Missing data in clinical trials: from clinical assumptions to statistical analysis using pattern mixture models

The need to use rigorous, transparent, clearly interpretable, and scientifically justified methodology for preventing and dealing with missing data in clinical trials has been a focus of much attention from regulators, practitioners, and academicians over the past years. New guidelines and recommendations emphasize the importance of minimizing the amount of missing data and carefully selecting primary analysis methods on the basis of assumptions regarding the missingness mechanism suitable for the study at hand, as well as the need to stress‐test the results of the primary analysis under different sets of assumptions through a range of sensitivity analyses. Some methods that could be effectively used for dealing with missing data have not yet gained widespread usage, partly because of their underlying complexity and partly because of lack of relatively easy approaches to their implementation. In this paper, we explore several strategies for missing data on the basis of pattern mixture models that embody clear and realistic clinical assumptions. Pattern mixture models provide a statistically reasonable yet transparent framework for translating clinical assumptions into statistical analyses. Implementation details for some specific strategies are provided in an Appendix (available online as Supporting Information), whereas the general principles of the approach discussed in this paper can be used to implement various other analyses with different sets of assumptions regarding missing data. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Using multiple imputation to estimate cumulative distribution functions in longitudinal data analysis with data missing at random

In longitudinal clinical studies, after randomization at baseline, subjects are followed for a period of time for development of symptoms. The interested inference could be the mean change from baseline to a particular visit in some lab values, the proportion of responders to some threshold category at a particular visit post baseline, or the time to some important event. However, in some applications, the interest may be in estimating the cumulative distribution function (CDF) at a fixed time point post baseline. When the data are fully observed, the CDF can be estimated by the empirical CDF. When patients discontinue prematurely during the course of the study, the empirical CDF cannot be directly used. In this paper, we use multiple imputation as a way to estimate the CDF in longitudinal studies when data are missing at random. The validity of the method is assessed on the basis of the bias and the Kolmogorov–Smirnov distance. The results suggest that multiple imputation yields less bias and less variability than the often used last observation carried forward method. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Skew-normal factor analysis models with incomplete data

Traditional factor analysis (FA) rests on the assumption of multivariate normality. However, in some practical situations, the data do not meet this assumption; thus, the statistical inference made from such data may be misleading. This paper aims at providing some new tools for the skew-normal (SN) FA model when missing values occur in the data. In such a model, the latent factors are assumed to follow a restricted version of multivariate SN distribution with additional shape parameters for accommodating skewness. We develop an analytically feasible expectation conditional maximization algorithm for carrying out parameter estimation and imputation of missing values under missing at random mechanisms. The practical utility of the proposed methodology is illustrated with two real data examples and the results are compared with those obtained from the traditional FA counterparts.     

Missing data sensitivity analysis for recurrent event data using controlled imputation

Statistical analyses of recurrent event data have typically been based on the missing at random assumption. One implication of this is that, if data are collected only when patients are on their randomized treatment, the resulting de jure estimator of treatment effect corresponds to the situation in which the patients adhere to this regime throughout the study. For confirmatory analysis of clinical trials, sensitivity analyses are required to investigate alternative de facto estimands that depart from this assumption. Recent publications have described the use of multiple imputation methods based on pattern mixture models for continuous outcomes, where imputation for the missing data for one treatment arm (e.g. the active arm) is based on the statistical behaviour of outcomes in another arm (e.g. the placebo arm). This has been referred to as controlled imputation or reference‐based imputation. In this paper, we use the negative multinomial distribution to apply this approach to analyses of recurrent events and other similar outcomes. The methods are illustrated by a trial in severe asthma where the primary endpoint was rate of exacerbations and the primary analysis was based on the negative binomial model. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A multiple imputation approach to nonlinear mixed-effects models with covariate measurement errors and missing values

In longitudinal studies, nonlinear mixed-effects models have been widely applied to describe the intra- and the inter-subject variations in data. The inter-subject variation usually receives great attention and it may be partially explained by time-dependent covariates. However, some covariates may be measured with substantial errors and may contain missing values. We proposed a multiple imputation method, implemented by a Markov Chain Monte-Carlo method along with Gibbs sampler, to address the covariate measurement errors and missing data in nonlinear mixed-effects models. The multiple imputation method is illustrated in a real data example. Simulation studies show that the multiple imputation method outperforms the commonly used naive methods.     

