Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2025
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.15685 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866909697955594240 |
|---|---|
| author | Kronthaler, David Schwenkglenks, Matthias Beuschlein, Felix Held, Ulrike |
| author_facet | Kronthaler, David Schwenkglenks, Matthias Beuschlein, Felix Held, Ulrike |
| contents | The win ratio offers a flexible approach to incorporate the hierarchy of clinical outcomes into the analysis of a composite endpoint, enabling simultaneous consideration of multiple outcome types, unlike traditional time-to-first-event (TTFE) analysis or focus on a single outcome. We examined the statistical power of the win ratio compared to single-endpoint analyses and TTFE analysis through a case study and simulation studies. Furthermore, we provide a novel formula to estimate the required sample size for win ratio analysis based on the desired width of its confidence interval, facilitating precision-based trial design.
Our results indicate that win ratio analysis generally outperforms single-endpoint analyses when treatment effects on lower-ranked outcomes are moderate compared to those on higher-ranked outcomes. The win ratio can provide greater power than TTFE analysis, especially when the effect on the highest-ranked outcome is substantial, reaching increases in power up to 50\%. Further, even for moderate treatment effects on the highest-ranked outcome, win ratio analysis achieved higher power.
Future work should expand our simulations to additional data-generating mechanisms and outcome types, particularly ordinal outcomes, where the win ratio provides an alternative to existing non-parametric and parametric methods.
Our findings highlight the potential of the win ratio to improve statistical efficiency in pharmaceutical and other clinical trial designs using composite endpoints, particularly when no single component dominates the treatment effect. However, when continuous outcomes occupy the top of the hierarchy, these tend to drive overall analysis, sidelining contributions of lower-ranked outcomes and limiting benefits of hierarchical win ratio analysis. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2507_15685 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | The Win Ratio at the Design Stage of Clinical Trials Kronthaler, David Schwenkglenks, Matthias Beuschlein, Felix Held, Ulrike Methodology The win ratio offers a flexible approach to incorporate the hierarchy of clinical outcomes into the analysis of a composite endpoint, enabling simultaneous consideration of multiple outcome types, unlike traditional time-to-first-event (TTFE) analysis or focus on a single outcome. We examined the statistical power of the win ratio compared to single-endpoint analyses and TTFE analysis through a case study and simulation studies. Furthermore, we provide a novel formula to estimate the required sample size for win ratio analysis based on the desired width of its confidence interval, facilitating precision-based trial design. Our results indicate that win ratio analysis generally outperforms single-endpoint analyses when treatment effects on lower-ranked outcomes are moderate compared to those on higher-ranked outcomes. The win ratio can provide greater power than TTFE analysis, especially when the effect on the highest-ranked outcome is substantial, reaching increases in power up to 50\%. Further, even for moderate treatment effects on the highest-ranked outcome, win ratio analysis achieved higher power. Future work should expand our simulations to additional data-generating mechanisms and outcome types, particularly ordinal outcomes, where the win ratio provides an alternative to existing non-parametric and parametric methods. Our findings highlight the potential of the win ratio to improve statistical efficiency in pharmaceutical and other clinical trial designs using composite endpoints, particularly when no single component dominates the treatment effect. However, when continuous outcomes occupy the top of the hierarchy, these tend to drive overall analysis, sidelining contributions of lower-ranked outcomes and limiting benefits of hierarchical win ratio analysis. |
| title | The Win Ratio at the Design Stage of Clinical Trials |
| topic | Methodology |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.15685 |