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.     

Sensitivity to censored‐at‐random assumption in the analysis of time‐to‐event endpoints

Over the past years, significant progress has been made in developing statistically rigorous methods to implement clinically interpretable sensitivity analyses for assumptions about the missingness mechanism in clinical trials for continuous and (to a lesser extent) for binary or categorical endpoints. Studies with time‐to‐event outcomes have received much less attention. However, such studies can be similarly challenged with respect to the robustness and integrity of primary analysis conclusions when a substantial number of subjects withdraw from treatment prematurely prior to experiencing an event of interest. We discuss how the methods that are widely used for primary analyses of time‐to‐event outcomes could be extended in a clinically meaningful and interpretable way to stress‐test the assumption of ignorable censoring. We focus on a ‘tipping point’ approach, the objective of which is to postulate sensitivity parameters with a clear clinical interpretation and to identify a setting of these parameters unfavorable enough towards the experimental treatment to nullify a conclusion that was favorable to that treatment. Robustness of primary analysis results can then be assessed based on clinical plausibility of the scenario represented by the tipping point. We study several approaches for conducting such analyses based on multiple imputation using parametric, semi‐parametric, and non‐parametric imputation models and evaluate their operating characteristics via simulation. We argue that these methods are valuable tools for sensitivity analyses of time‐to‐event data and conclude that the method based on piecewise exponential imputation model of survival has some advantages over other methods studied here. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Treatment effect quantification for time‐to‐event endpoints–Estimands,analysis strategies,and beyond

A draft addendum to ICH E9 has been released for public consultation in August 2017. The addendum focuses on two topics particularly relevant for randomized confirmatory clinical trials: estimands and sensitivity analyses. The need to amend ICH E9 grew out of the realization of a lack of alignment between the objectives of a clinical trial stated in the protocol and the accompanying quantification of the “treatment effect” reported in a regulatory submission. We embed time‐to‐event endpoints in the estimand framework and discuss how the four estimand attributes described in the addendum apply to time‐to‐event endpoints. We point out that if the proportional hazards assumption is not met, the estimand targeted by the most prevalent methods used to analyze time‐to‐event endpoints, logrank test, and Cox regression depends on the censoring distribution. We discuss for a large randomized clinical trial how the analyses for the primary and secondary endpoints as well as the sensitivity analyses actually performed in the trial can be seen in the context of the addendum. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to do so for a trial with a time‐to‐event endpoint. Questions that remain open with the addendum for time‐to‐event endpoints and beyond are formulated, and recommendations for planning of future trials are given. We hope that this will provide a contribution to developing a common framework based on the final version of the addendum that can be applied to design, protocols, statistical analysis plans, and clinical study reports in the future.     

Restricted mean survival time as a summary measure of time‐to‐event outcome

Many clinical research studies evaluate a time‐to‐event outcome, illustrate survival functions, and conventionally report estimated hazard ratios to express the magnitude of the treatment effect when comparing between groups. However, it may not be straightforward to interpret the hazard ratio clinically and statistically when the proportional hazards assumption is invalid. In some recent papers published in clinical journals, the use of restricted mean survival time (RMST) or τ ‐year mean survival time is discussed as one of the alternative summary measures for the time‐to‐event outcome. The RMST is defined as the expected value of time to event limited to a specific time point corresponding to the area under the survival curve up to the specific time point. This article summarizes the necessary information to conduct statistical analysis using the RMST, including the definition and statistical properties of the RMST, adjusted analysis methods, sample size calculation, information fraction for the RMST difference, and clinical and statistical meaning and interpretation. Additionally, we discuss how to set the specific time point to define the RMST from two main points of view. We also provide developed SAS codes to determine the sample size required to detect an expected RMST difference with appropriate power and reconstruct individual survival data to estimate an RMST reference value from a reported survival curve.     

Predicting analysis time in events‐driven clinical trials using accumulating time‐to‐event surrogate information

For clinical trials with time‐to‐event endpoints, predicting the accrual of the events of interest with precision is critical in determining the timing of interim and final analyses. For example, overall survival (OS) is often chosen as the primary efficacy endpoint in oncology studies, with planned interim and final analyses at a pre‐specified number of deaths. Often, correlated surrogate information, such as time‐to‐progression (TTP) and progression‐free survival, are also collected as secondary efficacy endpoints. It would be appealing to borrow strength from the surrogate information to improve the precision of the analysis time prediction. Currently available methods in the literature for predicting analysis timings do not consider utilizing the surrogate information. In this article, using OS and TTP as an example, a general parametric model for OS and TTP is proposed, with the assumption that disease progression could change the course of the overall survival. Progression‐free survival, related both to OS and TTP, will be handled separately, as it can be derived from OS and TTP. The authors seek to develop a prediction procedure using a Bayesian method and provide detailed implementation strategies under certain assumptions. Simulations are performed to evaluate the performance of the proposed method. An application to a real study is also provided. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Treatment policy estimands for recurrent event data using data collected after cessation of randomised treatment

