Abstract:Given the limitations of using the Cox hazard ratio to summarize the magnitude of the treatment effect, alternative measures that do not have these limitations are gaining attention. One of the recently proposed alternative methods uses the average hazard with survival weight (AH). This population quantity can be interpreted as the average intensity of the event occurrence in a given time window that does not involve study-specific censoring. Inference procedures for the ratio of AH and difference in AH have already been proposed in simple randomized controlled trial settings to compare two groups. However, methods with stratification factors have not been well discussed, although stratified analysis is often used in practice to adjust for confounding factors and increase the power to detect a between-group difference. The conventional stratified analysis or meta-analysis approach, which integrates stratum-specific treatment effects using an optimal weight, directly applies to the ratio of AH and difference in AH. However, this conventional approach has significant limitations similar to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method for a binary outcome and the stratified Cox procedure for a time-to-event outcome. To address this, we propose a new stratified analysis method for AH using standardization. With the proposed method, one can summarize the between-group treatment effect in both absolute difference and relative terms, adjusting for stratification factors. This can be a valuable alternative to the traditional stratified Cox procedure to estimate and report the magnitude of the treatment effect on time-to-event outcomes using hazard.

Non-collapsibility and built-in selection bias of period-specific and conventional hazard ratio in randomized controlled trials

Non-collapsibility and Built-in Selection Bias of Hazard Ratio in Randomized Controlled Trials

The built-in selection bias of hazard ratios formalized

A sensitivity analysis approach for the causal hazard ratio in randomized and observational studies

The built-in selection bias of hazard ratios formalized using structural causal models

Estimate Risk Difference and Number Needed to Treat in Survival Analysis.

Semi-parametric Regression Model for Survival Data: Graphical Visualization with R.

Supplementary Figure S2 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Covariate selection for the estimation of marginal hazard ratios in high-dimensional data

PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS WITH CONTINUOUS MARKS

Supplementary Figure S3 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Statistical Considerations for Evaluating Treatment Effect under Various Non-proportional Hazard Scenarios

Assessing treatment effects with adjusted restricted mean time lost in observational competing risks data

Supplementary Data S3 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

A nonparametric proportional risk model to assess a treatment effect in time‐to‐event data

Theory on Covariate-Adaptive Randomized Clinical Trials: Efficiency, Selection bias and Randomization Methods

A Novel Stratified Analysis Method for Testing and Estimating Overall Treatment Effects on Time-to-Event Outcomes Using Average Hazard with Survival Weight

Bias of the additive hazard model in the presence of causal effect heterogeneity

Subtleties in the interpretation of hazard ratios

A non-parametric proportional risk model to assess a treatment effect in time-to-event data

Clarifying the Role of the Mantel-Haenszel Risk Difference Estimator in Randomized Clinical Trials