A discrete approximation method for modeling interval-censored multistate data

Many longitudinal studies are designed to monitor participants for major events related to the progression of diseases. Data arising from such longitudinal studies are usually subject to interval censoring since the events are only known to occur between two monitoring visits. In this work, we propose a new method to handle interval-censored multistate data within a proportional hazards model framework where the hazard rate of events is modeled by a nonparametric function of time and the covariates affect the hazard rate proportionally. The main idea of this method is to simplify the likelihood functions of a discrete-time multistate model through an approximation and the application of data augmentation techniques, where the assumed presence of censored information facilitates a simpler parameterization. Then the expectation-maximization algorithm is used to estimate the parameters in the model. The performance of the proposed method is evaluated by numerical studies. Finally, the method is employed to analyze a dataset on tracking the advancement of coronary allograft vasculopathy following heart transplantation.

Meta-analysis of time-to-event data: a comparison of two-stage methods

Meta-analysis is widely used to synthesise results from randomised trials. When the relevant trials collected time-to-event data, individual participant data are commonly sought from all trials. Meta-analyses of time-to-event data are typically performed using variants of the log-rank test, but modern statistical software allows for the use of maximum likelihood methods such as Cox proportional hazards models or interval-censored logistic regression. In this paper, the different approaches to the analysis of time-to-event data are examined and compared with show that log-rank test approaches are in fact first-order approximations to the maximum likelihood methods and that some methods assume proportional hazards, whereas others assume proportional odds. A simulation study is performed to compare the different methods, which shows that log-rank test approaches give biased estimates when the underlying hazard ratio or odds ratio is far from unity. It also shows that proportional hazards methods give biased results when hazards are not proportional, and proportional odds methods give biased results when odds are not proportional. Maximum likelihood models should, therefore, be preferred to log-rank test based methods for the meta-analysis of time-to-event data and any such meta-analysis should investigate whether proportional hazards or proportional odds assumptions are valid. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.