生存期間と機能評価を組み合わせたALS試験の結果の読み方

Hierarchical composite endpoints combining survival and longitudinal functional outcomes are increasingly used in clinical trials, especially when death precludes subsequent functional assessment. The Finkelstein--Schoenfeld strategy analyzes such endpoints through prioritized pairwise comparisons, with survival compared before function. In amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), this strategy is implemented in the Combined Assessment of Function and Survival (CAFS), which combines survival with the ALS Functional Rating Scale Revised. Although such endpoints provide a clinically meaningful summary of overall treatment benefit, investigators may also want to understand whether the treatment effect is driven by survival, functional outcome, or both. Motivated by the estimand framework, we use ALS-informed simulations from a joint longitudinal--survival model to study settings in which treatment effects on survival and function align or conflict. The simulations show that decomposing the composite win probability into survival and survivor-based functional contributions clarifies their relative roles and separates the composite treatment-benefit question from function-focused questions, including the while-alive comparison and conceptual alternatives based on hypothetical and always-survivor estimands. The functional win probability underlying the while-alive comparison can be subject to survivor-selection bias when treatment affects survival, and inverse-probability weighting can attenuate selection induced by measured predictors under appropriate assumptions. Brief supporting analyses based on principal stratification and multiply robust estimation illustrate the always-survivor estimand. This framework provides practical guidance for reporting and interpreting hierarchical composite endpoints, with CAFS in ALS serving as a concrete motivating example.