Search

Missing data is unavoidable in longitudinal clinical trials, and outcomes are not always normally distributed. In the presence of outliers or heavy-tailed distributions, the conventional multiple imputation with the mixed model with repeated measures analysis of the average treatment effect (ATE) based on the multivariate normal assumption may produce bias and power loss. Control-based imputation (CBI) is an approach for evaluating the treatment effect under the assumption that participants in both the test and control groups with missing outcome data have a similar outcome profile as those with an identical history in the control group. We develop a robust framework to handle non-normal outcomes under CBI without imposing any parametric modeling assumptions. Under the proposed framework, sequential weighted robust regressions are applied to protect the constructed imputation model against non-normality in the covariates and the response variables. Accompanied by the subsequent mean imputation and robust model analysis, the resulting ATE estimator has good theoretical properties in terms of consistency and asymptotic normality. Moreover, our proposed method guarantees the analysis model robust-ness of the ATE estimation in the sense that its asymptotic results remain intact even when the analysis model is misspecified. The superiority of the proposed robust method is demonstrated by comprehensive simulation studies and an AIDS clinical trial data application.

Returning to baseline (RTB) has been a practical method for handling missing data. Here we consider longitudinal clinical trials with daily patient reported outcomes (PROs), where efficacy endpoints are often defined as the average daily values in a cycle (such as a month or a week). The conventional method treats data at cycle level and ignores daily values. In this paper, we build a two-level constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model on daily values and propose two-level RTB method to impute daily values. Standard multiple imputation (MI) approach and likelihood-based approach are proposed and evaluated by simulations.

Cox proportional hazards (PH) model evaluates the effects of interested covariates under PH assumption without specified the baseline hazard. In clinical trial applications, however, the explicitly estimated hazard or cumulative survival function for each treatment group helps to assess and interpret the meaning of treatment difference. In this paper, we propose to use a flexible mixture model under the PH constraint to fit the underline survival functions. Simulations are conducted to evaluate its performance and show that the proposed mixture PH model is very similar to the Cox PH model in terms of estimating the hazard ratio, bias, confidence interval coverage, type-I error and testing power. Application to several real clinical trial examples demonstrates that the results from this approach are almost identical to the results from Cox PH model. The explicitly estimated hazard function for each treatment group provides additional useful information and helps the interpretation of hazard comparisons.

Missing data are common in longitudinal clinical trials. How to handle missing data is critical for both sponsors and regulatory agencies to assess treatment effect from the trials. Recently, a control-based imputation has been proposed, where the missing data are imputed based on the assumption that patients who discontinued the test drug will have a similar response profile to the patients in the control group. Under control-based imputation, the variance estimation may be biased using Rubin's formula which could produce biased statistical inferences. We evaluate several statistical methods for obtaining appropriate variances under control-based imputation for analysis of repeated binary outcomes with monotone missing data and show that both the analytical method developed by Robins & Wang and the nonparametric bootstrap method provide more appropriate variance estimates under various simulation settings. We use the methods in an application of an antidepressant Phase III clinical trial and give discussion and recommendations on method performance and preference.

The gold standard for evaluating treatment efficacy of a medical product is a placebo-controlled trial. However, when the use of placebo is considered to be unethical or impractical, a viable alternative for evaluating treatment efficacy is through a noninferiority (NI) study where a test treatment is compared to an active control treatment. The minimal objective of such a study is to determine whether the test treatment is superior to placebo. An assumption is made that if the active control treatment remains efficacious, as was observed when it was compared against placebo, then a test treatment that has comparable efficacy with the active control, within a certain range, must also be superior to placebo. Because of this assumption, the design, implementation, and analysis of NI trials present challenges for sponsors and regulators. In designing and analyzing NI trials, substantial historical data are often required on the active control treatment and placebo. Bayesian approaches provide a natural framework for synthesizing the historical data in the form of prior distributions that can effectively be used in design and analysis of a NI clinical trial. Despite a flurry of recent research activities in the area of Bayesian approaches in medical product development, there are still substantial gaps in recognition and acceptance of Bayesian approaches in NI trial design and analysis. The Bayesian Scientific Working Group of the Drug Information Association provides a coordinated effort to target the education and implementation issues on Bayesian approaches for NI trials. In this article, we provide a review of both frequentist and Bayesian approaches in NI trials, and elaborate on the implementation for two common Bayesian methods including hierarchical prior method and meta-analytic-predictive approach. Simulations are conducted to investigate the properties of the Bayesian methods, and some real clinical trial examples are presented for illustration.

In clinical trials, study subjects are usually followed for a period of time after treatment, and the missing data issue is almost inevitable due to various reasons, including early dropout or lost-to-follow-up. It is important to take the missing data into consideration at the study design stage to minimize its occurrence throughout the study and to prospectively account for it in the analyses. There are many methods available in the literature that are designed to handle the missing data issue under various settings. Vaccines are biological products that are primarily designed to prevent infectious diseases, and are different from pharmaceutical products, which traditionally have been chemical products designed to treat or cure diseases. While a lot of similarities exist between clinical trials for vaccines and those for pharmaceutical products, there are some unique issues in vaccine trials, including how to handle the missing data, which calls for special considerations. In this report we present a variety of statistical approaches for analyses of vaccine immunogenicity and safety trials in the presence of missing data. The methods are illustrated with numerical simulations and vaccine trial examples.

Problem: Patients may withdraw from longitudinal clinical trials for many reasons. Methods for handling the problem presented by missing data of patients who withdraw before reaching the time point of the primary measurement include carrying the last observation forward (LOCF), data as observed analysis (DAO), mixed model approaches, and pattern mixture models., Method: We evaluate a multiple imputation (MI) approach that has the flexibility to adjust inferences about the treatment effect for the withdrawn patients relative to currently used alternatives. Sensitivity analyses are performed under a collection of scenarios that include many circumstances that may arise in practice, including different assumptions about treatment effects post-withdrawal and about the missing data mechanism. Simulations are used to compare the results of analyses based on the MI approach with those based on the LOCF, DAO, and the mixed model approaches., Results: The LOCF and DAO approaches cannot be recommended as strategies for handling missing responses, at least for these scenarios, because they provide biased estimates of treatment effects and biased tests of the null hypothesis of no treatment effect. Application of the various approaches to the analysis of clinical data from a longitudinal trial confirms the underestimation of the variability when the LOCF approach is used.