In recent years, immunological science has evolved, and cancer vaccines are available for treating existing cancers. Because cancer vaccines require time to elicit an immune response, a delayed treatment effect is expected. Accordingly, the use of weighted log-rank tests with the Fleming-Harrington class of weights is proposed for evaluation of survival endpoints. We present a method for calculating the sample size under assumption of a piecewise exponential distribution for the cancer vaccine group and an exponential distribution for the placebo group as the survival model. The impact of delayed effect timing on both the choice of the Fleming-Harrington's weights and the increment in the required number of events is discussed.

No abstract

The time to virus clearance was significantly shorter with peramivir than with oseltamivir. Although no clear relationship between virus dynamics and symptoms was observed, ongoing studies should clarify the situation.

In recent years, immunological science has evolved, and cancer vaccines are now approved and available for treating existing cancers. Because cancer vaccines require time to elicit an immune response, a delayed treatment effect is expected and is actually observed in drug approval studies. Accordingly, we propose the evaluation of survival endpoints by weighted log-rank tests with the Fleming-Harrington class of weights. We consider group sequential monitoring, which allows early efficacy stopping, and determine a semiparametric information fraction for the Fleming-Harrington family of weights, which is necessary for the error spending function. Moreover, we give a flexible survival model in cancer vaccine studies that considers not only the delayed treatment effect but also the long-term survivors. In a Monte Carlo simulation study, we illustrate that when the primary analysis is a weighted log-rank test emphasizing the late differences, the proposed information fraction can be a useful alternative to the surrogate information fraction, which is proportional to the number of events. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

In comparing two treatments via a randomized clinical trial, the analysis of covariance technique is often utilized to estimate an overall treatment effect. The AN-COVA is generally perceived as a more efficient procedure than its simple two sample estimation counterpart. Unfortunately when the ANCOVA model is not correctly specified, the resulting estimator is generally not consistent especially when the model is nonlin-ear. Recently various nonparametric alternatives, such as the augmentation methods, to ANCOVA have been proposed to estimate the treatment effect by adjusting the covariates. However, the properties of these alternatives have not been studied in the presence of treatment allocation imbalance. In this paper, we take a different approach to explore how to improve the precision of the naive two-sample estimate even when the observed distributions of baseline covariates between two groups are dissimilar. Specifically, we derive a bias-adjusted estimation procedure constructed from a conditional inference principle via relevant ancillary statistics from the observed covariates. This estimator is shown to be asymptotically equivalent to an augmentation estimator under the conditional setting. We utilize the data from a clinical trial for evaluating a combination treatment of cardiovascular diseases to illustrate our findings.

SummaryMany clinical research studies evaluate a time‐to‐event outcome, illustrate survival functions, and conventionally report estimated hazard ratios to express the magnitude of the treatment effect when comparing between groups. However, it may not be straightforward to interpret the hazard ratio clinically and statistically when the proportional hazards assumption is invalid. In some recent papers published in clinical journals, the use of restricted mean survival time (RMST) or τ‐year mean survival time is discussed as one of the alternative summary measures for the time‐to‐event outcome. The RMST is defined as the expected value of time to event limited to a specific time point corresponding to the area under the survival curve up to the specific time point. This article summarizes the necessary information to conduct statistical analysis using the RMST, including the definition and statistical properties of the RMST, adjusted analysis methods, sample size calculation, information fraction for the RMST difference, and clinical and statistical meaning and interpretation. Additionally, we discuss how to set the specific time point to define the RMST from two main points of view. We also provide developed SAS codes to determine the sample size required to detect an expected RMST difference with appropriate power and reconstruct individual survival data to estimate an RMST reference value from a reported survival curve.

NAIs differed in their ability to reduce household influenza transmission; transmission was highest with oseltamivir. Physicians may consider effects on household transmission when deciding which NAI to prescribe. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Meta analysis techniques, if applied appropriately, can provide a summary of the totality of evidence regarding an overall difference between a new treatment and a control group using data from multiple comparative clinical studies. The standard meta analysis procedures, however, may not give a meaningful between-group difference summary measure or identify a meaningful patient population of interest, especially when the fixed effect model assumption is not met. Moreover, a single between-group comparison measure without a reference value obtained from patients in the control arm would likely not be informative enough for clinical decision making. In this paper, we propose a simple, robust procedure based on a mixture population concept and provide a clinically meaningful group contrast summary for a well-defined target population. We use the data from a recent meta analysis for evaluating statin therapies with respect to the incidence of fatal stroke events to illustrate the issues associated with the standard meta analysis procedures as well as the advantages of our simple proposal. 1The myth of making inferences for an overall treatment efficacy with data from multiple comparative studies via meta-analysis Abstract Meta analysis techniques, if applied appropriately, can provide a summary of the totality of evidence regarding an overall difference between a new treatment and a control group using data from multiple comparative clinical studies. The standard meta analysis procedures, however, may not give a meaningful between-group difference summary measure or identify a meaningful patient population of interest, especially when the fixed effect model assumption is not met. Moreover, a single between-group comparison measure without a reference value obtained from patients in the control arm would likely not be informative enough for clinical decision making. In this paper, we propose a simple, robust procedure based on a mixture population concept and provide a clinically meaningful group contrast summary for a well-defined target population. We use the data from a recent meta analysis for evaluating statin therapies with respect to the incidence of fatal stroke events to illustrate the issues associated with the standard meta analysis procedures as well as the advantages of our simple proposal. † Lee-Jen Wei