  Introduction: Endpoint choice for randomized controlled trials of treatments
for COVID-19 is complex. A new disease brings many uncertainties, but trials
must start rapidly. COVID-19 is heterogeneous, ranging from mild disease that
improves within days to critical disease that can last weeks and can end in
death. While improvement in mortality would provide unquestionable evidence
about clinical significance of a treatment, sample sizes for a study evaluating
mortality are large and may be impractical. Furthermore, patient states in
between "cure" and "death" represent meaningful distinctions. Clinical severity
scores have been proposed as an alternative. However, the appropriate summary
measure for severity scores has been the subject of debate, particularly in
relating to the uncertainty about the time-course of COVID-19. Outcomes
measured at fixed time-points may risk missing the time of clinical benefit. An
endpoint such as time-to-improvement (or recovery), avoids the timing problem.
However, some have argued that power losses will result from reducing the
ordinal scale to a binary state of "recovered" vs "not recovered."
  Methods: We evaluate statistical power for possible trial endpoints for
COVID-19 treatment trials using simulation models and data from two recent
COVID-19 treatment trials.
  Results: Power for fixed-time point methods depends heavily on the time
selected for evaluation. Time-to-improvement (or recovery) analyses do not
specify a time-point. Time-to-event approaches have reasonable statistical
power, even when compared to a fixed time-point method evaluated at the optimal
time.
  Discussion: Time-to-event analyses methods have advantages in the COVID-19
setting, unless the optimal time for evaluating treatment effect is known in
advance. Even when the optimal time is known, a time-to-event approach may
increase power for interim analyses.
