Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2022 Jan 20;22(1):24.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01475-8.

Comparison of statistical methods for the analysis of recurrent adverse events in the presence of non-proportional hazards and unobserved heterogeneity: a simulation study

Noel Patson  1   2 , Mavuto Mukaka  3   4 , Lawrence Kazembe  5 , Marinus J C Eijkemans  6 , Don Mathanga  7 , Miriam K Laufer  8 , Tobias Chirwa  9
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Comparison of statistical methods for the analysis of recurrent adverse events in the presence of non-proportional hazards and unobserved heterogeneity: a simulation study

Noel Patson et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: In preventive drug trials such as intermittent preventive treatment for malaria prevention during pregnancy (IPTp), where there is repeated treatment administration, recurrence of adverse events (AEs) is expected. Challenges in modelling the risk of the AEs include accounting for time-to-AE and within-patient-correlation, beyond the conventional methods. The correlation comes from two sources; (a) individual patient unobserved heterogeneity (i.e. frailty) and (b) the dependence between AEs characterised by time-dependent treatment effects. Potential AE-dependence can be modelled via time-dependent treatment effects, event-specific baseline and event-specific random effect, while heterogeneity can be modelled via subject-specific random effect. Methods that can improve the estimation of both the unobserved heterogeneity and treatment effects can be useful in understanding the evolution of risk of AEs, especially in preventive trials where time-dependent treatment effect is expected.

Methods: Using both a simulation study and the Chloroquine for Malaria in Pregnancy (NCT01443130) trial data to demonstrate the application of the models, we investigated whether the lognormal shared frailty models with restricted cubic splines and non-proportional hazards (LSF-NPH) assumption can improve estimates for both frailty variance and treatment effect compared to the conventional inverse Gaussian shared frailty model with proportional hazard (ISF-PH), in the presence of time-dependent treatment effects and unobserved patient heterogeneity. We assessed the bias, precision gain and coverage probability of 95% confidence interval of the frailty variance estimates for the models under varying known unobserved heterogeneity, sample sizes and time-dependent effects.

Results: The ISF-PH model provided a better coverage probability of 95% confidence interval, less bias and less precise frailty variance estimates compared to the LSF-NPH models. The LSF-NPH models yielded unbiased hazard ratio estimates at the expense of imprecision and high mean square error compared to the ISF-PH model.

Conclusion: The choice of the shared frailty model for the recurrent AEs analysis should be driven by the study objective. Using the LSF-NPH models is appropriate if unbiased hazard ratio estimation is of primary interest in the presence of time-dependent treatment effects. However, ISF-PH model is appropriate if unbiased frailty variance estimation is of primary interest.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01443130.

Keywords: Non-proportional hazards; Randomised controlled trials; Recurrent adverse events; Unobserved heterogeneity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Average model standard errors (SE) for the frailty variance estimates across shared frailty models under varying data-generating mechanisms
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Munsaka MS. Biopharmaceutical Applied Statistics Symposium. Biostatistical analysis of clinical trials, Vol. 2. Singapore: Springer; 2018. A question-based approach to the analysis of safety data; pp. 193–216.
    1. Patson N, Mukaka M, Otwombe KN, Kazembe L, Mathanga DP, Mwapasa V, Kabaghe AN, Eijkemans MJC, Laufer MK, Chirwa T. Systematic review of statistical methods for safety data in malaria chemoprevention in pregnancy trials. Malar J. 2020;19(1):119. doi: 10.1186/s12936-020-03190-z. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Phillips R, Cornelius V. Understanding current practice, identifying barriers and exploring priorities for adverse event analysis in randomised controlled trials: an online, cross-sectional survey of statisticians from academia and industry. BMJ Open. 2020;10(6):e036875. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-036875. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Colopy MW, Gordon R, Ahmad F, Wang WW, Duke SP, Ball G. Statistical practices of safety monitoring: an industry survey. Ther Innov Reg Sci. 2019;53(3):293–300. doi: 10.1177/2168479018779973. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Siddiqui O. Statistical methods to analyze adverse events data of randomized clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2009;19(5):889–899. doi: 10.1080/10543400903105463. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data