Pimnara Peerawaranun, Rob W. van der Pluijm, M. Mukaka
{"title":"解决Kaplan Meier生存分析方法在分析全疗效临床试验结果时存在的统计分析困境","authors":"Pimnara Peerawaranun, Rob W. van der Pluijm, M. Mukaka","doi":"10.1017/exp.2021.21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The use of a Kaplan–Meier (K–M) survival time approach is generally considered appropriate to report antimalarial efficacy trials. However, when a treatment arm has 100% efficacy, confidence intervals may not be computed. Furthermore, methods that use probability rules to handle missing data for instance by multiple imputation, encounter perfect prediction problem when a treatment arm has full efficacy, in which case all imputed values are either treatment success or all imputed values are failures. The use of a survival K–M method addresses this imputation problem in estimating the efficacy estimates also referred to as cure rates. We discuss the statistical challenges and propose a potential way forward. The proposed approach includes the use of K–M estimates as the main measure of efficacy. Confidence intervals could be computed using the binomial exact method. p-Values for comparison of difference in efficacy between treatments can be estimated using Fisher’s exact test. We emphasize that when efficacy rates are not 100% in both groups, the K–M approach remains the main strategy of analysis considering its statistical robustness in handling missing data and confidence intervals can be computed under such scenarios.","PeriodicalId":12269,"journal":{"name":"Experimental Results","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Addressing the statistical analysis dilemma that exists when analyzing clinical trial results with full efficacy using the Kaplan Meier survival analysis method\",\"authors\":\"Pimnara Peerawaranun, Rob W. van der Pluijm, M. Mukaka\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/exp.2021.21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The use of a Kaplan–Meier (K–M) survival time approach is generally considered appropriate to report antimalarial efficacy trials. However, when a treatment arm has 100% efficacy, confidence intervals may not be computed. Furthermore, methods that use probability rules to handle missing data for instance by multiple imputation, encounter perfect prediction problem when a treatment arm has full efficacy, in which case all imputed values are either treatment success or all imputed values are failures. The use of a survival K–M method addresses this imputation problem in estimating the efficacy estimates also referred to as cure rates. We discuss the statistical challenges and propose a potential way forward. The proposed approach includes the use of K–M estimates as the main measure of efficacy. Confidence intervals could be computed using the binomial exact method. p-Values for comparison of difference in efficacy between treatments can be estimated using Fisher’s exact test. We emphasize that when efficacy rates are not 100% in both groups, the K–M approach remains the main strategy of analysis considering its statistical robustness in handling missing data and confidence intervals can be computed under such scenarios.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12269,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Experimental Results\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Experimental Results\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/exp.2021.21\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Experimental Results","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/exp.2021.21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Addressing the statistical analysis dilemma that exists when analyzing clinical trial results with full efficacy using the Kaplan Meier survival analysis method
The use of a Kaplan–Meier (K–M) survival time approach is generally considered appropriate to report antimalarial efficacy trials. However, when a treatment arm has 100% efficacy, confidence intervals may not be computed. Furthermore, methods that use probability rules to handle missing data for instance by multiple imputation, encounter perfect prediction problem when a treatment arm has full efficacy, in which case all imputed values are either treatment success or all imputed values are failures. The use of a survival K–M method addresses this imputation problem in estimating the efficacy estimates also referred to as cure rates. We discuss the statistical challenges and propose a potential way forward. The proposed approach includes the use of K–M estimates as the main measure of efficacy. Confidence intervals could be computed using the binomial exact method. p-Values for comparison of difference in efficacy between treatments can be estimated using Fisher’s exact test. We emphasize that when efficacy rates are not 100% in both groups, the K–M approach remains the main strategy of analysis considering its statistical robustness in handling missing data and confidence intervals can be computed under such scenarios.