A comparison of various software tools for dealing with missing data via imputation

In real-life situations, we often encounter data sets containing missing observations. Statistical methods that address missingness have been extensively studied in recent years. One of the more popular approaches involves imputation of the missing values prior to the analysis, thereby rendering the data complete. Imputation broadly encompasses an entire scope of techniques that have been developed to make inferences about incomplete data, ranging from very simple strategies (e.g. mean imputation) to more advanced approaches that require estimation, for instance, of posterior distributions using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Additional complexity arises when the number of missingness patterns increases and/or when both categorical and continuous random variables are involved. Implementation of routines, procedures, or packages capable of generating imputations for incomplete data are now widely available. We review some of these in the context of a motivating example, as well as in a simulation study, under two missingness mechanisms (missing at random and missing not at random). Thus far, evaluation of existing implementations have frequently centred on the resulting parameter estimates of the prescribed model of interest after imputing the missing data. In some situations, however, interest may very well be on the quality of the imputed values at the level of the individual – an issue that has received relatively little attention. In this paper, we focus on the latter to provide further insight about the performance of the different routines, procedures, and packages in this respect.     

Control‐based imputation for sensitivity analyses in informative censoring for recurrent event data

In clinical trials, missing data commonly arise through nonadherence to the randomized treatment or to study procedure. For trials in which recurrent event endpoints are of interests, conventional analyses using the proportional intensity model or the count model assume that the data are missing at random, which cannot be tested using the observed data alone. Thus, sensitivity analyses are recommended. We implement the control‐based multiple imputation as sensitivity analyses for the recurrent event data. We model the recurrent event using a piecewise exponential proportional intensity model with frailty and sample the parameters from the posterior distribution. We impute the number of events after dropped out and correct the variance estimation using a bootstrap procedure. We apply the method to an application of sitagliptin study.     

Sequential imputation for models with latent variables assuming latent ignorability

Models that involve an outcome variable, covariates, and latent variables are frequently the target for estimation and inference. The presence of missing covariate or outcome data presents a challenge, particularly when missingness depends on the latent variables. This missingness mechanism is called latent ignorable or latent missing at random and is a generalisation of missing at random. Several authors have previously proposed approaches for handling latent ignorable missingness, but these methods rely on prior specification of the joint distribution for the complete data. In practice, specifying the joint distribution can be difficult and/or restrictive. We develop a novel sequential imputation procedure for imputing covariate and outcome data for models with latent variables under latent ignorable missingness. The proposed method does not require a joint model; rather, we use results under a joint model to inform imputation with less restrictive modelling assumptions. We discuss identifiability and convergence‐related issues, and simulation results are presented in several modelling settings. The method is motivated and illustrated by a study of head and neck cancer recurrence. Imputing missing data for models with latent variables under latent‐dependent missingness without specifying a full joint model.     

Multiple imputation of missing data with ante-dependence covariance structure

A controlled clinical trial was conducted to investigate the efficacy effect of a chemical compound in the treatment of Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder (PMDD). The data from the trial showed a non-monotone pattern of missing data and an ante-dependence covariance structure. A new analytical method for imputing the missing data with the ante-dependence covariance is proposed. The PMDD data are analysed by the non-imputation method and two imputation methods: the proposed method and the MCMC method.     

The estimation of R 2 and adjusted R 2 in incomplete data sets using multiple imputation

The coefficient of determination, known also as the R ², is a common measure in regression analysis. Many scientists use the R ² and the adjusted R ² on a regular basis. In most cases, the researchers treat the coefficient of determination as an index of ‘usefulness’ or ‘goodness of fit,’ and in some cases, they even treat it as a model selection tool. In cases in which the data is incomplete, most researchers and common statistical software will use complete case analysis in order to estimate the R ², a procedure that might lead to biased results. In this paper, I introduce the use of multiple imputation for the estimation of R ² and adjusted R ² in incomplete data sets. I illustrate my methodology using a biomedical example.     

Inference methods for saturated models in longitudinal clinical trials with incomplete binary data

In the longitudinal studies with binary response, it is often of interest to estimate the percentage of positive responses at each time point and the percentage of having at least one positive response by each time point. When missing data exist, the conventional method based on observed percentages could result in erroneous estimates. This study demonstrates two methods of using expectation-maximization (EM) and data augmentation (DA) algorithms in the estimation of the marginal and cumulative probabilities for incomplete longitudinal binary response data. Both methods provide unbiased estimates when the missingness mechanism is missing at random (MAR) assumption. Sensitivity analyses have been performed for cases when the MAR assumption is in question.     

