Covariate adjustment for hierarchical outcomes and the win ratio: how to do it and is it worthwhile?
Hazewinkel, A.-D.; Gregson, J.; Bartlett, J. W.; Gasparyan, S. B.; Wright, D.; Pocock, S.
Show abstract
Objectives: Introducing a new covariate adjustment method for hierarchical outcomes using ordinal logistic regression, comparing it with existing approaches, and assessing whether adjustment improves power in randomized trials with hierarchical outcomes. Methods: We developed an ordinal regression-based method for covariate adjustment of the win ratio and compared it with three alternatives: probability index models, inverse probability weighting, and a randomization-based estimator. Methods were applied to the EMPEROR-Preserved rial and tested through extensive simulations involving two common hierarchical outcome structures: time-to-event composites, and composites combining time-to-event with quantitative measures. Simulations assessed impacts on estimates, standard errors, and power across prognostic and non-prognostic settings. Results: In RCT data and simulations, covariate adjustment consistently increased power when adjusting for prognostic baseline variables. Gains were comparable to or greater than those in conventional Cox models, with no power loss for non-prognostic covariates. Our ordinal approach performed similarly to existing methods while providing interpretable covariate effect estimates. Adjusting for baseline values of quantitative components yielded power gains according to the baseline-to-follow-up correlation. Conclusions: Covariate adjustment for prognostic variables meaningfully improves efficiency in win ratio analyses for hierarchical outcomes. Our ordinal method is easily implemented and facilitates covariate effect interpretation. We recommend the broader adoption of covariate adjustment and our ordinal method in randomized trials using hierarchical outcomes.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Biomarker panels for improved risk prediction and enhanced biological insights in patients with atrial fibrillation 92%
- A Standardized Metric to Enhance Clinical Trial Design and Outcome Interpretation in Type 1 Diabetes 92%
- Deep representation learning for clustering longitudinal survival data from electronic health records 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Incorporating data from multiple endpoints in the analysis of clinical trials: example from RSV vaccines 94%
- Negative Control Exposures: Causal effect Identifiability and Use in Probabilistic-Bias and Bayesian Analyses with Unmeasured Confounders 93%
- Use of recently vaccinated individuals to detect bias in test-negative case-control studies of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Sparse Dimensionality Reduction Approaches in Mendelian Randomization with highly correlated exposures 92%
- The Proportion of Randomized Controlled Trials That Inform Clinical Practice: A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 91%
- An in silico FSHD muscle fibre for modelling DUX4 dynamics and predicting the impact of therapy 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- External control arm analysis: an evaluation of propensity score approaches, G-computation, and doubly debiased machine learning 94%
- Comparing randomized trial designs to estimate treatment effect in rare diseases with longitudinal models: a simulation study showcased by Autosomal Recessive Cerebellar Ataxias using the SARA score 94%
- Quantitative bias analysis in practice: Review of software for regression with unmeasured confounding 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.