Sample size for a non-inferiority clinical trial with time-to-event data in the presence of competing risks
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- Literature has described analysis and planning methods for competing risks models in recent decades.
- Non-inferiority clinical trials are increasingly important in current pharmaceutical practice.
- Parpia et al. found that the proportional sub-distribution hazard model is appropriate in biological studies for non-inferiority clinical trials with competing risks.
- This paper presents a sample size formula based on the sub-distribution hazard ratio and the Weibull distribution to plan such trials accurately.
- The formula was verified through 120 simulations and an example based on a randomized controlled trial, demonstrating its ability to reach targeted power for non-inferiority clinical trials with competing risks.
- Considering competing risks is important when designing these types of trials.
Authors: Dong Han, Zheng Chen, Yawen Hou
Abstract: The analysis and planning methods for competing risks model have been described in the literatures in recent decades, and non-inferiority clinical trials are helpful in current pharmaceutical practice. Analytical methods for non-inferiority clinical trials in the presence of competing risks were investigated by Parpia et al., who indicated that the proportional sub-distribution hazard model is appropriate in the context of biological studies. However, the analytical methods of competing risks model differ from those appropriate for analyzing non-inferiority clinical trials with a single outcome; thus, a corresponding method for planning such trials is necessary. A sample size formula for non-inferiority clinical trials in the presence of competing risks based on the proportional sub-distribution hazard model is presented in this paper. The primary endpoint relies on the sub-distribution hazard ratio. A total of 120 simulations and an example based on a randomized controlled trial verified the empirical performance of the presented formula. The results demonstrate that the empirical power of sample size formulas based on the Weibull distribution for non-inferiority clinical trials with competing risks can reach the targeted power.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
Welcome to our AI assistant! Here are some important things to keep in mind:
- The assistant will only answer questions related to this specific paper.
- Please note that this is not a bot for casual chatting.
- If you want the answer in a language other than the language you chose for navigating the website, simply add "TRANSLATE IN LANGUAGE L" at the end of your query (replace "LANGUAGE L" with the language of your choice).
- For example, you could ask "Can you extract the most important aspect of the paper? TRANSLATE IN SPANISH".
- If you want to keep the history of your questions/answers you should create an account.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through atree representation
Look for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.