Upload
luke-andrews
View
214
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MISSING DATA
DSBS Meeting 28 May 2009
Kristian Windfeld, Genmab
ICH E9 (1998) on missing values
Try to avoid – by design (2.3)
Frequency and type must be documented in the CTR (5.2)
Imputation techniques (LOCF, …, complex math. models…) (5.2.1)
Are considered protocol violations (5.2.2)
Assess pattern of occurrence among treatment groups (5.2.2)
Source of bias (5.3)
Pre-specify methods for handling in protocol (5.3)
Analyze sensitivity of trial results to missing value handling method (5.3)
CPMP PtC on missing data (2001)
Effect of missing values on analysis & interpretation:
Power/variability (smaller sample size => smaller power but plausibly less variability => more power)
Bias – unless not related to unobserved real value (which cannot be verified)
CPMP PtC on missing data (2001)
Handling of missing data
Complete case analysis
Exploratory trials or as supportive analysis
Imputation
LOCF (”widely used”…”likely to be accepted if measurements constant over time”…”may provide an acceptably conservative approach”)
best/worst case imputation
multiple imputation
mixed models
CPMP PtC on missing data (2001)
Recommendations
Avoid missing data
Pre-specify handling method in statistical section of protocol with justification
Approach must be conservative
Approach may be updated in a SAP if unforeseen problems occur
Analyze missing values (number, timing, pattern, reason)!
Analyze sensitivity of results to missing value handling method
=> Everybody continued to do ITT with LOCF…
CHMP: Recommendation for revision of PtC on missing data (2007)
In many MAAs the handling of missing data is poor
Little or no discussion on missing data pattern…
Only one sensitivity analysis… or none with no justification
Misconception that LOCF is necessary and sufficient…
Need for cautionary note on mixed models and multiple imputation methods – their use still controversal
New EMEA draft guideline
GUIDELINE ON MISSING DATA IN CONFIRMATORY CLINICAL TRIALS (CPMP/EWP/1776/99 Rev. 1)
Released for consultation 23 april – 31 oct 2009
New EMEA draft guideline
Not much news… but some additional points:
Missing values violate ITT principle (collect data regardsless of protocol compliance)
Missing value taxonomy (MCAR, MAR, MNAR) – but since unverifiable => use conservative method
Use methods not assuming MCAR/MAR, ”pattern mixture, selection, and shared parameter models” mentioned
Specific suggestions for sensitivity analyses
Example: Missing ACR20 values from RA trial
Missing ValueHandling
Placebo 700 mg
N ACR20 N ACR20700mg/placebo
OR
Complete caseanalysis(no imputation) 46 13% 47 60% 10
0 (non-response)Imputation 55 11% 57 49% 7.81 (response)Imputation
55 27% 57 67% 5.5
Is non-response imputation conservative?
Key message
We need to start taking missing values seriously!
Imagine a news headline…
”Licensing application for obliviximab rejected because of the lack of analysis of the missing data…”
Do you want to be responsible?
Discussion questions
Why don’t we take the guidelines seriously when it comes to missing value handling?
How many sensitivity analyses are needed and should be planned?
When is the missing values influence so great that trial results become non-interpretable?
Is the potentially inflated precision resulting from single imputation methods a problem and if so, how may this be addressed?