Statistics in Biosciences

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 261–285

The Design of Intervention Trials Involving Recurrent and Terminal Events

Article
  • 164 Downloads

Abstract

Clinical trials are often designed to assess the effect of therapeutic interventions on the incidence of recurrent events in the presence of a dependent terminal event such as death. Statistical methods based on multistate analysis have considerable appeal in this setting since they can incorporate changes in risk with each event occurrence, a dependence between the recurrent event and the terminal event, and event-dependent censoring. To date, however, there has been limited development of statistical methods for the design of trials involving recurrent and terminal events. Based on the asymptotic distribution of regression coefficients from a multiplicative intensity Markov regression model, we derive sample size formulas to address power requirements for both the recurrent and terminal event processes. We consider the design of trials for which separate marginal hypothesis tests are of interest for the recurrent and terminal event processes and deal with both superiority and non-inferiority tests. Simulation studies confirm that the designs satisfy the nominal power requirements in both settings, and an application to a trial evaluating the effect of a bisphosphonate on skeletal complications is given for illustration.

Keywords

Multistate model Non-inferiority Recurrent events Sample size Superiority 

References

  1. 1.
    Andersen PK, Borgan Ø, Gill RD, Keiding N (1993) Statistical models based on counting processes. Springer, New York CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    George SL, Desu MM (1974) Planning the size and duration of a clinical trial studying the time to some critical event. J Chronic Dis 27:15–24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Freedman LS (1982) Tables of the number of patients required in clinical trials using the logrank test. Stat Med 1:121–129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schoenfeld DA (1983) Sample-size formula for the proportional-hazards regression model. Biometrics 39:499–503 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lachin JM, Foulkes MA (1986) Evaluation of sample size and power for analyses of survival with allowance for non-uniform patient entry, losses to follow-up, non-compliance and stratification. Biometrics 42:507–519 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cook RJ (1995) The design and analysis of randomized trials with recurrent events. Stat Med 14:2081–2098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lawless JF, Nadeau JC (1995) Nonparametric estimation of cumulative mean functions for recurrent events. Technometrics 37:158–168 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cook RJ, Lawless JF, Nadeau C (1996) Robust tests for treatment comparisons based on recurrent event responses. Biometrics 52:557–571 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bernardo MVP, Harrington DP (2001) Sample size calculations for the two-sample problem using the multiplicative intensity model. Stat Med 20:557–579 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fleming TR, Harrington DP (1991) Counting processes and survival analysis. Wiley, New York MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wei LJ, Lin DY, Weissfeld L (1989) Regression analysis of multivariate incomplete failure time data by modeling marginal distributions. J Am Stat Assoc 84:1065–1073 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hughes MD (1997) Power considerations for clinical trials using multivariate time-to-event data. Stat Med 16:865–882 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Song R, Kosork MR, Cai J (2008) Robust covariate-adjusted log-rank statistics and corresponding sample size formula for recurrent events data. Biometrics 64:741–750 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prentice RL, Williams BJ, Peterson AV (1981) On the regression analysis of multivariate failure time data. Biometrika 68:373–379 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rothmann M, Li N, Chen G, Chi GYH, Temple R, Tsou H-H (2003) Design and analysis of non-inferiority mortality trials in oncology. Stat Med 22:239–264 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaul S, Diamond GA (2006) Good enough: a primer on the analysis and interpretation of noninferiority trials. Ann Intern Med 145:62–69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    D’Agostino RB, Massaro JM, Sullivan LM (2003) Non-inferiority trials: design concepts and issues—the encounters of academic consultants in statistics. Stat Med 22:169–186 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cook RJ, Lee K-A, Li H (2007) Non-inferiority trial design for recurrent events. Stat Med 26:4563–4577 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hortobagyi