Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Kidney Int. 2015 Sep;88(3):639–640. doi: 10.1038/ki.2015.222

The Authors Reply: Response to “Competing risk analysis is better than composite outcome to identify renal dysfunction biomarker”

Sharidan K Parr 1, Aihua Bian 2, Ayumi Shintani 2, Lorraine B Ware 3,4, T Alp Ikizler 1, Edward D Siew 1
PMCID: PMC4587760  NIHMSID: NIHMS703111  PMID: 26323077

The Authors Reply

We thank Drs. Matthieu and Jerome for their interest1 in our study2 and agree that the interpretation of our composite outcome should not be extrapolated to isolated AKI progression. A major goal of our study was to examine whether AKI biomarkers provide overall prognostic information in patients with AKI. We included death in our composite outcome based on its strong association with AKI3,4 and our hypothesis that proximate effects of evolving renal dysfunction in a prevalent AKI population are more likely to contribute to mortality than be ‘unrelated’. We agree that in certain situations, including unrelated deaths may hamper prognostic accuracy for specific events. The data in our study do not support this concern. For deaths unrelated to kidney dysfunction to decrease power, biomarker concentration would need to be similar to the non-event group. In contrast, we observed that uL-FABP was significantly elevated for each component of our composite (Table 2).2

We appreciate the authors highlighting the potential utility of competing risk analysis to describe the association between biomarkers and discrete events. While potentially providing more granular information on renal-specific outcomes, this approach may cause loss of power if deaths are related to renal injury. Elevated urine biomarker concentrations in patients who died may also reflect severe renal injury that has not had the opportunity to manifest. We agree that competing risk analyses will be a useful additional tool in assessing prognostic accuracy in future studies,5,6 particularly when the relationship between death and other outcomes of interest are less well-established.

On Behalf of the Authors,

Sharidan Parr

References

  • 1.Jamme M, Lambert J. Competing risk analysis is better than composite outcome to identify renal dysfunction biomarker. Kidney Int. doi: 10.1038/ki.2015.221. This issue. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Parr SK, Clark AJ, Bian A, et al. Urinary L-FABP predicts poor outcomes in critically ill patients with early acute kidney injury. Kidney Int. 2015;87(3):640–648. doi: 10.1038/ki.2014.301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Xue JL, Daniels F, Star RA, et al. Incidence and mortality of acute renal failure in Medicare beneficiaries, 1992 to 2001. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;17(4):1135–1142. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2005060668. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chertow GM, Burdick E, Honour M, Bonventre JV, Bates DW. Acute kidney injury, mortality, length of stay, and costs in hospitalized patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005;16(11):3365–3370. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2004090740. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Noordzij M, Leffondre K, van Stralen KJ, Zoccali C, Dekker FW, Jager KJ. When do we need competing risks methods for survival analysis in nephrology? Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013;28:2670–2677. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gft355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Varadhan R, Weiss CO, Segal JB, Wu AW, Scharfstein D, Boyd C. Evaluating health outcomes in the presence of competing risks: a review of statistical methods and clinical applications. Med Care. 2010;48(6 Suppl):S96–105. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181d99107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES