A Local Influence Sensitivity Analysis for Incomplete Longitudinal Depression Data

Missing values and dropouts are common issues in longitudinal studies in all areas of medicine and public health. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis has become a widely accepted method for the analysis of controlled clinical trials. In most controlled clinical trials, some patients do not complete their intended followup according to the protocol for a variety of reasons; this problem generates missing values. Missing values lead to concern and confusion in identifying the ITT population, which makes the data analysis more complex and challenging. No adequate strategy exists for ITT analyses of longitudinal controlled clinical trial data with missing values. Several ad hoc strategies for dealing with missing values for an ITT analysis are common in the practice of controlled clinical trials. We performed a detailed investigation based on simulation studies to develop recommendations for this situation. We compared sizes (type I errors) and power between some popular ad hoc approaches and the linear mixed model approach under different missing value scenarios. Our results suggest that, for studies with a high percentage of missing values, the mixed model approach without any ad hoc imputation is more powerful than other options.

A hybrid return to baseline imputation method to incorporate MAR and MNAR dropout missingness

Missing data are uncollected data but meaningful for the statistical analysis due to clinical relevancy of the data for properly specified estimands in clinical trials. Meanwhile the efforts to prevent or minimize missing data are commonly applied in clinical trials, in practice, missing data still occurs. Choosing a statistical method for imputation that deals with missing data targeting specified estimands provides the more reliable estimates of treatment effects. We considered longitudinal clinical settings that have different degrees of missing data and treatment effects, and simulated different missing mechanisms using data from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 confirmatory clinical trials of approved drugs. We compared four commonly used statistical methods to deal with missing data in clinical trials. We find that, when the data are missing not at random (MNAR) with higher missing rates, mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) method overestimates treatment difference. Pattern-mixture model estimates were seen to be more conservative in our studies than MMRM given MNAR assumptions, which are more realistic with missing datain clinical trials. We emphasize the importance of prevention of missing data and specifying the estimand based on trial objectives beforehand. The specified proper estimand and the proper statistical method might be key features to value the clinical trial results despite missing data.

Longitudinal studies occupy an important role in scientific researches and clinical trials. When taking the analysis of longitudinal data, investigators are often confronted with missing data which will produce potential biases, even in well-controlled condition. In the literature, missing data could be classified as missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR) and missing not at random (MNAR). Generalized estimating equations (GEE), Linear mixed effects model (LME) and Pattern-mixture effect model (PME) are the commonly used analysis methods for longitudinal data. In the current work, we carried out simulations on evaluating the performances of the different methods on analyzing longitudinal data. Based on our simulations, we conclude that when missing is MCAR, all the methods give valid estimation; when missing is MAR, GEE and PME give biased estimating results, while LME provides valid estimation. The choice of the patterns in PME may cause biased results; and when missing is MNAR, none of these models works very well, however, the selection of the patterns in PME may deserve further investigation.