In the past, many clinical trials have withdrawn subjects from the study when they prematurely stopped their randomised treatment and have therefore only collected ‘on‐treatment’ data. Thus, analyses addressing a treatment policy estimand have been restricted to imputing missing data under assumptions drawn from these data only. Many confirmatory trials are now continuing to collect data from subjects in a study even after they have prematurely discontinued study treatment as this event is irrelevant for the purposes of a treatment policy estimand. However, despite efforts to keep subjects in a trial, some will still choose to withdraw. Recent publications for sensitivity analyses of recurrent event data have focused on the reference‐based imputation methods commonly applied to continuous outcomes, where imputation for the missing data for one treatment arm is based on the observed outcomes in another arm. However, the existence of data from subjects who have prematurely discontinued treatment but remained in the study has now raised the opportunity to use this ‘off‐treatment’ data to impute the missing data for subjects who withdraw, potentially allowing more plausible assumptions for the missing post‐study‐withdrawal data than reference‐based approaches. In this paper, we introduce a new imputation method for recurrent event data in which the missing post‐study‐withdrawal event rate for a particular subject is assumed to reflect that observed from subjects during the off‐treatment period. The method is illustrated in a trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) where the primary endpoint was the rate of exacerbations, analysed using a negative binomial model.     

The impact of missing data and how it is handled on the rate of false-positive results in drug development

In drug development, a common choice for the primary analysis is to assess mean changes via analysis of (co)variance with missing data imputed by carrying the last or baseline observations forward (LOCF, BOCF). These approaches assume that data are missing completely at random (MCAR). Multiple imputation (MI) and likelihood-based repeated measures (MMRM) are less restrictive as they assume data are missing at random (MAR). Nevertheless, LOCF and BOCF remain popular, perhaps because it is thought that the bias in these methods lead to protection against falsely concluding that a drug is more effective than the control. We conducted a simulation study that compared the rate of false positive results or regulatory risk error (RRE) from BOCF, LOCF, MI, and MMRM in 32 scenarios that were generated from a 2(5) full factorial arrangement with data missing due to a missing not at random (MNAR) mechanism. Both BOCF and LOCF inflated RRE were compared to MI and MMRM. In 12 of the 32 scenarios, BOCF yielded inflated RRE compared with eight scenarios for LOCF, three scenarios for MI and four scenarios for MMRM. In no situation did BOCF or LOCF provide adequate control of RRE when MI and MMRM did not. Both MI and MMRM are better choices than either BOCF or LOCF for the primary analysis.     

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.     

Sensitivity to imputation models and assumptions in receiver operating characteristic analysis with incomplete data

Modern statistical methods using incomplete data have been increasingly applied in a wide variety of substantive problems. Similarly, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, a method used in evaluating diagnostic tests or biomarkers in medical research, has also been increasingly popular problem in both its development and application. While missing-data methods have been applied in ROC analysis, the impact of model mis-specification and/or assumptions (e.g. missing at random) underlying the missing data has not been thoroughly studied. In this work, we study the performance of multiple imputation (MI) inference in ROC analysis. Particularly, we investigate parametric and non-parametric techniques for MI inference under common missingness mechanisms. Depending on the coherency of the imputation model with the underlying data generation mechanism, our results show that MI generally leads to well-calibrated inferences under ignorable missingness mechanisms.     

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.     

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.     

Sensitivity analyses for partially observed recurrent event data

Recurrent events involve the occurrences of the same type of event repeatedly over time and are commonly encountered in longitudinal studies. Examples include seizures in epileptic studies or occurrence of cancer tumors. In such studies, interest lies in the number of events that occur over a fixed period of time. One considerable challenge in analyzing such data arises when a large proportion of patients discontinues before the end of the study, for example, because of adverse events, leading to partially observed data. In this situation, data are often modeled using a negative binomial distribution with time‐in‐study as offset. Such an analysis assumes that data are missing at random (MAR). As we cannot test the adequacy of MAR, sensitivity analyses that assess the robustness of conclusions across a range of different assumptions need to be performed. Sophisticated sensitivity analyses for continuous data are being frequently performed. However, this is less the case for recurrent event or count data. We will present a flexible approach to perform clinically interpretable sensitivity analyses for recurrent event data. Our approach fits into the framework of reference‐based imputations, where information from reference arms can be borrowed to impute post‐discontinuation data. Different assumptions about the future behavior of dropouts dependent on reasons for dropout and received treatment can be made. The imputation model is based on a flexible model that allows for time‐varying baseline intensities. We assess the performance in a simulation study and provide an illustration with a clinical trial in patients who suffer from bladder cancer. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Comparison of the restricted mean survival time with the hazard ratio in superiority trials with a time‐to‐event end point