GN, Theriault RL, Lipton A, Porter L, Blayney D, Sinoff C, Wheeler H, Simeone JF, Seaman JJ, Knight RD, Heffernan M, Mellars K, Reitsma DJ (1998) Long-term prevention of skeletal complications of metastatic breast cancer with pamidronate. Protocol 19 Aredia Breast Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 16:2038–2044 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hortobagyi GN, Theriault RL, Porter L, Blayney D, Lipton A, Sinoff C, Wheeler H, Simeone JF, Seaman J, Knight RD (1996) Efficacy of pamidronate in reducing skeletal complications in patients with breast cancer and lytic bone metastases. Protocol 19 Aredia Breast Cancer Study Group. N Engl J Med 335:1785–1791 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cook RJ, Lawless JF (2007) The statistical analysis of recurrent events. Springer, New York MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cook RJ, Lawless JF, Lakhal-Chaieb L, Lee K-A (2009) Robust estimation of mean functions and treatment effects for recurrent events under event-dependent censoring and termination: application to skeletal complications in cancer metastatic to bone. J Am Stat Assoc 104:60–75 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Andersen PK, Gill RD (1982) Cox regression model for counting processes: a large sample study. Ann Stat 10:1100–1120 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cole EH, Cattran DC, Farewell VT, Aprile M, Bear RA, Pei YP, Fenton SS, Tober JA, Cardella CJ (1994) A comparison of rabbit antithymocyte serum and OKT3 as prophylaxis against renal allograft rejection. Transplantation 57:60–67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Calverley PMA, Anderson JA, Celli B, Ferguson GT, Jenkins C, Jones PW, Yates JC, Vestbo J (TORCH investigators) (2007) Salmeterol and fluticasone propionate and survival in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med 356:775–789 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hubard RA, Inoue LYT, Fann JR (2008) Modeling nonhomogeneous Markov processes via time transformation. Biometrics 64:843–850 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Aalen OO, Borgan Ø, Fekjær H (2001) Covariate adjustment of event histories estimated from Markov chains: the additive approach. Biometrics 57:993–1001 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Datta S, Satten GA (2001) Validity of the Aalen-Johansen estimators of stage occupation probabilities and Nelson–Aalen estimators of integrated transition hazards for non-Markov models. Stat Probab Lett 55:403–411 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ghosh D, Lin DY (2000) Nonparametric analysis of recurrent events and death. Biometrics 56:554–562 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Boher J, Cook RJ (2006) Implications of model misspecification in robust tests for recurrent events. Lifetime Data Anal 12:69–95 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Huang CY, Wang MC (2004) Joint modeling and estimation for recurrent event processes and failure time data. J Am Stat Assoc 99:1153–1165 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Liu L, Wolfe RA, Huang X (2004) Shared frailty models for recurrent events and a terminal event. Biometrics 60:747–756 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rondeau V, Mathoulin-Pelissier S, Jacqmin-Gadda H, Brouste V, Soubeyran P (2007) Joint frailty models for recurring events and death using maximum penalized likelihood estimation: application on cancer events. Biostatistics 8:708–721 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kalbfleisch JD, Lawless JF (1985) The analysis of panel data under a Markov assumption. J Am Stat Assoc 80:863–871 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gill RD (1980) Censoring and stochastic integrals. Mathematical centre tracts, vol 124. Mathematical Centrum, Amsterdam MATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cox DR, Miller HD (1965) The theory of stochastic processes. Wiley, New York MATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Horn RA, Johnson CR (1994) Topics in matrix analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge MATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Moler C, Van Loan C (2003) Nineteen dubious ways to compute the exponential of a matrix, twenty-five years later. SIAM Rev 45:3–49 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Moler C, Van Loan C (1978) Nineteen dubious ways to compute the exponential of a matrix. SIAM Rev 20:801–836 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Higham NJ (2005) The scaling and squaring method for the matrix exponential revisited. SIAM J Matrix Anal Appl 26:1179–1193 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Chinese Statistical Association 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Statistics and Actuarial ScienceUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations