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 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.