Cargando…

Evaluation of the impact of disease prevention measures: a methodological note on defining incidence rates

BACKGROUND: In studies of recurrent events, it is common to consider a person who has suffered a disease episode and received curative treatment to be not at risk of suffering a new episode for a duration of time. It is a common practice to deduct this duration from the person’s observation time in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cheung, Yin-Bun, Xu, Ying, Cairns, Matthew, Milligan, Paul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5401565/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28431516
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0350-4
_version_ 1783231078455050240
author Cheung, Yin-Bun
Xu, Ying
Cairns, Matthew
Milligan, Paul
author_facet Cheung, Yin-Bun
Xu, Ying
Cairns, Matthew
Milligan, Paul
author_sort Cheung, Yin-Bun
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In studies of recurrent events, it is common to consider a person who has suffered a disease episode and received curative treatment to be not at risk of suffering a new episode for a duration of time. It is a common practice to deduct this duration from the person’s observation time in the statistical analysis of the incidence data. METHODS: We examined the concepts of incidence and protective efficacy from a real life point of view. We developed simple formulae to show the relationship between the incidence rate and protective efficacy between analyses with and without deducting the curative treatment time from the observation time. We used a malaria chemoprevention and a malaria vaccine study, both previously published, to illustrate the differences. RESULTS: Applying the formulae we derived to a range of disease incidence that covered the two case studies, we demonstrated the divergence of the two sets of estimates when incidence rate is approximately 1 per person-year or higher. In the malaria chemoprevention study, incidence was 5.40 per person-year after the deduction of curative treatment time from observation time but 4.48 per person-year without the deduction. The chemoprevention offered 56.6 and 50.7% protection calculated with and without the deduction, respectively. In the malaria vaccine study, where disease incidence was much lower than one, the results between the two ways of analysis were similar. For answering real life questions about disease burden in the population in a calendar year and the reduction that may be achieved if an intervention is implemented, the definition without deduction of curative treatment time should be used. CONCLUSIONS: The practice of deducting curative treatment time from observation time is not wrong, but it is not always the best approach. Investigators should consider the appropriateness of the two analytic procedures in relation to the specific research aims and the intended use of the results. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0350-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5401565
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54015652017-04-24 Evaluation of the impact of disease prevention measures: a methodological note on defining incidence rates Cheung, Yin-Bun Xu, Ying Cairns, Matthew Milligan, Paul BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: In studies of recurrent events, it is common to consider a person who has suffered a disease episode and received curative treatment to be not at risk of suffering a new episode for a duration of time. It is a common practice to deduct this duration from the person’s observation time in the statistical analysis of the incidence data. METHODS: We examined the concepts of incidence and protective efficacy from a real life point of view. We developed simple formulae to show the relationship between the incidence rate and protective efficacy between analyses with and without deducting the curative treatment time from the observation time. We used a malaria chemoprevention and a malaria vaccine study, both previously published, to illustrate the differences. RESULTS: Applying the formulae we derived to a range of disease incidence that covered the two case studies, we demonstrated the divergence of the two sets of estimates when incidence rate is approximately 1 per person-year or higher. In the malaria chemoprevention study, incidence was 5.40 per person-year after the deduction of curative treatment time from observation time but 4.48 per person-year without the deduction. The chemoprevention offered 56.6 and 50.7% protection calculated with and without the deduction, respectively. In the malaria vaccine study, where disease incidence was much lower than one, the results between the two ways of analysis were similar. For answering real life questions about disease burden in the population in a calendar year and the reduction that may be achieved if an intervention is implemented, the definition without deduction of curative treatment time should be used. CONCLUSIONS: The practice of deducting curative treatment time from observation time is not wrong, but it is not always the best approach. Investigators should consider the appropriateness of the two analytic procedures in relation to the specific research aims and the intended use of the results. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0350-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-04-21 /pmc/articles/PMC5401565/ /pubmed/28431516 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0350-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Cheung, Yin-Bun
Xu, Ying
Cairns, Matthew
Milligan, Paul
Evaluation of the impact of disease prevention measures: a methodological note on defining incidence rates
title Evaluation of the impact of disease prevention measures: a methodological note on defining incidence rates
title_full Evaluation of the impact of disease prevention measures: a methodological note on defining incidence rates
title_fullStr Evaluation of the impact of disease prevention measures: a methodological note on defining incidence rates
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the impact of disease prevention measures: a methodological note on defining incidence rates
title_short Evaluation of the impact of disease prevention measures: a methodological note on defining incidence rates
title_sort evaluation of the impact of disease prevention measures: a methodological note on defining incidence rates
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5401565/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28431516
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0350-4
work_keys_str_mv AT cheungyinbun evaluationoftheimpactofdiseasepreventionmeasuresamethodologicalnoteondefiningincidencerates
AT xuying evaluationoftheimpactofdiseasepreventionmeasuresamethodologicalnoteondefiningincidencerates
AT cairnsmatthew evaluationoftheimpactofdiseasepreventionmeasuresamethodologicalnoteondefiningincidencerates
AT milliganpaul evaluationoftheimpactofdiseasepreventionmeasuresamethodologicalnoteondefiningincidencerates