e15003 Background: Stella Trial is a phase III, multinational, double-blind and randomized study to confirm clinical similarity between MB02 and EU-bevacizumab in patients with stage IIIB/IV no squamous NSCLC. 627 subjects with newly diagnosed or recurrent stage IIIb/IV NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to receive either MB02 or EU-bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin) every 3-week cycle for six cycles (week 18) followed by MB02/bevacizumab in blinded monotherapy until disease progression, treatment intolerance, death, patient withdrawal or end of study (w52). An approach targeting the MI of the continuous sum of target diameters (mm), and subsequent categorization of Overall Response (OR) was performed as sensitivity analysis for the assessment of the primary endpoint. Multiple Imputation (MI) has emerged as a credible method to assess the effects of missing data (MD), an inescapable problem with a potential ability to undermine research results' strength and validity in a clinical study, providing the user with a valuable toolset to sufficiently account for the varying types of MD and appropriately adjust the assumptions. Methods: The primary endpoint of the study was Objective Response Rate (ORR) at week 18 per an Independent Radiological Committee (IRC) in the Intention to treat set (ITT). The ORR was analysed with a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model, including the stratification factors of sex, smoking status, disease diagnosis and disease stage, comparing the stratified estimates risk difference (RD). In addition, these results were analysed implementing a pattern-mixture MI process accounting for missing at random (MAR) and missing not at random (MNAR) data based on the sum of target diameters in subjects without tumour response data or falling into the categories NonCR/NonPD or non-evaluable (NE). Results: The clinical equivalence of MB02 with EU-bevacizumab is demonstrated by the efficacy data provided through the primary endpoint and the MI sensitive analysis applied. The MI (MAR and MNAR) represents an added value that supports the biosimilarity of MB02 and EU-bevacizumab. The results for the primary analysis of the RD in ORR at w18 in the ITT set were entirely contained within the boundaries of predefined margins (±12): -4.02 [95% CI: -11.76 to 3.71]). Under MI, the ORR RD showed similarity at 95% CIs (-1.92; 95% CI: -10.02 to 6.19) and using the multiple imputations for subjects without tumour response data (missing, NonCR/NonPD or NE), the ORR RD was -2.22 with 95% CI of (-10.54 to 6.10) at w18 in the ITT. Conclusions: The clinical equivalence of MB02 with EU-bevacizumab is demonstrated by the efficacy data provided through the primary endpoint and the MI sensitive analysis applied. The MI (MAR and MNAR) represent an added value that supports the biosimilarity of MB02 and EU-bevacizumab. Clinical trial information: NCT03296163.

BackgroundMissing data are a common problem in prospective studies with a long follow-up, and the volume, pattern and reasons for missing data may be relevant when estimating the cost of illness. We aimed to evaluate the effects of different methods for dealing with missing longitudinal cost data and for costing caregiver time on total societal costs in Alzheimer’s disease (AD).MethodsGERAS is an 18-month observational study of costs associated with AD. Total societal costs included patient health and social care costs, and caregiver health and informal care costs. Missing data were classified as missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR) or missing not at random (MNAR). Simulation datasets were generated from baseline data with 10–40 % missing total cost data for each missing data mechanism. Datasets were also simulated to reflect the missing cost data pattern at 18 months using MAR and MNAR assumptions. Naïve and multiple imputation (MI) methods were applied to each dataset and results compared with complete GERAS 18-month cost data. Opportunity and replacement cost approaches were used for caregiver time, which was costed with and without supervision included and with time for working caregivers only being costed.ResultsTotal costs were available for 99.4 % of 1497 patients at baseline. For MCAR datasets, naïve methods performed as well as MI methods. For MAR, MI methods performed better than naïve methods. All imputation approaches were poor for MNAR data. For all approaches, percentage bias increased with missing data volume. For datasets reflecting 18-month patterns, a combination of imputation methods provided more accurate cost estimates (e.g. bias: −1 % vs −6 % for single MI method), although different approaches to costing caregiver time had a greater impact on estimated costs (29–43 % increase over base case estimate).ConclusionsMethods used to impute missing cost data in AD will impact on accuracy of cost estimates although varying approaches to costing informal caregiver time has the greatest impact on total costs. Tailoring imputation methods to the reason for missing data will further our understanding of the best analytical approach for studies involving cost outcomes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0188-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In longitudinal studies, missing data are ubiquitous. This article made a comparison of three model-based techniques for handling different types of missing data (i.e., missing at random (MAR)-based maximum likelihood (ML) approach, missing not at random (MNAR)-based Diggle–Kenward (DK) selection model and MNAR-based pattern mixture (PM) model) in longitudinal studies through a Monte Carlo simulation study. Two influential factors were considered: the dropout rates (5%, 10%, 20%, and 40%) and the sample sizes (100, 300, 500, and 1000) under MAR and MNAR missingness mechanisms respectively. The results indicated that the model selection was a crucial issue when researchers were dealing with missing data in longitudinal studies because under MNAR mechanism, DK method outperformed MAR-based ML approach, but PM method performed worse than MAR-based method did. The differences of the parameter estimation among three methods became more significant as the sample size and the dropout rate increased.

