  While well-established methods for time-to-event data are available when the
proportional hazards assumption holds, there is no consensus on the best
inferential approach under non-proportional hazards (NPH). However, a wide
range of parametric and non-parametric methods for testing and estimation in
this scenario have been proposed. To provide recommendations on the statistical
analysis of clinical trials where non proportional hazards are expected, we
conducted a comprehensive simulation study under different scenarios of
non-proportional hazards, including delayed onset of treatment effect, crossing
hazard curves, subgroups with different treatment effect and changing hazards
after disease progression. We assessed type I error rate control, power and
confidence interval coverage, where applicable, for a wide range of methods
including weighted log-rank tests, the MaxCombo test, summary measures such as
the restricted mean survival time (RMST), average hazard ratios, and milestone
survival probabilities as well as accelerated failure time regression models.
We found a trade-off between interpretability and power when choosing an
analysis strategy under NPH scenarios. While analysis methods based on weighted
logrank tests typically were favorable in terms of power, they do not provide
an easily interpretable treatment effect estimate. Also, depending on the
weight function, they test a narrow null hypothesis of equal hazard functions
and rejection of this null hypothesis may not allow for a direct conclusion of
treatment benefit in terms of the survival function. In contrast,
non-parametric procedures based on well interpretable measures as the RMST
difference had lower power in most scenarios. Model based methods based on
specific survival distributions had larger power, however often gave biased
estimates and lower than nominal confidence interval coverage.
