计量与作为金标准的Aalen-Johansen估计量(AJE)进行比较。本文报告单样本结果,而一篇配套论文则考虑在比较治疗组时所产生的后果。通过描述性统计、图形展示以及随机效应荟萃分析对各估计量进行比较。在荟萃回归中考察不同因素对偏倚大小的影响。比较在最大随访时间点和更早的评估时间点进行。竞争事件的定义不仅包括不良事件发生前的死亡,还包括由于可能与疾病进程或治疗相关的事件而导致的不良事件随访结束。十个申办方组织提供了17项试验,包括186种不良事件类型。1减KME平均约为AJE的1.2倍。影响偏倚的主要因素是删失量和竞争事件量。因此,使用发生率比例的平均偏倚小于5%。在考虑竞争事件的前提下,使用发生密度并假设恒定风险几乎不成问题。有必要改进不良事件风险报告的指南,以便用具有适当竞争事件定义的AJE取代KME和发生率比例。

英文摘要:

The SAVVY project aims to improve the analyses of adverse event (AE) data in clinical trials through the use of survival techniques appropriately dealing with varying follow-up times and competing events (CEs). Although statistical methodologies have advanced, in AE analyses often the incidence proportion, the incidence density, or a non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimator (KME) are used, which either ignore censoring or CEs. In an empirical study including randomized clinical trials from several sponsor organisations, these potential sources of bias are investigated. The main aim is to compare the estimators that are typically used in AE analysis to the Aalen-Johansen estimator (AJE) as the gold-standard. Here, one-sample findings are reported, while a companion paper considers consequences when comparing treatment groups. Estimators are compared with descriptive statistics, graphical displays and with a random effects meta-analysis. The influence of different factors on the size of the bias is investigated in a meta-regression. Comparisons are conducted at the maximum follow-up time and at earlier evaluation time points. CEs definition does not only include death before AE but also end of follow-up for AEs due to events possibly related to the disease course or the treatment. Ten sponsor organisations provided 17 trials including 186 types of AEs. The one minus KME was on average about 1.2-fold larger than the AJE. Leading forces influencing bias were the amount of censoring and of CEs. As a consequence, the average bias using the incidence proportion was less than 5%. Assuming constant hazards using incidence densities was hardly an issue provided that CEs were accounted for. There is a need to improve the guidelines of reporting risks of AEs so that the KME and the incidence proportion are replaced by the AJE with an appropriate definition of CEs.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