MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of total event analysis and first event analysis in relation to heterogeneity in cardiovascular trials
Comparison of total event analysis and first event analysis in relation to heterogeneity in cardiovascular trials
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of total event analysis and first event analysis in relation to heterogeneity in cardiovascular trials
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of total event analysis and first event analysis in relation to heterogeneity in cardiovascular trials
Comparison of total event analysis and first event analysis in relation to heterogeneity in cardiovascular trials

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Comparison of total event analysis and first event analysis in relation to heterogeneity in cardiovascular trials
Comparison of total event analysis and first event analysis in relation to heterogeneity in cardiovascular trials
Journal Article

Comparison of total event analysis and first event analysis in relation to heterogeneity in cardiovascular trials

2025
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Background In cardiovascular (CV) trials, analyzing the total number of events, rather than just time-to-first event, enhances understanding of participants' health. Adapting Cox models to account for between-subject heterogeneity in multiple events and understanding its impact plays crucial roles in total event analysis. Method This study compares effect sizes from first event and total event analyses in three cardiovascular trials: ORIGIN ( N  = 12,537, median follow-up of 6.2 years), COMPASS ( N  = 18,278, median follow-up of 1.8 years), TRANSCEND ( N  = 5,926, median follow-up of 1.1 years). It also examines the impact of heterogeneity, measured by the negative binomial overdispersion parameter. Treatment effects were assessed using the Cox model for first events and the negative binomial (NB), Andersen-Gill (AG), Prentice-Williams-Peterson (PWP), Wei-Lin-Weissfeld (WLW), and Lin-Wei-Yang-Ying (LWYY) models for total events. Hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios (RRs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and CI widths were reported. The risk ratio applies to negative binomial. The first composite was consisted of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, cardiovascular death. Simulations assessed Type I error, power, and mean squared error across the different approaches. Results In ORIGIN, the incidence per 100 years increased from 2.9 to 3.8 for the first composite with a heterogeneity of 2.4. The HR or RR for the first composite was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.94–1.12, CI width = 0.18) using Cox, 1.01 (95% CI, 0.92–1.11, CI width = 0.19) for NB, 1.01 (95% CI, 0.94–1.09, CI width = 0.15) for AG, 1.02 (95% CI, 0.94–1.10, CI width = 0.16) for PWP total, 1.01 (95% CI, 0.94–1.09, CI width = 0.15) for PWP gap, 1.03 (95% CI, 0.94–1.12, CI width = 0.18) for WLW and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.92–1.11, CI width = 0.19) for LWYY. Similar trends were observed in other studies. Our simulation results showed that total event approaches had approximately 5% higher power than the Cox model, though power declined exponentially across all methods with increasing heterogeneity. Among the total event methods, AG, PWP gap, and LWYY demonstrated better power, with AG and LWYY also achieving the smallest mean squared error (MSE). Conclusions High heterogeneity arises when a small number of patients experience a disproportionately large number of events. This effect is more pronounced when the overall event incidence is low and few patients experience any events. The effect size and CI width stayed consistent with low heterogeneity across different approaches. Power decreased with high heterogeneity. The AG and LWYY approaches slightly outperformed the other approaches. Clinical trial registration ORIGIN (NCT00069784), COMPASS (NCT01776424), TRANSCEND (NCT00153101).

MBRLCatalogueRelatedBooks