Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38172810›Full record

ReviewBMC medical research methodology2024

Adverse events in single-arm clinical trials with non-fatal time-to-event efficacy endpoint: from clinical questions to methods for statistical analysis.

Elena Tassistro, Davide Paolo Bernasconi, Maria Grazia Valsecchi, Laura Antolini

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Elena TassistroBicocca Center of Bioinformatics, Biostatistics and Bioimaging (B4 centre), School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy. elena.tassistro@unimib.it.
Davide Paolo BernasconiBicocca Center of Bioinformatics, Biostatistics and Bioimaging (B4 centre), School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy.
Maria Grazia ValsecchiBicocca Center of Bioinformatics, Biostatistics and Bioimaging (B4 centre), School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy.
Laura AntoliniBicocca Center of Bioinformatics, Biostatistics and Bioimaging (B4 centre), School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy.

Funding

Grant PRIN project 20178S4EK9
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn any single-arm trial on novel treatments, assessment of toxicity plays an important role as occurrence of adverse events (AEs) is relevant for application in clinical practice. In the presence of a non-fatal time-to-event(s) efficacy endpoint, the analysis should be broadened to consider AEs occurrence in time. The AEs analysis could be tackled with two approaches, depending on the clinical question of interest. Approach 1 focuses on the occurrence of AE as first event. Treatment ability to protect from the efficacy endpoint event(s) has an impact on the chance of observing AEs due to competing risks action. Approach 2 considers how treatment affects the occurrence of AEs in the potential framework where the efficacy endpoint event(s) could not occur.

methodsIn the first part of the work we review the strategy of analysis for these two approaches. We identify theoretical quantities and estimators consistent with the following features: (a) estimators should address for the presence of right censoring; (b) theoretical quantities and estimators should be functions of time. In the second part of the work we propose the use of alternative methods (regression models, stratified Kaplan-Meier curves, inverse probability of censoring weighting) to relax the assumption of independence between the potential times to AE and to event(s) in the efficacy endpoint for addressing Approach 2.

resultsWe show through simulations that the proposed methods overcome the bias due to the dependence between the two potential times and related to the use of standard estimators.

conclusionsWe demonstrated through simulations that one can handle patients selection in the risk sets due to the competing event, and thus obtain conditional independence between the two potential times, adjusting for all the observed covariates that induce dependence.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalResearch DesignBiasClinical Trials as TopicHumansProbabilityAdverse eventsCompeting risksDependent censoringIPCWSurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID38172810
PMCPMC10765745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.