Paper detail

Robust Design and Analysis of Clinical Trials With Non-proportional Hazards: A Straw Man Guidance from a Cross-pharma Working Group

Loss of power and clear description of treatment differences are key issues in designing and analyzing a clinical trial where non-proportional hazard is a possibility. A log-rank test may be very inefficient and interpretation of the hazard ratio estimated using Cox regression is potentially problematic. In this case, the current ICH E9 (R1) addendum would suggest designing a trial with a clinically relevant estimand, e.g., expected life gain. This approach considers appropriate analysis methods for supporting the chosen estimand. However, such an approach is case specific and may suffer lack of power for important choices of the underlying alternate hypothesis distribution. On the other hand, there may be a desire to have robust power under different deviations from proportional hazards. Also, we would contend that no single number adequately describes treatment effect under non-proportional hazards scenarios. The cross-pharma working group has proposed a combination test to provide robust power under a variety of alternative hypotheses. These can be specified for primary analysis at the design stage and methods appropriately accounting for combination test correlations are efficient for a variety of scenarios. We have provided design and analysis considerations based on a combination test under different non-proportional hazard types and present a straw man proposal for practitioners. The proposals are illustrated with real life example and simulation.