4.5 Article

Evaluating competing adverse and beneficial outcomes using a mixture model

Journal

STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
Volume 27, Issue 21, Pages 4313-4327

Publisher

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/sim.3293

Keywords

survival analysis; competing risks; mixture model; cumulative incidence function; subhazard

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01-DA011602]
  2. Women's Interagency HIV Study [U01-AI-42590]
  3. North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration oil Research and Design [U01-AI069918]
  4. [K01-AI071754]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A competing risk framework occurs When induividuals have file potential to experience only one of the several mutually exclusive outcomes. Standard survival methods often overestimate the cumulative incidence of events when competing events are censored. Mixture distributions have been previously applied to the competing risk framework to obtain inferences regarding the subdistribution of all event of interest. Often the competing event is treated as a nuisance, but it may be of interest to compare adverse events against the beneficial outcome when dealing with in intervention. In this paper, methods for using a mixture model to estimate all adverse-benefit ratio curve (ratio of the cumulative incidence curves for the two competing events) and the ratio of the subhazards for the two competing events are presented. A parametric approach is described with some remarks for extending the model to include uncertainty in the event type that occured. left truncation in order to allow for time-dependent analyses, and uncertainty in the timing of the event resulting in interval censoring. The methods are illustrated with data from an HIV clinical cohort examining whether individuals initiating effective antiretroviral therapy have a greater risk of antiretroviral discontinuation or switching compared with HIV RNA suppression. Copyright (c) 2008 John Wiley & Soils. Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available