1 / 33

A n Analytic Road Map for Incomplete Longitudinal Clinical Trial Data

Craig Mallinckrodt ICSA June 4, 2007 Raleigh, NC. A n Analytic Road Map for Incomplete Longitudinal Clinical Trial Data. Context. Road map ≠ driving directions provides info about alternatives framework to plan route, doesn’t choose it

Download Presentation

A n Analytic Road Map for Incomplete Longitudinal Clinical Trial Data

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Craig Mallinckrodt ICSA June 4, 2007Raleigh, NC An Analytic Road Map for Incomplete Longitudinal Clinical Trial Data

  2. Context • Road map ≠ driving directions • provides info about alternatives • framework to plan route, doesn’t choose it • Route to valid analyses of incomplete longitudinal data can be problematic • Many advances in missing data theory and implementation • We can do better than LOCF • Need framework to plan use of newer methods

  3. Outline • Missing data mechanisms • Modeling philosophies • Example of developing an analytic road map • Example of implementing an analytic road map • Today’s focus is on missing data. Concepts easily extended to include modeling of time and correlation

  4. Starting Point • No universally best method for analyzing longitudinal data • This implies analysis must be tailored to the specific situation at hand • Consider the desired attributes of the analysis and the characteristics of the data

  5. Missing Data Mechanisms • MCAR - missing completely at random • Conditional on the model, neither observed or unobserved outcomes are related to dropout • MAR - missing at random • Conditional on the model, observed outcomes are related to dropout, but unobserved outcomes are not • MNAR - missing not at random • Unobserved outcomes are related to dropout

  6. Missing Data Mechanisms • MCAR - missing completely at random • Conditional on independent variables in the model, neither observed or unobserved outcomes of the dependent variable are related to dropout • MAR - missing at random • Conditional on the independent variables in the model, observed outcomes of the dependent variable are related to dropout, but unobserved outcomes are not

  7. Consequences • Missing data mechanism is a characteristic of the data AND the model • Differential dropout by treatment indicates covariate dependence, not mechanism • Mechanism can vary from one outcome to another • Terms like ignorable missingness and informative censoring must also consider the method • What is ignorable with likelihood-based analysis is non-ignorable with GEE

  8. Analytic Approaches for Continuous Outcomes • MCAR • ANOVA, GEE • MAR • Likelihood-based mixed-effects models (LB-MEM), Multiple imputation (MI), Propensity scoring, Weighted analyses • MNAR • Selection models, Pattern mixture models, Shared parameter models, sensitivity analyses • Note that if missing values are imputed other assumptions also need to be considered

  9. Modeling Philosophies • Restrictive modeling • Inclusive modeling

  10. Restrictive Modeling • Simple models with few independentvariables • Often include only the design factors of theexperiment

  11. Inclusive Modeling • In addition to the design factors of the experiment, models include auxiliary variables • Auxiliary variables included to improve performance of the missing data procedure – expand the scope of MAR • baseline covariates • time varying post-baseline covariates

  12. Rationale For Inclusive Modeling • MAR: conditional on the dependent and independent variables in the analysis, unobserved values of the dependent variable are independent of dropout • Hence adding more variables that explain dropout can make missingness MAR that would otherwise be MNAR

  13. Inclusive Modeling with LB-MEM • Add auxiliary variables to analysis model • Adding baseline covariates is straightforward • Adding post-baseline time varying covariates that are also influenced by treatment often dilute the treatment effect • Could conduct a multivariate analysis where the auxiliary variable is a second dependent variable

  14. Inclusive Modeling with MI • Include auxiliary variables in the imputation model • Typically analyze complete data sets using a restrictive model, but could use the same inclusive model to analyze the data • Similar approaches can be used in propensity scoring and weighted analyses where a dropout model is used to develop propensity score bins or inverse probability of dropout weights, followed by a second analysis step

  15. Developing An Analytic Road Map:Example From A Depression Trial • Confirmatory clinical trial of an antidepressant. Primary analysis should be simple and dependable • MAR with restrictive modeling as primary • Use MAR with inclusive modeling and MNAR methods as sensitivity analyses • Use local influence to investigate impact of influential patients

  16. Why MAR? • Data in clinical trials are seldom MCAR because the observed outcomes typically influence dropout (lack of efficacy) • Trials are designed to observe all the relevant information, which minimizes MNAR data • Hence in the highly controlled scenario of clinical trials missing data may be mostly MAR

  17. Why not MNAR? • Rubin (1994): “…, even inferences for the data parameters generally depend on the posited missingness mechanism, a fact that typically implies greatly increased sensitivity of inference…” • Laird (1994): “estimating the unestimable can be accomplished only by making modeling assumptions, The consequences of model misspecification will be more severe in the non-random case.” • Molenberghs, Kenward & Lesaffre (1997): “conclusions are conditional on the appropriateness of the assumed model, which in a fundamental sense is not testable.”

  18. Why Restrictive Modeling? • Historically favor simple models, with impact of other factors addressed via secondary analyses • No strong a priori evidence of important auxiliary variables • Cost of including unnecessary variables? • Avoids any potential confounding of auxiliary variables with design factors (e.g., treatment)

  19. Implementing The Road Map: Example From A Depression Trial • 259 patients, randomized 1:1 ratio to drug and placebo • Response: Change of HAMD17 score from baseline • 6 post-baseline visits (Weeks 1,2,3,5,7,9) • Primary objective: test the difference of mean change in HAMD17 total score between drug and placebo at the endpoint • Primary analysis: LB-MEM

  20. Primary Analysis: LB-MEM proc mixed; class subject treatment time site; model Y = baseline treatment time site treatment*time ; repeated time / sub = subject type = un; lsmeans treatment*time / cl diff; run; This is a full multivariate model, with unstructured modeling of time and correlation. More parsimonious approaches may be useful in other scenarios Treatment contrast 2.17, p = .024

  21. Patient Disposition • Drug Placebo • Protocol complete 60.9% 64.7% • Adverse event 12.5% 4.3% • Lack of efficacy 5.5% 13.7% • Differential rates, timing, and/or reasons for dropout do not necessarily distinguish between MCAR, MAR, MNAR

  22. Inclusive Modeling in MI:Including Auxiliary AE Data • Imputation Models • *Yih = µ +1 Yi1 +…+ h-1 Yi(h-1) + ih • Yih = µ + 1 Yi1 +…+ h-1 Yi(h-1) + 1 AEi1 +…+ h-1 AEi(h-1) + ih • Yih= µ + 1 Yi1 +…+ h-1 Yi(h-1) + 1 AEi1 +…+ h-1 AEi(h-1) +11 (Yi1 *AEi1 ) + …+i(h-1) (Yi(h-1) * AEi(h-1) ) + ih • Analysis Model MMRM as previously described

  23. Result • MI results were not sensitive to the different imputation models Endpoint contrastMMRM 2.2MI Y+AE 2.3MI Y+AE+Y*AE 2.1 • Including AE data might be important in other scenarios. Many ways to define AE

  24. MNAR Modeling • Implement a selection model • Had to simplify model: modeled time as linear + quadratic, and used ar(1) correlation • Compare results from assuming MAR, MNAR • Also obtain local influence to assess impact of influential patients on treatment contrasts and non-random dropout

  25. Selection Model Results

  26. Local Influence: Influential Patients

  27. Individual Profiles with Influential Patients Highlighted

  28. Investigating The Influential Patients • The most influential patient was #30, a drug-treated patient that had the unusual profile of a big improvement but dropped out at week 1 • This patient was in his/her first MDD episode when s/he was enrolled • This patient dropped out based on his/her own decision claiming that the MDD was caused by high carbon monoxide level in his/her house • This patient was of dubious value for assessing the efficacy of the drug

  29. Selection Model: Influential Patients Removed

  30. Implications • Comforting that no subjects had a huge influence on results. Impact bigger if it were a smaller trial • Similar to other depression trials we have investigated, results not influenced by MNAR data • We can be confident in the primary result

  31. Discussion • MAR with restrictive modeling was a reasonable choice for the primary analysis • MAR with inclusive modeling and MNAR was useful in assessing sensitivity • Sensitivity analyses promote the appropriate level of confidence in the primary result and lead us to an alternative analysis in which we can have the greatest possible confidence

  32. Opinions • Inclusive modeling has been under utilized • More research to understand dropout would be useful • Did not discuss pros and cons of various ways to implement inclusive modeling. Use the one you know? Be careful to not dilute treatment • The road map for analyses used in the example data is specific to that scenario and is not intended to be a general prescription

  33. Conclusions • No universally best method for analyzing longitudinal data • Analysis must be tailored to the specific situation at hand • We can do better than LOCF etc. • Considering the missingness mechanism and the modeling philosophy provides the framework in which to choose an appropriate primary analysis and appropriate sensitivity analyses

More Related