The integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) index is a popular tool for evaluating the capacity of a marker to predict a binary outcome of interest. Recent reports have proposed that the IDI is more sensitive than other metrics for identifying useful predictive markers. In this article, the authors use simulated data sets and theoretical analysis to investigate the statistical properties of the IDI. The authors consider the common situation in which a risk model is fitted to a data set with and without the new, candidate predictor(s). Results demonstrate that the published method of estimating the standard error of an IDI estimate tends to underestimate the error. The z test proposed in the literature for IDI-based testing of a new biomarker is not valid, because the null distribution of the test statistic is not standard normal, even in large samples. If a test for the incremental value of a marker is desired, the authors recommend the test based on the model. For investigators who find the IDI to be a useful measure, bootstrap methods may offer a reasonable option for inference when evaluating new predictors, as long as the added predictive capacity is large.

It is common in longitudinal studies for scheduled visits to be accompanied by as-needed visits due to medical events occurring between scheduled visits. If the timing of these as-needed visits is related to factors that are associated with the outcome but are not among the regression model covariates, naively including these as-needed visits in the model yields biased estimates. In this paper, the authors illustrate and discuss the key issues pertaining to inverse intensity rate ratio (IIRR)-weighted generalized estimating equations (GEE) methods in the context of a study of Kenyan mothers infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (1999–2005). The authors estimated prevalences and prevalence ratios for morbid conditions affecting the women during a 1-year postpartum follow-up period. Of the 484 women under study, 62% had at least 1 as-needed visit. Use of a standard GEE model including both scheduled and unscheduled visits predicted a pneumonia prevalence of 2.9% (95% confidence interval: 2.3%, 3.5%), while use of the IIRR-weighted GEE predicted a prevalence of 1.5% (95% confidence interval: 1.2%, 1.8%). The estimate obtained using the IIRR-weighted GEE approach was compatible with estimates derived using scheduled visits only. These results highlight the importance of properly accounting for informative follow-up in these studies.