Missing data are frequently encountered in various disciplines and can be divided into three categories: missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR), and missing not at random (MNAR). Valid statistical approaches to missing data depend crucially on correct identification of the underlying missingness mechanism. Although the problem of testing whether this mechanism is MCAR or MAR has been extensively studied, there has been very little research on testing MAR versus MNAR. A critical challenge that is faced when dealing with this problem is the issue of model identification under MNAR. In this paper, under a logistic model for the missing probability, we develop two score tests for the problem of whether the missingness mechanism is MAR or MNAR under a parametric model and a semiparametric location model on the regression function. The implementation of the score tests circumvents the identification issue as it requires only parameter estimation under the null MAR assumption. Our simulations and analysis of human immunodeficiency virus data show that the score tests have well-controlled type I errors and desirable powers.

The last-observation-carried-forward imputation method is commonly used for imputing data missing due to dropouts in longitudinal clinical trials. The method assumes that outcome remains constant at the last observed value after dropout which is unlikely in many clinical trials. Recently, random-effects regression models have become popular for analysis of longitudinal clinical trial data with dropouts. However, inference obtained from random-effects regression models is valid when the missing-at-random dropout process is present. The random-effects pattern-mixture model, on the other hand provides an approach that is valid under more general missingness mechanisms. In this article we describe the use of random-effects pattern-mixture models under different patterns for dropouts. First, subjects are divided into groups depending on their missing-data patterns and then model parameters are estimated for each pattern. Finally, overall estimates are obtained by averaging over the missing-data patterns and corresponding standard errors are obtained using the delta method. A typical longitudinal clinical trial data set is used to illustrate and compare the above methods of data analyses in the presence of missing data due to dropouts.

Randomized clinical trials with outcome measured longitudinally are frequently analyzed using either random effect models or generalized estimating equations. Both approaches assume that the dropout mechanism is missing at random (MAR) or missing completely at random (MCAR). We propose a Bayesian pattern-mixture model to incorporate missingness mechanisms that might be missing not at random (MNAR), where the distribution of the outcome measure at the follow-up time , conditional on the prior history, differs across the patterns of missing data. We then perform sensitivity analysis on estimates of the parameters of interest. The sensitivity parameters relate the distribution of the outcome of interest between subjects from a missing-data pattern at time with that of the observed subjects at time . The large number of the sensitivity parameters is reduced by treating them as random with a prior distribution having some pre-specified mean and variance, which are varied to explore the sensitivity of inferences. The missing at random (MAR) mechanism is a special case of the proposed model, allowing a sensitivity analysis of deviations from MAR. The proposed approach is applied to data from the Trial of Preventing Hypertension.

We analytically derive the fixed-effects estimates in unconditional linear growth curve models by typical linear mixed-effects modelling (TLME) and by a pattern-mixture (PM) approach with random-slope-dependent two-missing-pattern missing not at random (MNAR) longitudinal data. Results showed that when the missingness mechanism is random-slope-dependent MNAR, TLME estimates of both the mean intercept and mean slope are biased because of incorrect weights used in the estimation. More specifically, the estimate of the mean slope is biased towards the mean slope for completers, whereas the estimate of the mean intercept is biased towards the opposite direction as compared to the estimate of the mean slope. We also discuss why the PM approach can provide unbiased fixed-effects estimates for random-coefficients-dependent MNAR data but does not work well for missing at random or outcome-dependent MNAR data. A small simulation study was conducted to illustrate the results and to compare results from TLME and PM. Results from an empirical data analysis showed that the conceptual finding can be generalized to other real conditions even when some assumptions for the analytical derivation cannot be met. Implications from the analytical and empirical results were discussed and sensitivity analysis was suggested for longitudinal data analysis with missing data.

