Hazard Ratios and Alternative Effect Measures: An Applied Illustration.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1002/pds.5885
Chase D Latour, I-Hsuan Su, Megan Delgado, Virginia Pate, Charles Poole, Jessie K Edwards, Til Stürmer, Jennifer L Lund, Michele Jonsson Funk
{"title":"Hazard Ratios and Alternative Effect Measures: An Applied Illustration.","authors":"Chase D Latour, I-Hsuan Su, Megan Delgado, Virginia Pate, Charles Poole, Jessie K Edwards, Til Stürmer, Jennifer L Lund, Michele Jonsson Funk","doi":"10.1002/pds.5885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Although the limitations of hazard ratios (HRs) for quantifying treatment effects in right-censored data have been widely discussed, HRs are still preferentially reported over other, more interpretable effect measures. This may stem from the fact that there are few applied examples that directly contrast the HR and its interpretation with alternative effect measures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed data from two randomized clinical trials comparing panitumumab plus standard-of-care chemotherapy (SOCC) with SOCC alone as first- and second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. We report the effect of treatment with panitumumab on progression-free survival (PFS) using a Cox proportional hazards model to estimate the HR and the Kaplan-Meier estimator of cumulative incidence (risk). Further analyses included examining the cumulative incidence curves; kernel-smoothed, non-parametric hazards curves; fitting the Cox model with a continuous time variable; and estimating restricted mean survival as well as median survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The HR was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71, 0.93), while the risk ratio (or relative risk [i.e., ratio of the cumulative incidence among the treated versus comparator]) was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.02). These two measures suggest apparently different conclusions: either a treatment benefit or no effect. Through subsequent analyses, we demonstrated that, while the cumulative incidence of the outcome was similar by the end of follow-up regardless of treatment, the panitumumab treated group experienced longer PFS than those randomized to SOCC. Substantial nonproportional hazards were evident with panitumumab treatment reducing the hazard of progression/mortality during the first ~1.75 years but associated with an increased hazard of progress/mortality thereafter.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This example underscores the difficulties in interpreting HRs, particularly in the setting of qualitative violations of proportional hazards, and the value of quantifying treatment effects via multiple effect measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"33 9","pages":"e5885"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.5885","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Although the limitations of hazard ratios (HRs) for quantifying treatment effects in right-censored data have been widely discussed, HRs are still preferentially reported over other, more interpretable effect measures. This may stem from the fact that there are few applied examples that directly contrast the HR and its interpretation with alternative effect measures.

Methods: We analyzed data from two randomized clinical trials comparing panitumumab plus standard-of-care chemotherapy (SOCC) with SOCC alone as first- and second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. We report the effect of treatment with panitumumab on progression-free survival (PFS) using a Cox proportional hazards model to estimate the HR and the Kaplan-Meier estimator of cumulative incidence (risk). Further analyses included examining the cumulative incidence curves; kernel-smoothed, non-parametric hazards curves; fitting the Cox model with a continuous time variable; and estimating restricted mean survival as well as median survival.

Results: The HR was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71, 0.93), while the risk ratio (or relative risk [i.e., ratio of the cumulative incidence among the treated versus comparator]) was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.02). These two measures suggest apparently different conclusions: either a treatment benefit or no effect. Through subsequent analyses, we demonstrated that, while the cumulative incidence of the outcome was similar by the end of follow-up regardless of treatment, the panitumumab treated group experienced longer PFS than those randomized to SOCC. Substantial nonproportional hazards were evident with panitumumab treatment reducing the hazard of progression/mortality during the first ~1.75 years but associated with an increased hazard of progress/mortality thereafter.

Discussion: This example underscores the difficulties in interpreting HRs, particularly in the setting of qualitative violations of proportional hazards, and the value of quantifying treatment effects via multiple effect measures.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
危险比和替代效应测量法:应用说明。
目的:尽管危险比(HR)在量化右删失数据的治疗效果方面的局限性已被广泛讨论,但与其他更易解释的效果测量指标相比,危险比仍被优先报告。这可能是由于很少有应用实例直接将危险比及其解释与其他效应指标进行对比:我们分析了两项随机临床试验的数据,这两项试验比较了帕尼单抗联合标准化疗(SOCC)与单用标准化疗作为转移性结直肠癌一线和二线治疗的效果。我们报告了帕尼单抗治疗对无进展生存期(PFS)的影响,并使用 Cox 比例危险度模型估算了 HR 和累积发病率(风险)的 Kaplan-Meier 估算值。进一步的分析包括检查累积发病率曲线;核平滑非参数危险曲线;用连续时间变量拟合Cox模型;估算受限平均生存期和中位生存期:HR值为0.82(95%置信区间[CI]:0.71,0.93),而风险比(或相对风险[即治疗者与比较者的累积发病率之比])为0.99(95%置信区间:0.96,1.02)。这两种测量方法得出了明显不同的结论:要么治疗有效,要么治疗无效。通过随后的分析,我们证明,虽然在随访结束时,无论采用哪种治疗方法,结果的累积发生率都相似,但帕尼单抗治疗组的 PFS 比随机接受 SOCC 治疗的组长。帕尼单抗治疗在最初的约1.75年中降低了进展/死亡的风险,但此后进展/死亡的风险却增加了:这个例子强调了解释HRs的困难,特别是在定性违反比例危险的情况下,以及通过多重效应测量量化治疗效果的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
173
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The aim of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety is to provide an international forum for the communication and evaluation of data, methods and opinion in the discipline of pharmacoepidemiology. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed reports of original research, invited reviews and a variety of guest editorials and commentaries embracing scientific, medical, statistical, legal and economic aspects of pharmacoepidemiology and post-marketing surveillance of drug safety. Appropriate material in these categories may also be considered for publication as a Brief Report. Particular areas of interest include: design, analysis, results, and interpretation of studies looking at the benefit or safety of specific pharmaceuticals, biologics, or medical devices, including studies in pharmacovigilance, postmarketing surveillance, pharmacoeconomics, patient safety, molecular pharmacoepidemiology, or any other study within the broad field of pharmacoepidemiology; comparative effectiveness research relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. Comparative effectiveness research is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition, as these methods are truly used in the real world; methodologic contributions of relevance to pharmacoepidemiology, whether original contributions, reviews of existing methods, or tutorials for how to apply the methods of pharmacoepidemiology; assessments of harm versus benefit in drug therapy; patterns of drug utilization; relationships between pharmacoepidemiology and the formulation and interpretation of regulatory guidelines; evaluations of risk management plans and programmes relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices.
期刊最新文献
Core Concepts in Pharmacoepidemiology: Time-To-Event Analysis Approaches in Pharmacoepidemiology. Hydrochlorothiazide Use and Risk of Skin Cancer: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study. The Oncology QCARD Initiative: Fostering efficient evaluation of initial real-world data proposals. Validation Study of the Claims-Based Algorithm Using the International Classification of Diseases Codes to Identify Patients With Coronavirus Disease in Japan From 2020 to 2022: The VENUS Study. A Validated Algorithm to Identify Hepatic Decompensation in the Veterans Health Administration Electronic Health Record System.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1