Chase D Latour, I-Hsuan Su, Megan Delgado, Virginia Pate, Charles Poole, Jessie K Edwards, Til Stürmer, Jennifer L Lund, Michele Jonsson Funk
{"title":"危险比和替代效应测量法:应用说明。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Hazard Ratios and Alternative Effect Measures: An Applied Illustration.
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.
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.