Competing Risks in Clinical Trials Do They Matter and How Should We Account for Them?

被引:1
|
作者
Gregson, John [1 ]
Pocock, Stuart J. [1 ]
Anker, Stefan D. [2 ,3 ]
Bhatt, Deepak L. [4 ]
Packer, Milton [5 ,6 ]
Stone, Gregg W. [4 ]
Zeller, Cordula [7 ]
机构
[1] London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Dept Med Stat, London, England
[2] Charite, German Ctr Cardiovasc Res Partner Site Berlin, Dept Cardiol, Berlin, Germany
[3] Charite, Berlin Inst Hlth Ctr Regenerat Therapies, German Ctr Cardiovasc Res Partner Site Berlin, Berlin, Germany
[4] Icahn Sch Med Mt Sinai, Mt Sinai Fuster Heart Hosp, New York, NY USA
[5] Baylor Univ, Med Ctr, Baylor Heart & Vasc Inst, Dallas, TX USA
[6] Imperial Coll, London, England
[7] Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm, Ingelheim, Germany
关键词
clinical trials; competing risks; Cox proportional hazards model; event outcomes; Fine and Gray model; multiple imputation; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; REGRESSION;
D O I
10.1016/j.jacc.2024.06.023
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
During patient follow-up in a randomized trial, some deaths may occur. Where death (or noncardiovascular death) is not part of an outcome of interest it is termed a competing risk. Conventional analyses (eg, Cox proportional hazards model) handle death similarly to other censored follow-up. Patients still alive are unrealistically assumed to be representative of those who died. The Fine and Gray model has been used to handle competing risks, but is often used inappropriately and can be misleading. We propose an alternative multiple imputation approach that plausibly accounts for the fact that patients who die tend also to be at high risk for the (unobserved) outcome of interest. This provides a logical framework for exploring the impact of a competing risk, recognizing that there is no unique solution. We illustrate these issues in 3 cardiovascular trials and in simulation studies. We conclude with practical recommendations for handling competing risks in future trials. (c) 2024 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
引用
收藏
页码:1025 / 1037
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] How should we design future mechanistic and/or efficacy clinical trials?
    Maurizio Fava
    Neuropsychopharmacology, 2024, 49 : 197 - 204
  • [32] How should we measure medication adherence in clinical trials and practice?
    Lee, JK
    Grace, KA
    Foster, TG
    Truong, PQ
    Sun, HH
    Yang, HJ
    Erowele, GI
    Szkutnik, AJ
    Sullenberger, LE
    Taylor, AJ
    CIRCULATION, 2003, 108 (17) : 650 - 650
  • [33] Systematic review and meta-analysis in GI endoscopy: Why do we need them? How can we read them? Should we trust them?
    Zhang, Lanjing
    Gerson, Lauren
    Maluf-Filho, Fauze
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2018, 88 (01) : 139 - 150
  • [34] Should we treat pyrexia? And how do we do it?
    Doyle, James F.
    Schortgen, Frederique
    CRITICAL CARE, 2016, 20
  • [35] Should we treat pyrexia? And how do we do it?
    James F. Doyle
    Frédérique Schortgen
    Critical Care, 20
  • [36] Non-Inferiority Trials in Stroke Research: What Are They, and How Should We Interpret Them?
    Li, Linxin
    Lioutas, Vasileios-Arsenios
    Akyea, Ralph K.
    Gerner, Stefan
    Lau, Kui Kai
    Ramage, Emily
    Katsanos, Aristeidis H.
    Howard, George
    Bath, Philip M.
    JOURNAL OF STROKE, 2025, 27 (01) : 41 - 51
  • [37] INTRAARTICULAR STEROIDS - HOW OFTEN DO WE GET THEM INTO THE JOINT AND DOES IT MATTER
    JONES, AC
    PATTRICK, M
    REGAN, M
    LEDINGHAM, J
    MANHIRE, AR
    DOHERTY, M
    ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATISM, 1993, 36 (09): : S90 - S90
  • [38] Bronchial washings - When should we do them?
    Scriven, NA
    Macfarlane, JT
    Clelland, CA
    THORAX, 1999, 54 : A84 - A84
  • [39] Analysis of multicentre trials with continuous outcomes: when and how should we account for centre effects?
    Kahan, Brennan C.
    Morris, Tim P.
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2013, 32 (07) : 1136 - 1149
  • [40] Should we forgive them if they know not what they do?
    Singleton, Alan
    LEARNED PUBLISHING, 2012, 25 (01) : 3 - 5