Abstract
Background: Observational data are increasingly being used to conduct external comparisons to clinical trials. In this study, we empirically examined whether different methodological approaches to longitudinal missing data affected study conclusions in this setting. Methods: We used data from one clinical trial and one prospective observational study, both Norwegian multicenter studies including patients with recently diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis and implementing similar treatment strategies, but with different stringency. A binary disease remission status was defined at 6, 12, and 24 months in both studies. After identifying patterns of longitudinal missing outcome data, we evaluated the following five approaches to handle missingness: analyses of patients with complete follow-up data, multiple imputation (MI), inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW), and two combinations of MI and IPCW. Results: We found a complex non-monotone missing data pattern in the observational study (N=328), while missing data in the trial (N=188) was monotone due to drop-out. In the observational study, only 39.0% of patients had complete outcome data, compared to 89.9% in the trial. All approaches to missing data indicated favorable outcomes of the treatment strategy in the trial and resulted in similar study conclusions. Variations in results across approaches were mainly due to variations in estimated outcomes for the observational data. Conclusions: Five different approaches to handle longitudinal missing data resulted in similar conclusions in our example. However, the extent and complexity of missing observational data affected estimated comparative outcomes across approaches, highlighting the need for careful consideration of methods to account for missingness when using observational data as external controls to trial data.