Bivariate pseudo-observations for recurrent event analysis with terminal events.

The analysis of recurrent events in the presence of terminal events requires special attention. Several approaches have been suggested for such analyses either using intensity models or marginal models. When analysing treatment effects on recurrent events in controlled trials, special attention should be paid to competing deaths and their impact on interpretation. This paper proposes a method that formulates a marginal model for recurrent events and terminal events simultaneously. Estimation is based on pseudo-observations for both the expected number of events and survival probabilities. Various relevant hypothesis tests in the framework are explored. Theoretical derivations and simulation studies are conducted to investigate the behaviour of the method. The method is applied to two real data examples. The bivariate marginal pseudo-observation model carries the strength of a two-dimensional modelling procedure and performs well in comparison with available models. Finally, an extension to a three-dimensional model, which decomposes the terminal event per death cause, is proposed and exemplified.

Testing equivalence of survival before but not after end of follow-up.

For equivalence trials with survival outcomes, a popular testing approach is the elegant test for equivalence of two survival functions suggested by Wellek (Biometrics 49: 877-881, 1993). This test evaluates whether or not the difference between the true survival curves is practically irrelevant by specifying an equivalence margin on the hazard ratio under the proportional hazards assumption. However, this approach is based on extrapolating the behavior of the survival curves to the whole time axis, whereas in practice survival times are only observed until the end of follow-up. We propose a modification of Welleks test that only addresses equivalence until end of follow-up and derive the large sample properties of this test. Another issue is the proportional hazards assumption which may not be realistic. If this assumption is violated, one may severely misjudge the actual treatment effect with a hazard ratio quantification and wrongly declare equivalence. We suggest a non-parametric test for assessing survival equivalence within the follow-up period. We derive the large sample properties of this test and provide an approximation to the limiting distribution under some mild assumptions on the functional form of the difference between the two survival curves. Both suggestions are investigated by simulation and applied to a clinical trial on survival of gastric cancer patients.