Impact of the non-distinctness and non-ignorability on the inference by multiple imputation in multivariate multilevel data: a simulation assessment

Multiple imputation (MI) is an increasingly popular method for analysing incomplete multivariate data sets. One of the most crucial assumptions of this method relates to mechanism leading to missing data. Distinctness is typically assumed, which indicates a complete independence of mechanisms underlying missingness and data generation. In addition, missing at random or missing completely at random is assumed, which explicitly states under which conditions missingness is independent of observed data. Despite common use of MI under these assumptions, plausibility and sensitivity to these fundamental assumptions have not been well-investigated. In this work, we investigate the impact of non-distinctness and non-ignorability. In particular, non-ignorability is due to unobservable cluster-specific effects (e.g. random-effects). Through a comprehensive simulation study, we show that MI inferences suggest that nonignoriability due to non-distinctness do not immediately imply dismal performance while non-ignorability due to missing not at random leads to quite subpar performance.     

Reference‐based sensitivity analysis for time‐to‐event data

The analysis of time‐to‐event data typically makes the censoring at random assumption, ie, that—conditional on covariates in the model—the distribution of event times is the same, whether they are observed or unobserved (ie, right censored). When patients who remain in follow‐up stay on their assigned treatment, then analysis under this assumption broadly addresses the de jure, or “while on treatment strategy” estimand. In such cases, we may well wish to explore the robustness of our inference to more pragmatic, de facto or “treatment policy strategy,” assumptions about the behaviour of patients post‐censoring. This is particularly the case when censoring occurs because patients change, or revert, to the usual (ie, reference) standard of care. Recent work has shown how such questions can be addressed for trials with continuous outcome data and longitudinal follow‐up, using reference‐based multiple imputation. For example, patients in the active arm may have their missing data imputed assuming they reverted to the control (ie, reference) intervention on withdrawal. Reference‐based imputation has two advantages: (a) it avoids the user specifying numerous parameters describing the distribution of patients' postwithdrawal data and (b) it is, to a good approximation, information anchored, so that the proportion of information lost due to missing data under the primary analysis is held constant across the sensitivity analyses. In this article, we build on recent work in the survival context, proposing a class of reference‐based assumptions appropriate for time‐to‐event data. We report a simulation study exploring the extent to which the multiple imputation estimator (using Rubin's variance formula) is information anchored in this setting and then illustrate the approach by reanalysing data from a randomized trial, which compared medical therapy with angioplasty for patients presenting with angina.     

Multiple imputation methods for recurrent event data with missing event category

Frequently in clinical and epidemiologic studies, the event of interest is recurrent (i.e., can occur more than once per subject). When the events are not of the same type, an analysis which accounts for the fact that events fall into different categories will often be more informative. Often, however, although event times may always be known, information through which events are categorized may potentially be missing. Complete‐case methods (whose application may require, for example, that events be censored when their category cannot be determined) are valid only when event categories are missing completely at random. This assumption is rather restrictive. The authors propose two multiple imputation methods for analyzing multiple‐category recurrent event data under the proportional means/rates model. The use of a proper or improper imputation technique distinguishes the two approaches. Both methods lead to consistent estimation of regression parameters even when the missingness of event categories depends on covariates. The authors derive the asymptotic properties of the estimators and examine their behaviour in finite samples through simulation. They illustrate their approach using data from an international study on dialysis.     

Multiple imputation for ordinal longitudinal data with monotone missing data patterns

Missing data often complicate the analysis of scientific data. Multiple imputation is a general purpose technique for analysis of datasets with missing values. The approach is applicable to a variety of missing data patterns but often complicated by some restrictions like the type of variables to be imputed and the mechanism underlying the missing data. In this paper, the authors compare the performance of two multiple imputation methods, namely fully conditional specification and multivariate normal imputation in the presence of ordinal outcomes with monotone missing data patterns. Through a simulation study and an empirical example, the authors show that the two methods are indeed comparable meaning any of the two may be used when faced with scenarios, at least, as the ones presented here.     

