Meta-analysis and network meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes with non-proportional hazards: a Bayesian time-varying hazard ratio approach

Rhiannon K Owen; Keith R Abrams

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2605.20567

Meta-analysis and network meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes with non-proportional hazards: a Bayesian time-varying hazard ratio approach

Rhiannon K Owen·Keith R Abrams

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Background: Often when undertaking meta-analyses of time-to-event (TTE) outcomes, especially in a Health Technology Assessment context, a hazard ratio (HR) scale is used. However, issues arise when there is evidence of non-proportional hazards in some of the studies included. A number of methods have been advocated, but their use has been limited by either their complexity and/or the ease with which their results can be used in HTA. An alternative approach is to assume a treatment-log(time) interaction within a Cox proportional hazards model for each study, and to then undertake a bivariate meta-analysis of the resulting treatment and interaction coefficients, so that an overall time-varying HR (TVHR) can be obtained. Methods: A TVHR approach was applied to a meta-analysis of chemotherapy compared to Standard of Care for advanced recurrent gastric cancer, and in which Progression-Free Survival (PFS) was an outcome. The approach was also applied to a network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluating overall survival (OS) in advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. Results: Five trials in the advanced gastric cancer meta-analysis displayed evidence of non-proportional hazards for PFS. Using a TVHR model produced HRs ranging from 0.83 (CrI:0.75-0.91) at 0.5 years to 0.99 (CrI:0.79-1.23) at 3.5 years. Three studies showed evidence of non-proportional hazards in the advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma NMA for OS. Using a TVHR model, nivolumab plus ipilimumab demonstrated consistent superiority from month 7 onwards, with a HR improving from 0.37 (CrI:0.26-0.51) at one year to 0.24 (CrI:0.12-0.45) at five years. Conclusions: A TVHR approach to the meta-analysis or NMA of TTE outcomes when the proportional hazards assumption appears not to hold, produces an intuitive solution which can be readily used in HTA.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Rhiannon K Owen, Keith R Abrams. 2026-05-19. Meta-analysis and network meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes with non-proportional hazards: a Bayesian time-varying hazard ratio approach. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.20567

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