-
A Review of EMA Public Assessment Reports where Non-Proportional Hazards were Identified
Authors:
Florian Klinglmueller,
Norbert Benda,
Tim Friede,
Tobias Fellinger,
Harald Heinzl,
Andrew Hooker,
Franz Koenig,
Tim Mathes,
Martin Posch,
Florian Stampfer,
Susanne Urach
Abstract:
While well-established methods for time-to-event data are available when the proportional hazards assumption holds, there is no consensus on the best approach under non-proportional hazards. A wide range of parametric and non-parametric methods for testing and estimation in this scenario have been proposed. In this review we identified EMA marketing authorization procedures where non-proportional…
▽ More
While well-established methods for time-to-event data are available when the proportional hazards assumption holds, there is no consensus on the best approach under non-proportional hazards. A wide range of parametric and non-parametric methods for testing and estimation in this scenario have been proposed. In this review we identified EMA marketing authorization procedures where non-proportional hazards were raised as a potential issue in the risk-benefit assessment and extract relevant information on trial design and results reported in the corresponding European Assessment Reports (EPARs) available in the database at paediatricdata.eu.
We identified 16 Marketing authorization procedures, reporting results on a total of 18 trials. Most procedures covered the authorization of treatments from the oncology domain. For the majority of trials NPH issues were related to a suspected delayed treatment effect, or different treatment effects in known subgroups. Issues related to censoring, or treatment switching were also identified. For most of the trials the primary analysis was performed using conventional methods assuming proportional hazards, even if NPH was anticipated. Differential treatment effects were addressed using stratification and delayed treatment effect considered for sample size planning. Even though, not considered in the primary analysis, some procedures reported extensive sensitivity analyses and model diagnostics evaluating the proportional hazards assumption. For a few procedures methods addressing NPH (e.g.~weighted log-rank tests) were used in the primary analysis. We extracted estimates of the median survival, hazard ratios, and time of survival curve separation. In addition, we digitized the KM curves to reconstruct close to individual patient level data. Extracted outcomes served as the basis for a simulation study of methods for time to event analysis under NPH.
△ Less
Submitted 18 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
A two-step approach for analyzing time to event data under non-proportional hazards
Authors:
Jonas Brugger,
Tim Friede,
Florian Klinglmüller,
Martin Posch,
Robin Ristl,
Franz König
Abstract:
The log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model are commonly used to compare time-to-event data in clinical trials, as they are most powerful under proportional hazards. But there is a loss of power if this assumption is violated, which is the case for some new oncology drugs like immunotherapies. We consider a two-stage test procedure, in which the weighting of the log-rank test statisti…
▽ More
The log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model are commonly used to compare time-to-event data in clinical trials, as they are most powerful under proportional hazards. But there is a loss of power if this assumption is violated, which is the case for some new oncology drugs like immunotherapies. We consider a two-stage test procedure, in which the weighting of the log-rank test statistic depends on a pre-test of the proportional hazards assumption. I.e., depending on the pre-test either the log-rank or an alternative test is used to compare the survival probabilities. We show that if naively implemented this can lead to a substantial inflation of the type-I error rate. To address this, we embed the two-stage test in a permutation test framework to keep the nominal level alpha. We compare the operating characteristics of the two-stage test with the log-rank test and other tests by clinical trial simulations.
△ Less
Submitted 13 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
A neutral comparison of statistical methods for time-to-event analyses under non-proportional hazards
Authors:
Florian Klinglmüller,
Tobias Fellinger,
Franz König,
Tim Friede,
Andrew C. Hooker,
Harald Heinzl,
Martina Mittlböck,
Jonas Brugger,
Maximilian Bardo,
Cynthia Huber,
Norbert Benda,
Martin Posch,
Robin Ristl
Abstract:
While well-established methods for time-to-event data are available when the proportional hazards assumption holds, there is no consensus on the best inferential approach under non-proportional hazards (NPH). However, a wide range of parametric and non-parametric methods for testing and estimation in this scenario have been proposed. To provide recommendations on the statistical analysis of clinic…
▽ More
While well-established methods for time-to-event data are available when the proportional hazards assumption holds, there is no consensus on the best inferential approach under non-proportional hazards (NPH). However, a wide range of parametric and non-parametric methods for testing and estimation in this scenario have been proposed. To provide recommendations on the statistical analysis of clinical trials where non proportional hazards are expected, we conducted a comprehensive simulation study under different scenarios of non-proportional hazards, including delayed onset of treatment effect, crossing hazard curves, subgroups with different treatment effect and changing hazards after disease progression. We assessed type I error rate control, power and confidence interval coverage, where applicable, for a wide range of methods including weighted log-rank tests, the MaxCombo test, summary measures such as the restricted mean survival time (RMST), average hazard ratios, and milestone survival probabilities as well as accelerated failure time regression models. We found a trade-off between interpretability and power when choosing an analysis strategy under NPH scenarios. While analysis methods based on weighted logrank tests typically were favorable in terms of power, they do not provide an easily interpretable treatment effect estimate. Also, depending on the weight function, they test a narrow null hypothesis of equal hazard functions and rejection of this null hypothesis may not allow for a direct conclusion of treatment benefit in terms of the survival function. In contrast, non-parametric procedures based on well interpretable measures as the RMST difference had lower power in most scenarios. Model based methods based on specific survival distributions had larger power, however often gave biased estimates and lower than nominal confidence interval coverage.
△ Less
Submitted 9 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
-
Methods for non-proportional hazards in clinical trials: A systematic review
Authors:
Maximilian Bardo,
Cynthia Huber,
Norbert Benda,
Jonas Brugger,
Tobias Fellinger,
Vaidotas Galaune,
Judith Heinz,
Harald Heinzl,
Andrew C. Hooker,
Florian Klinglmüller,
Franz König,
Tim Mathes,
Martina Mittlböck,
Martin Posch,
Robin Ristl,
Tim Friede
Abstract:
For the analysis of time-to-event data, frequently used methods such as the log-rank test or the Cox proportional hazards model are based on the proportional hazards assumption, which is often debatable. Although a wide range of parametric and non-parametric methods for non-proportional hazards (NPH) has been proposed, there is no consensus on the best approaches. To close this gap, we conducted a…
▽ More
For the analysis of time-to-event data, frequently used methods such as the log-rank test or the Cox proportional hazards model are based on the proportional hazards assumption, which is often debatable. Although a wide range of parametric and non-parametric methods for non-proportional hazards (NPH) has been proposed, there is no consensus on the best approaches. To close this gap, we conducted a systematic literature search to identify statistical methods and software appropriate under NPH. Our literature search identified 907 abstracts, out of which we included 211 articles, mostly methodological ones. Review articles and applications were less frequently identified. The articles discuss effect measures, effect estimation and regression approaches, hypothesis tests, and sample size calculation approaches, which are often tailored to specific NPH situations. Using a unified notation, we provide an overview of methods available. Furthermore, we derive some guidance from the identified articles. We summarized the contents from the literature review in a concise way in the main text and provide more detailed explanations in the supplement.
△ Less
Submitted 29 January, 2024; v1 submitted 29 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