Imputation techniques for incomplete data in quadratic discriminant analysis

We have compared the efficacy of five imputation algorithms readily available in SAS for the quadratic discriminant function. Here, we have generated several different parametric-configuration training data with missing data, including monotone missing-at-random observations, and used a Monte Carlo simulation to examine the expected probabilities of misclassification for the two-class quadratic statistical discrimination problem under five different imputation methods. Specifically, we have compared the efficacy of the complete observation-only method and the mean substitution, regression, predictive mean matching, propensity score, and Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) imputation methods. We found that the MCMC and propensity score multiple imputation approaches are, in general, superior to the other imputation methods for the configurations and training-sample sizes we considered.     

A structured framework for assessing sensitivity to missing data assumptions in longitudinal clinical trials

The objective of this research was to demonstrate a framework for drawing inference from sensitivity analyses of incomplete longitudinal clinical trial data via a re‐analysis of data from a confirmatory clinical trial in depression. A likelihood‐based approach that assumed missing at random (MAR) was the primary analysis. Robustness to departure from MAR was assessed by comparing the primary result to those from a series of analyses that employed varying missing not at random (MNAR) assumptions (selection models, pattern mixture models and shared parameter models) and to MAR methods that used inclusive models. The key sensitivity analysis used multiple imputation assuming that after dropout the trajectory of drug‐treated patients was that of placebo treated patients with a similar outcome history (placebo multiple imputation). This result was used as the worst reasonable case to define the lower limit of plausible values for the treatment contrast. The endpoint contrast from the primary analysis was ? 2.79 (p = .013). In placebo multiple imputation, the result was ? 2.17. Results from the other sensitivity analyses ranged from ? 2.21 to ? 3.87 and were symmetrically distributed around the primary result. Hence, no clear evidence of bias from missing not at random data was found. In the worst reasonable case scenario, the treatment effect was 80% of the magnitude of the primary result. Therefore, it was concluded that a treatment effect existed. The structured sensitivity framework of using a worst reasonable case result based on a controlled imputation approach with transparent and debatable assumptions supplemented a series of plausible alternative models under varying assumptions was useful in this specific situation and holds promise as a generally useful framework. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Missing data: Discussion points from the PSI missing data expert group

The Points to Consider Document on Missing Data was adopted by the Committee of Health and Medicinal Products (CHMP) in December 2001. In September 2007 the CHMP issued a recommendation to review the document, with particular emphasis on summarizing and critically appraising the pattern of drop‐outs, explaining the role and limitations of the ‘last observation carried forward’ method and describing the CHMP's cautionary stance on the use of mixed models. In preparation for the release of the updated guidance document, statisticians in the Pharmaceutical Industry held a one‐day expert group meeting in September 2008. Topics that were debated included minimizing the extent of missing data and understanding the missing data mechanism, defining the principles for handling missing data and understanding the assumptions underlying different analysis methods. A clear message from the meeting was that at present, biostatisticians tend only to react to missing data. Limited pro‐active planning is undertaken when designing clinical trials. Missing data mechanisms for a trial need to be considered during the planning phase and the impact on the objectives assessed. Another area for improvement is in the understanding of the pattern of missing data observed during a trial and thus the missing data mechanism via the plotting of data; for example, use of Kaplan–Meier curves looking at time to withdrawal. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Comparison of several imputation methods for missing baseline data in propensity scores analysis of binary outcome

We performed a simulation study comparing the statistical properties of the estimated log odds ratio from propensity scores analyses of a binary response variable, in which missing baseline data had been imputed using a simple imputation scheme (Treatment Mean Imputation), compared with three ways of performing multiple imputation (MI) and with a Complete Case analysis. MI that included treatment (treated/untreated) and outcome (for our analyses, outcome was adverse event [yes/no]) in the imputer's model had the best statistical properties of the imputation schemes we studied. MI is feasible to use in situations where one has just a few outcomes to analyze. We also found that Treatment Mean Imputation performed quite well and is a reasonable alternative to MI in situations where it is not feasible to use MI. Treatment Mean Imputation performed better than MI methods that did not include both the treatment and outcome in the imputer's model. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A multiple imputation method for incomplete correlated ordinal data using multivariate probit models

The multiple imputation technique has proven to be a useful tool in missing data analysis. We propose a Markov chain Monte Carlo method to conduct multiple imputation for incomplete correlated ordinal data using the multivariate probit model. We conduct a thorough simulation study to compare the performance of our proposed method with two available imputation methods – multivariate normal-based and chain equation methods for various missing data scenarios. For illustration, we present an application using the data from the smoking cessation treatment study for low-income community corrections smokers.