Dropout is a common complication in longitudinal studies, especially since the distinction between missing not at random (MNAR) and missing at random (MAR) dropout is intractable. Consequently, one starts with an analysis that is valid under MAR and then performs a sensitivity analysis by considering MNAR departures from it. To this end, specific classes of joint models, such as pattern-mixture models (PMMs) and selection models (SeMs), have been proposed. On the contrary, shared-parameter models (SPMs) have received less attention, possibly because they do not embody a characterization of MAR. A few approaches to achieve MAR in SPMs exist, but are difficult to implement in existing software. In this article, we focus on SPMs for incomplete longitudinal and time-to-dropout data and propose an alternative characterization of MAR by exploiting the conditional independence assumption, under which outcome and missingness are independent given a set of random effects. By doing so, the censoring distribution can be utilized to cover a wide range of assumptions for the missing data mechanism on the subject-specific level. This approach offers substantial advantages over its counterparts and can be easily implemented in existing software. More specifically, it offers flexibility over the assumption for the missing data generating mechanism that governs dropout by allowing subject-specific perturbations of the censoring distribution, whereas in PMMs and SeMs dropout is considered MNAR strictly.

Estimating treatment effects from longitudinal clinical trial data with missing values: comparative analyses using different methods

The occurrence of missing data due to protocol deviations is inevitable in clinical trials. When missing data exist, analyses rely on assumptions about the behaviour of the individuals after dropping out. As a result, sensitivity analysis, which is now advocated by regulatory bodies, should be performed to explore the robustness of the inference to those assumptions. These assumptions should be relevant to the estimand of the study and be practically accessible by all parties. The aim of this document is twofold: to assess the statistical validity of a new method for sensitivity analysis, and apply this method to a published Alzheimer’s study. At the beginning of the thesis, a description of the Alzheimer’s study and issues with missing data encountered therein, take place. This study was mainly set up to investigate the effect rosiglitazone, as an adjunct therapy in Alzheimer’s patients. Two different doses of the drug were compared to placebo. The study suffered from a moderate degree of missing data in each treatment arm. The thesis proceeds with a critique on the per-protocol and intention-to-treat estimands, and revisits their meaning when missing data occur. Two new estimands are introduced, which are particularly amenable to studies with missing data. They are termed de-jure and de-facto. Following that, the main methods for dealing with missing data are introduced, with a particular emphasis on multiple imputation, and how it can easily incorporate missing not at random (MNAR) analyses. A thorough presentation of the new methodology is given. This is built around a set of assumptions, that reflect possible distributional behaviours of the subjects after protocol deviation. The assumptions are Randomised-treatment Missing at Random (MAR), Jump to Reference, Last Mean Carried Forward, Copy Increments in Reference, and Copy Reference. Estimation and inference is achieved via multiple imputation, and it is shown how the predictive distribution of the imputation model can be constructed from parameters borrowed from an MAR model and manipulated in a pattern-mixture model approach, to obtain the five assumptions for the 4 unobserved component of groups of individuals. A number of simulations whose aim is to explore the statistical properties of the new method, are carried out. The simulated datasets, which are based on the parameters from the Alzheimer’s study, focus on the estimator bias, the size and power of the methods, the bias of the variance estimator, and coverage. The results obtained from the simulations show the method has sensible properties; no bias for the estimator was detectable and the sizes and power of the methods agreed closely with their theoretical equivalents. The main result however, pertains to Rubin’s variance estimator, which proves to appropriately reflect the loss of information from missing data. It is therefore argued, it is the right estimator to use in this setting. The results from the application of the proposed method on the Alzheimer’s dataset are presented in tables. Inferences from the sensitivity analysis assumptions were consistent with those from the original MAR analyses. The comparison between high dose rosiglitazone and placebo did not show any evidence in favour of the treatment under any sensitivity assumption. Some evidence of treatment difference existed when the low dose treatment was compared to placebo. This finding though, should be interpreted with caution, as the differences were obtained from analyses not subjected to the rigorous inferential process that was used in the Harringtons study. It was further argued, this finding might have been due to chance, and it was not replicated in a different study.

Chapter 14 - Methods for handling missing data