Publications

The treatment of missing data in a large cardiovascular clinical outcomes study

Background: The potential impact of missing data on the results of clinical trials has received heightened attention recently. A National Research Council study provides recommendations for limiting missing data in clinical trial design and conduct, and principles for analysis, including the need for sensitivity analyses to assess robustness of findings to alternative assumptions about the missing data. A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee raised missing data as a serious concern in their review of results from the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 study, a large clinical trial that assessed rivaroxaban for its ability to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke in patients with acute coronary syndrome. This case study describes a variety of measures that were taken to address concerns about the missing data. Methods: A range of analyses are described to assess the potential impact of missing data on conclusions. In particular, measures of the amount of missing data are discussed, and the fraction of missing information from multiple imputation is proposed as an alternative measure. The sensitivity analysis in the National Research Council study is modified in the context of survival analysis where some individuals are lost to follow-up. The impact of deviations from ignorable censoring is assessed by differentially increasing the hazard of the primary outcome in the treatment groups and multiply imputing events between dropout and the end of the study. Tipping-point analyses are described, where the deviation from ignorable censoring that results in a reversal of significance of the treatment effect is determined. A study to determine the vital status of participants lost to follow-up was also conducted, and the results of including this additional information are assessed. Results: Sensitivity analyses suggest that findings of the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 study are robust to missing data; this robustness is reinforced by the follow-up study, since inclusion of data from this study had little impact on the study conclusions. Conclusion: Missing data are a serious problem in clinical trials. The methods presented here, namely, the sensitivity analyses, the follow-up study to determine survival of missing cases, and the proposed measurement of missing data via the fraction of missing information, have potential application in other studies involving survival analysis where missing data are a concern.