Cargando…
Antiretroviral Treatment Cohort Analysis Using Time-Updated CD4 Counts: Assessment of Bias with Different Analytic Methods
BACKGROUND: Survival analysis using time-updated CD4+ counts during antiretroviral therapy is frequently employed to determine risk of clinical events. The time-point when the CD4+ count is assumed to change potentially biases effect estimates but methods used to estimate this are infrequently repor...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3219676/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22114687 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027763 |
_version_ | 1782216874874896384 |
---|---|
author | Kranzer, Katharina Lewis, James J. White, Richard G. Glynn, Judith R. Lawn, Stephen D. Middelkoop, Keren Bekker, Linda-Gail Wood, Robin |
author_facet | Kranzer, Katharina Lewis, James J. White, Richard G. Glynn, Judith R. Lawn, Stephen D. Middelkoop, Keren Bekker, Linda-Gail Wood, Robin |
author_sort | Kranzer, Katharina |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Survival analysis using time-updated CD4+ counts during antiretroviral therapy is frequently employed to determine risk of clinical events. The time-point when the CD4+ count is assumed to change potentially biases effect estimates but methods used to estimate this are infrequently reported. METHODS: This study examined the effect of three different estimation methods: assuming i) a constant CD4+ count from date of measurement until the date of next measurement, ii) a constant CD4+ count from the midpoint of the preceding interval until the midpoint of the subsequent interval and iii) a linear interpolation between consecutive CD4+ measurements to provide additional midpoint measurements. Person-time, tuberculosis rates and hazard ratios by CD4+ stratum were compared using all available CD4+ counts (measurement frequency 1–3 months) and 6 monthly measurements from a clinical cohort. Simulated data were used to compare the extent of bias introduced by these methods. RESULTS: The midpoint method gave the closest fit to person-time spent with low CD4+ counts and for hazard ratios for outcomes both in the clinical dataset and the simulated data. CONCLUSION: The midpoint method presents a simple option to reduce bias in time-updated CD4+ analysis, particularly at low CD4 cell counts and rapidly increasing counts after ART initiation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3219676 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2011 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-32196762011-11-23 Antiretroviral Treatment Cohort Analysis Using Time-Updated CD4 Counts: Assessment of Bias with Different Analytic Methods Kranzer, Katharina Lewis, James J. White, Richard G. Glynn, Judith R. Lawn, Stephen D. Middelkoop, Keren Bekker, Linda-Gail Wood, Robin PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Survival analysis using time-updated CD4+ counts during antiretroviral therapy is frequently employed to determine risk of clinical events. The time-point when the CD4+ count is assumed to change potentially biases effect estimates but methods used to estimate this are infrequently reported. METHODS: This study examined the effect of three different estimation methods: assuming i) a constant CD4+ count from date of measurement until the date of next measurement, ii) a constant CD4+ count from the midpoint of the preceding interval until the midpoint of the subsequent interval and iii) a linear interpolation between consecutive CD4+ measurements to provide additional midpoint measurements. Person-time, tuberculosis rates and hazard ratios by CD4+ stratum were compared using all available CD4+ counts (measurement frequency 1–3 months) and 6 monthly measurements from a clinical cohort. Simulated data were used to compare the extent of bias introduced by these methods. RESULTS: The midpoint method gave the closest fit to person-time spent with low CD4+ counts and for hazard ratios for outcomes both in the clinical dataset and the simulated data. CONCLUSION: The midpoint method presents a simple option to reduce bias in time-updated CD4+ analysis, particularly at low CD4 cell counts and rapidly increasing counts after ART initiation. Public Library of Science 2011-11-17 /pmc/articles/PMC3219676/ /pubmed/22114687 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027763 Text en Kranzer et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Kranzer, Katharina Lewis, James J. White, Richard G. Glynn, Judith R. Lawn, Stephen D. Middelkoop, Keren Bekker, Linda-Gail Wood, Robin Antiretroviral Treatment Cohort Analysis Using Time-Updated CD4 Counts: Assessment of Bias with Different Analytic Methods |
title | Antiretroviral Treatment Cohort Analysis Using Time-Updated CD4 Counts: Assessment of Bias with Different Analytic Methods |
title_full | Antiretroviral Treatment Cohort Analysis Using Time-Updated CD4 Counts: Assessment of Bias with Different Analytic Methods |
title_fullStr | Antiretroviral Treatment Cohort Analysis Using Time-Updated CD4 Counts: Assessment of Bias with Different Analytic Methods |
title_full_unstemmed | Antiretroviral Treatment Cohort Analysis Using Time-Updated CD4 Counts: Assessment of Bias with Different Analytic Methods |
title_short | Antiretroviral Treatment Cohort Analysis Using Time-Updated CD4 Counts: Assessment of Bias with Different Analytic Methods |
title_sort | antiretroviral treatment cohort analysis using time-updated cd4 counts: assessment of bias with different analytic methods |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3219676/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22114687 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027763 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kranzerkatharina antiretroviraltreatmentcohortanalysisusingtimeupdatedcd4countsassessmentofbiaswithdifferentanalyticmethods AT lewisjamesj antiretroviraltreatmentcohortanalysisusingtimeupdatedcd4countsassessmentofbiaswithdifferentanalyticmethods AT whiterichardg antiretroviraltreatmentcohortanalysisusingtimeupdatedcd4countsassessmentofbiaswithdifferentanalyticmethods AT glynnjudithr antiretroviraltreatmentcohortanalysisusingtimeupdatedcd4countsassessmentofbiaswithdifferentanalyticmethods AT lawnstephend antiretroviraltreatmentcohortanalysisusingtimeupdatedcd4countsassessmentofbiaswithdifferentanalyticmethods AT middelkoopkeren antiretroviraltreatmentcohortanalysisusingtimeupdatedcd4countsassessmentofbiaswithdifferentanalyticmethods AT bekkerlindagail antiretroviraltreatmentcohortanalysisusingtimeupdatedcd4countsassessmentofbiaswithdifferentanalyticmethods AT woodrobin antiretroviraltreatmentcohortanalysisusingtimeupdatedcd4countsassessmentofbiaswithdifferentanalyticmethods |