ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Home
  • Meetings Archive
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting
    • 2017-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • Meeting Resource Center

Abstract Number: 1452

Handling of Missing Data, Protocol Violation and Performance of Intention-to-Treat Analysis in the Randomized Controlled Trials of Drug Therapy of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Fawad Aslam1, Karina Torralba2 and Nasim A. Khan3, 1Rheumatology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, 2Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, 3Rheumatology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, Little Rock, AR

Meeting: 2017 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Date of first publication: September 18, 2017

Keywords: Randomized trials and statistical methods

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
Session Information

Date: Monday, November 6, 2017

Session Title: Rheumatoid Arthritis – Small Molecules, Biologics and Gene Therapy Poster II: Prognostic Factors, Imaging and Miscellaneous Reports

Session Type: ACR Poster Session B

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: Intention-to-treat (ITT) method is recommended to analyze Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). It requires analyzing all participants per the assigned intervention group at randomization to prevent treatment effect estimation bias. In practice, RCTs have subjects with protocol deviations and/or missing outcomes. Incorrect analysis of these subjects may give biased results1,2. Single imputation methods like “last observation carried forward (LOCF)” are discouraged as they may bring bias, and don’t adjust for the uncertainty of imputation3. We studied the ITT principle application, protocol deviations and missing outcome data handling in RCTs of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) drug therapy.

Methods: MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database were searched to identify parallel-design, English language, original RCT reports of drug therapy for RA with clinical primary and efficacy outcome(s) published in 2002-3, 2006-7 and 2010-11. Two reviewers assessed each RCT for the primary outcome(s) analysis and handling of missing data.

Results: 134 RCTs were eligible and enrolled a median (interquartile range, IQR) of 160 (59-381) patients. A median (IQR) of 83 (70-90) % remained enrolled until trial completion. 92 (67%) RCTs lost >10% to follow-up for the primary outcome. 84 (62.7%) reported using ITT analysis, 10 (7.5%) reported modified ITT analysis, and 40 (29.9%) mentioned no such term. 63 (47%) RCTs actually performed true ITT analysis (analyzed all patients as randomized, although 7 RCTs had missing data with undefined approach to imputation). 32 (23.9%) performed a modified ITT analysis [percent analyzed: 97 (95-99)%] with exclusion of following categories: those without post-baseline assessment (17); no intervention received (12), and non-eligibility (1). 20 RCTs analyzed only those completing the trial per the study protocol [percent analyzed: 89 (86-97)%], while for 19 RCTs patients exclusion reason was unclear [percent analyzed: 91 (69-93)%]. Only 5 RCTs had all subjects complete the trials. Only 92 of the 129 (71%) RCTs with a missing final outcome described missing primary outcome handling which included: LOCF (51), non-responder assignment to those with missing data (29), calculation by interpolation (5). Only 2 RCTs did sensitivity analyses with different missing data assumptions. Experimental intervention efficacy could be assessed for 124 RCTs. The percentage of positive RCTs (statistical significance favoring experiment intervention) according to analytic method were: ITT (66%), modified ITT (87%), per-protocol (67%) and unclear (50%) [p = 0.056, Likelihood Ratio test].

Conclusion: A considerable variation in reporting and application of ITT principle in the RCTs exists. In about 30% RCTs, per-protocol or unclear analytic methods were used. Similar number of RCTs with missing data did not address handling of such data. Vast majority of RCTs used the non-recommended single imputation methods for missing data. A better description of subjects selected for final statistical analysis and approaches to deal with missing outcomes are needed.

References:

1. Hollis S. BMJ 1999;319:670-74

2. Sedgwick P. BMJ 2015;350:h681

3. Little RJ. N Engl J Med 2012;367(14):1355-60


Disclosure: F. Aslam, None; K. Torralba, None; N. A. Khan, None.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Aslam F, Torralba K, Khan NA. Handling of Missing Data, Protocol Violation and Performance of Intention-to-Treat Analysis in the Randomized Controlled Trials of Drug Therapy of Rheumatoid Arthritis [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017; 69 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/handling-of-missing-data-protocol-violation-and-performance-of-intention-to-treat-analysis-in-the-randomized-controlled-trials-of-drug-therapy-of-rheumatoid-arthritis/. Accessed March 21, 2023.
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

« Back to 2017 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/handling-of-missing-data-protocol-violation-and-performance-of-intention-to-treat-analysis-in-the-randomized-controlled-trials-of-drug-therapy-of-rheumatoid-arthritis/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

ACR Pediatric Rheumatology Symposium 2020

© COPYRIGHT 2023 AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RHEUMATOLOGY

Wiley

  • Home
  • Meetings Archive
  • Advanced Search
  • Meeting Resource Center
  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences