Preventing and Treating Missing Data in Longitudinal Clinical Trials

Author(s):  
Craig Mallinckrodt
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Sean Wharton ◽  
Arne Astrup ◽  
Lars Endahl ◽  
Michael E. J. Lean ◽  
Altynai Satylganova ◽  
...  

AbstractIn the approval process for new weight management therapies, regulators typically require estimates of effect size. Usually, as with other drug evaluations, the placebo-adjusted treatment effect (i.e., the difference between weight losses with pharmacotherapy and placebo, when given as an adjunct to lifestyle intervention) is provided from data in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). At first glance, this may seem appropriate and straightforward. However, weight loss is not a simple direct drug effect, but is also mediated by other factors such as changes in diet and physical activity. Interpreting observed differences between treatment arms in weight management RCTs can be challenging; intercurrent events that occur after treatment initiation may affect the interpretation of results at the end of treatment. Utilizing estimands helps to address these uncertainties and improve transparency in clinical trial reporting by better matching the treatment-effect estimates to the scientific and/or clinical questions of interest. Estimands aim to provide an indication of trial outcomes that might be expected in the same patients under different conditions. This article reviews how intercurrent events during weight management trials can influence placebo-adjusted treatment effects, depending on how they are accounted for and how missing data are handled. The most appropriate method for statistical analysis is also discussed, including assessment of the last observation carried forward approach, and more recent methods, such as multiple imputation and mixed models for repeated measures. The use of each of these approaches, and that of estimands, is discussed in the context of the SCALE phase 3a and 3b RCTs evaluating the effect of liraglutide 3.0 mg for the treatment of obesity.


2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mi-Ok Kim ◽  
Xia Wang ◽  
Chunyan Liu ◽  
Kathleen Dorris ◽  
Maryam Fouladi ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (8) ◽  
pp. e6624 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mai A. Elobeid ◽  
Miguel A. Padilla ◽  
Theresa McVie ◽  
Olivia Thomas ◽  
David W. Brock ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Michael O'Kelly ◽  
Bohdana Ratitch
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e000348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mimi Kim ◽  
Joan T Merrill ◽  
Cuiling Wang ◽  
Shankar Viswanathan ◽  
Ken Kalunian ◽  
...  

ObjectiveA common problem in clinical trials is missing data due to participant dropout and loss to follow-up, an issue which continues to receive considerable attention in the clinical research community. Our objective was to examine and compare current and alternative methods for handling missing data in SLE trials with a particular focus on multiple imputation, a flexible technique that has been applied in different disease settings but not to address missing data in the primary outcome of an SLE trial.MethodsData on 279 patients with SLE randomised to standard of care (SoC) and also receiving mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), azathioprine or methotrexate were obtained from the Lupus Foundation of America-Collective Data Analysis Initiative Database. Complete case analysis (CC), last observation carried forward (LOCF), non-responder imputation (NRI) and multiple imputation (MI) were applied to handle missing data in an analysis to assess differences in SLE Responder Index-5 (SRI-5) response rates at 52 weeks between patients on SoC treated with MMF versus other immunosuppressants (non-MMF).ResultsThe rates of missing data were 32% in the MMF and 23% in the non-MMF groups. As expected, the NRI missing data approach yielded the lowest estimated response rates. The smallest and least significant estimates of differences between groups were observed with LOCF, and precision was lowest with the CC method. Estimated between-group differences were magnified with the MI approach, and imputing SRI-5 directly versus deriving SRI-5 after separately imputing its individual components yielded similar results.ConclusionThe potential advantages of applying MI to address missing data in an SLE trial include reduced bias when estimating treatment effects, and measures of precision that properly reflect uncertainty in the imputations. However, results can vary depending on the imputation model used, and the underlying assumptions should be plausible. Sensitivity analysis should be conducted to demonstrate robustness of results, especially when missing data proportions are high.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document