With the emergence of novel therapies exhibiting distinct mechanisms of action compared to traditional treatments, departure from the proportional hazard (PH) assumption in clinical trials with a time‐to‐event end point is increasingly common. In these situations, the hazard ratio may not be a valid statistical measurement of treatment effect, and the log‐rank test may no longer be the most powerful statistical test. The restricted mean survival time (RMST) is an alternative robust and clinically interpretable summary measure that does not rely on the PH assumption. We conduct extensive simulations to evaluate the performance and operating characteristics of the RMST‐based inference and against the hazard ratio–based inference, under various scenarios and design parameter setups. The log‐rank test is generally a powerful test when there is evident separation favoring 1 treatment arm at most of the time points across the Kaplan‐Meier survival curves, but the performance of the RMST test is similar. Under non‐PH scenarios where late separation of survival curves is observed, the RMST‐based test has better performance than the log‐rank test when the truncation time is reasonably close to the tail of the observed curves. Furthermore, when flat survival tail (or low event rate) in the experimental arm is expected, selecting the minimum of the maximum observed event time as the truncation timepoint for the RMST is not recommended. In addition, we recommend the inclusion of analysis based on the RMST curve over the truncation time in clinical settings where there is suspicion of substantial departure from the PH assumption.     

Intent‐to‐treat analysis in the presence of off‐treatment or missing data

Intent‐to‐treat (ITT) analysis is viewed as the analysis of a clinical trial that provides the least bias, but difficult issues can arise. Common analysis methods such as mixed‐effects and proportional hazards models are usually labeled as ITT analysis, but in practice they can often be inconsistent with a strict interpretation of the ITT principle. In trials where effective medications are available to patients withdrawing from treatment, ITT analysis can mask important therapeutic effects of the intervention studied in the trial. Analysis of on‐treatment data may be subject to bias, but can address efficacy objectives when combined with careful review of the pattern of withdrawals across treatments particularly for those patients withdrawing due to lack of efficacy and adverse events. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Missing data in clinical trials: control‐based mean imputation and sensitivity analysis

In some randomized (drug versus placebo) clinical trials, the estimand of interest is the between‐treatment difference in population means of a clinical endpoint that is free from the confounding effects of “rescue” medication (e.g., HbA1c change from baseline at 24 weeks that would be observed without rescue medication regardless of whether or when the assigned treatment was discontinued). In such settings, a missing data problem arises if some patients prematurely discontinue from the trial or initiate rescue medication while in the trial, the latter necessitating the discarding of post‐rescue data. We caution that the commonly used mixed‐effects model repeated measures analysis with the embedded missing at random assumption can deliver an exaggerated estimate of the aforementioned estimand of interest. This happens, in part, due to implicit imputation of an overly optimistic mean for “dropouts” (i.e., patients with missing endpoint data of interest) in the drug arm. We propose an alternative approach in which the missing mean for the drug arm dropouts is explicitly replaced with either the estimated mean of the entire endpoint distribution under placebo (primary analysis) or a sequence of increasingly more conservative means within a tipping point framework (sensitivity analysis); patient‐level imputation is not required. A supplemental “dropout = failure” analysis is considered in which a common poor outcome is imputed for all dropouts followed by a between‐treatment comparison using quantile regression. All analyses address the same estimand and can adjust for baseline covariates. Three examples and simulation results are used to support our recommendations.     

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.     

Multivariate two‐sample permutation tests for trials with multiple time‐to‐event outcomes

Clinical trials involving multiple time‐to‐event outcomes are increasingly common. In this paper, permutation tests for testing for group differences in multivariate time‐to‐event data are proposed. Unlike other two‐sample tests for multivariate survival data, the proposed tests attain the nominal type I error rate. A simulation study shows that the proposed tests outperform their competitors when the degree of censored observations is sufficiently high. When the degree of censoring is low, it is seen that naive tests such as Hotelling's T² outperform tests tailored to survival data. Computational and practical aspects of the proposed tests are discussed, and their use is illustrated by analyses of three publicly available datasets. Implementations of the proposed tests are available in an accompanying R package.     

Missing data in principal component analysis of questionnaire data: a comparison of methods

Principal component analysis (PCA) is a widely used statistical technique for determining subscales in questionnaire data. As in any other statistical technique, missing data may both complicate its execution and interpretation. In this study, six methods for dealing with missing data in the context of PCA are reviewed and compared: listwise deletion (LD), pairwise deletion, the missing data passive approach, regularized PCA, the expectation-maximization algorithm, and multiple imputation. Simulations show that except for LD, all methods give about equally good results for realistic percentages of missing data. Therefore, the choice of a procedure can be based on the ease of application or purely the convenience of availability of a technique.