Clinical Immunology & Rheumatology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Rheumatology, Atrium Medical Centre, Heerlen, Netherlands.
RMD Open. 2023 Apr;9(2). doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002543.
Demonstrating inhibition of the structural damage to joints as a statistically significant difference in radiographic progression as measured by the van der Heijde modified Total Sharp Score (mTSS) is a common objective in trials for rheumatoid arthritis treatments. The frequently used analysis of the covariance model with missing data imputed using linear extrapolation (analyses of covariance, ANCOVA+LE) may not be ideal for long-term extension studies or for paediatric studies. The random coefficient (RC) model may represent a better alternative.A two-arm (active treatment and placebo) setting with a week 44 study period was considered. RC model, ANCOVA+LE and ANCOVA with last observation carried forward imputation were compared under different scenarios in bias, root mean square error (RMSE), power and type I error rate.The RC model outperformed ANCOVA+LE in metrics measuring bias, RMSE, power and type I error rate under the evaluated scenarios. ANCOVA and RC provide similar performance when there are no missing data. With missing data, RC+observed (OBS) provides similar or better results than ANCOVA+LE in power and bias.Our simulations support that RC is both a more sensitive and a more precise alternative to the commonly used ANCOVA+LE as a primary method for analysing mTSS in long-term extension and paediatric studies with a higher likelihood of missing data. The RC model can provide a reference at time points with missing data by estimating a slope; mTSS change by one unit change in time. ANCOVA+LE is recommended as a sensitivity analysis.
在类风湿关节炎治疗的试验中,通常的目标是证明对关节结构损伤的抑制作用,这种抑制作用在放射学进展方面表现为 van der Heijde 改良总 Sharp 评分(mTSS)的统计学显著差异。在长期扩展研究或儿科研究中,经常使用缺失数据采用线性外推法(协方差分析,ANCOVA+LE)进行插补的协方差分析模型(analysis of covariance,ANCOVA+LE)可能不是理想的选择。随机系数(random coefficient,RC)模型可能是更好的选择。
考虑了一个为期 44 周的研究期的两臂(活性治疗和安慰剂)设置。在不同的偏差、均方根误差(root mean square error,RMSE)、功效和Ⅰ型错误率的场景下,对 RC 模型、ANCOVA+LE 和采用末次观测值结转(last observation carried forward imputation,LOCF)的 ANCOVA 进行了比较。
在评估的场景下,RC 模型在衡量偏差、RMSE、功效和Ⅰ型错误率的指标方面优于 ANCOVA+LE。当没有缺失数据时,ANCOVA 和 RC 提供相似的性能。在存在缺失数据的情况下,RC+观测(OBS)在功效和偏差方面提供了与 ANCOVA+LE 相似或更好的结果。
我们的模拟支持 RC 是一种更敏感、更精确的替代方法,比常用的 ANCOVA+LE 更适合对存在更高缺失数据可能性的长期扩展和儿科研究中的 mTSS 进行主要分析。RC 模型可以通过估计斜率来提供缺失数据点的参考;时间上 mTSS 随一个单位的变化而变化。建议使用 ANCOVA+LE 作为敏感性分析。