  The SAVVY project aims to improve the analyses of adverse event (AE) data in
clinical trials through the use of survival techniques appropriately dealing
with varying follow-up times and competing events (CEs). Although statistical
methodologies have advanced, in AE analyses often the incidence proportion, the
incidence density, or a non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimator (KME) are used,
which either ignore censoring or CEs. In an empirical study including
randomized clinical trials from several sponsor organisations, these potential
sources of bias are investigated. The main aim is to compare the estimators
that are typically used in AE analysis to the Aalen-Johansen estimator (AJE) as
the gold-standard. Here, one-sample findings are reported, while a companion
paper considers consequences when comparing treatment groups. Estimators are
compared with descriptive statistics, graphical displays and with a random
effects meta-analysis. The influence of different factors on the size of the
bias is investigated in a meta-regression. Comparisons are conducted at the
maximum follow-up time and at earlier evaluation time points. CEs definition
does not only include death before AE but also end of follow-up for AEs due to
events possibly related to the disease course or the treatment. Ten sponsor
organisations provided 17 trials including 186 types of AEs. The one minus KME
was on average about 1.2-fold larger than the AJE. Leading forces influencing
bias were the amount of censoring and of CEs. As a consequence, the average
bias using the incidence proportion was less than 5%. Assuming constant hazards
using incidence densities was hardly an issue provided that CEs were accounted
for. There is a need to improve the guidelines of reporting risks of AEs so
that the KME and the incidence proportion are replaced by the AJE with an
appropriate definition of CEs.
