William Checkley1, Roy G Brower, Alvaro Muñoz. 1. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. wcheckl1@jhmi.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Time-to-event data with 2 or more types of endpoints are found in many epidemiologic settings. Instead of treating the times for one of the endpoints as censored observations for the other, we present an alternative approach where we treat competing events as distinct outcomes in a mixture. Our objective was to determine if and how the mixture was modified in response to an intervention. METHODS: We used a mixture of generalized gamma distributions to concatenate the overall frequency and distribution of the times of 2 competing events commonly observed in critical care trials, namely (1) unassisted breathing followed by discharge home alive and (2) in-hospital death. We applied our proposed methods to data from 2 randomized clinical trials of critically ill patients. RESULTS: Mechanical ventilation with lower tidal volumes modified the mixture (P = 0.103) when compared with traditional tidal volumes by lowering the overall frequency of death (P = 0.005), rather than through affecting either the distributions of times to unassisted breathing (P = 0.477) or times to death (P = 0.718). Likewise, use of a conservative versus a liberal fluid management modified the mixture (P < 0.001) by achieving earlier times to unassisted breathing (P < 0.001) and not through affecting the overall frequency of death (P = 0.202) or the distribution of times to death (P = 0.693). CONCLUSIONS: A mixture approach to competing risks provides a means to determine the overall effect of an intervention and insights into how this intervention modifies the components of the mixture.
BACKGROUND: Time-to-event data with 2 or more types of endpoints are found in many epidemiologic settings. Instead of treating the times for one of the endpoints as censored observations for the other, we present an alternative approach where we treat competing events as distinct outcomes in a mixture. Our objective was to determine if and how the mixture was modified in response to an intervention. METHODS: We used a mixture of generalized gamma distributions to concatenate the overall frequency and distribution of the times of 2 competing events commonly observed in critical care trials, namely (1) unassisted breathing followed by discharge home alive and (2) in-hospital death. We applied our proposed methods to data from 2 randomized clinical trials of critically illpatients. RESULTS: Mechanical ventilation with lower tidal volumes modified the mixture (P = 0.103) when compared with traditional tidal volumes by lowering the overall frequency of death (P = 0.005), rather than through affecting either the distributions of times to unassisted breathing (P = 0.477) or times to death (P = 0.718). Likewise, use of a conservative versus a liberal fluid management modified the mixture (P < 0.001) by achieving earlier times to unassisted breathing (P < 0.001) and not through affecting the overall frequency of death (P = 0.202) or the distribution of times to death (P = 0.693). CONCLUSIONS: A mixture approach to competing risks provides a means to determine the overall effect of an intervention and insights into how this intervention modifies the components of the mixture.
Authors: Stephen R Cole; Rui Li; Kathryn Anastos; Roger Detels; Mary Young; Joan S Chmiel; Alvaro Muñoz Journal: Stat Med Date: 2004-11-15 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Herbert P Wiedemann; Arthur P Wheeler; Gordon R Bernard; B Taylor Thompson; Douglas Hayden; Ben deBoisblanc; Alfred F Connors; R Duncan Hite; Andrea L Harabin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-05-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Roy G Brower; Michael A Matthay; Alan Morris; David Schoenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Arthur Wheeler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-05-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James H Finigan; Rangnath Mishra; Vihas T Vasu; Lori J Silveira; David E Nethery; Theodore J Standiford; Ellen L Burnham; Marc Moss; Jeffrey A Kern Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2012-05-17 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Derek K Ng; Matthew B Matheson; Bradley A Warady; Susan R Mendley; Susan L Furth; Alvaro Muñoz Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2019-12-31 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Michael O Harhay; Sarah J Ratcliffe; Dylan S Small; Leah H Suttner; Michael J Crowther; Scott D Halpern Journal: Med Care Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 2.983