4.2 Article

Natural cubic splines for the analysis of Alzheimer's clinical trials

Journal

PHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pst.2285

Keywords

cLDA; constrained longitudinal data analysis; disease progression models; DPM; mixed model repeated measures; MMRM; natural cubic splines

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) is commonly used in clinical trials for analyzing continuous outcomes over time. However, categorizing time as a categorical variable can lead to bias and exclusion of valuable information. In this study, a constrained longitudinal data analysis with natural cubic splines is proposed as an alternative to MMRM, showing better precision and power in clinical trial datasets and simulation scenarios.
Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) is the most common analysis approach used in clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease and other progressive diseases measured with continuous outcomes over time. The model treats time as a categorical variable, which allows an unconstrained estimate of the mean for each study visit in each randomized group. Categorizing time in this way can be problematic when assessments occur off-schedule, as including off-schedule visits can induce bias, and excluding them ignores valuable information and violates the intention to treat principle. This problem has been exacerbated by clinical trial visits which have been delayed due to the COVID19 pandemic. As an alternative to MMRM, we propose a constrained longitudinal data analysis with natural cubic splines that treats time as continuous and uses test version effects to model the mean over time. Compared to categorical-time models like MMRM and models that assume a proportional treatment effect, the spline model is shown to be more parsimonious and precise in real clinical trial datasets, and has better power and Type I error in a variety of simulation scenarios.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available