Evaluating health outcomes in the presence of competing risks: a review of statistical methods and clinical applications.
BACKGROUND
An evaluation of the effect of a healthcare intervention (or an exposure) must consider multiple possible outcomes, including the primary outcome of interest and other outcomes such as adverse events or mortality. The determination of the likelihood of benefit from an intervention, in the presence of other competing outcomes, is a competing risks problem. Although statistical methods exist for quantifying the probability of benefit from an intervention while accounting for competing events, these methods have not been widely adopted by clinical researchers.


OBJECTIVE
(1) To demonstrate the importance of considering competing risks in the evaluation of treatment effectiveness, and (2) to review appropriate statistical methods, and recommend how they might be applied.


METHODS
We reviewed 3 statistical approaches for analyzing the competing risks problem: (a) cause-specific hazard (CSH), (b) cumulative incidence function (CIF), and (c) event-free survival (EFS). We compare these methods using a simulation study and a reanalysis of a randomized clinical trial.


RESULTS
Simulation studies evaluating the statistical power to detect the effect of intervention under different scenarios showed that: (1) CSH approach is best for detecting the effect of an intervention if the intervention only affects either the primary outcome or the competing event; (2) EFS approach is best only when the intervention affects both primary and competing events in the same manner; and (3) CIF approach is best when the intervention affects both primary and competing events, but in opposite directions. Using data from a randomized controlled trial, we demonstrated that a comprehensive approach using all 3 approaches provided useful insights on the effect of an intervention on the relative and absolute risks of multiple competing outcomes.


CONCLUSIONS
CSH is the fundamental measure of outcome in competing risks problems. It is appropriate for evaluating treatment effects in the presence of competing events. Results of CSH analysis for primary and competing outcomes should always be reported even when EFS or CIF approaches are called for. EFS is appropriate for evaluating the composite effect of an intervention, only when combining different endpoints is clinically and biologically meaningful, and the treatment has similar effects on all event types. CIF is useful for evaluating the likelihood of benefit from an intervention over a meaningful period. CIF should be used for absolute risk calculations instead of the widely used complement of the Kaplan-Meier (1 - KM) estimator.
Varadhan
Ravi
R
Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. rvaradhan@jhmi.edu
Weiss
Carlos O
CO
Segal
Jodi B
JB
Wu
Albert W
AW
Scharfstein
Daniel
D
Boyd
Cynthia
C
D057186:Comparative Effectiveness Research / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D003198:Computer Simulation; D018572:Disease-Free Survival; D006801:Humans; D016015:Logistic Models; D012307:Risk Factors; D013223:Statistics as Topic / Q000379:methods*; D016896:Treatment Outcome