ABSTRACT
For survival analysis in comparative coronavirus disease 2019 trials, the routinely used hazard ratio may not provide a meaningful summary of the treatment effect. The mean survival time difference/ratio is an intuitive, assumption-free alternative. However, for short-term studies, landmark mortality rate differences/ratios are more clinically relevant and should be formally analyzed and reported.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Proportional Hazards Models , SARS-CoV-2 , Survival Analysis , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new treatment for COVID-19 vs. standard care, certain key endpoints are related to the duration of a specific event, such as hospitalization, ICU stay, or receipt of supplemental oxygen. However, since patients may die in the hospital during study follow-up, using, for example, the duration of hospitalization to assess treatment efficacy can be misleading. If the treatment tends to prolong patients' survival compared with standard care, patients in the new treatment group may spend more time in hospital. This can lead to a "survival bias" issue, where a treatment that is effective for preventing death appears to prolong an undesirable outcome. On the other hand, by using hospital-free survival time as the endpoint, we can circumvent the survival bias issue. In this article, we use reconstructed data from a recent, large clinical trial for COVID-19 to illustrate the advantages of this approach. For the analysis of ICU stay or oxygen usage, where the initiating event is potentially an outcome of treatment, standard survival analysis techniques may not be appropriate. We also discuss issues with analyzing the durations of such events.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Clinical Trials as Topic , Duration of Therapy , Patient Care Management , Survival Analysis , Bias , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Clinical Trials as Topic/methods , Clinical Trials as Topic/standards , Endpoint Determination , Hospitalization , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/statistics & numerical data , Patient Care Management/methods , Patient Care Management/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
Clinical trials of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) draw intense public attention. More than ever, valid, transparent, and intuitive summaries of the treatment effects, including efficacy and harm, are needed. In recently published and ongoing randomized comparative trials evaluating treatments for COVID-19, time to a positive outcome, such as recovery or improvement, has repeatedly been used as either the primary or key secondary end point. Because patients may die before recovery or improvement, data analysis of this end point faces a competing risk problem. Commonly used survival analysis techniques, such as the Kaplan-Meier method, often are not appropriate for such situations. Moreover, almost all trials have quantified treatment effects by using the hazard ratio, which is difficult to interpret for a positive event, especially in the presence of competing risks. Using 2 recent trials evaluating treatments (remdesivir and convalescent plasma) for COVID-19 as examples, a valid, well-established yet underused procedure is presented for estimating the cumulative recovery or improvement rate curve across the study period. Furthermore, an intuitive and clinically interpretable summary of treatment efficacy based on this curve is also proposed. Clinical investigators are encouraged to consider applying these methods for quantifying treatment effects in future studies of COVID-19.