Search

Pre-specification of the primary analysis model is a pre-requisite to control the family-wise type-I-error rate (T1E) at the intended level in confirmatory clinical trials. However, mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM) have been shown to be poorly specified in study protocols. The magnitude of a resulting T1E rate inflation is still unknown. This investigation aims to quantify the magnitude of the T1E rate inflation depending on the type and number of unspecified model items as well as different trial characteristics. We simulated a randomized, double-blind, parallel group, phase III clinical trial under the assumption that there is no treatment effect at any time point. The simulated data was analysed using different clusters, each including several MMRMs that are compatible with the imprecise pre-specification of the MMRM. T1E rates for each cluster were estimated. A significant T1E rate inflation could be shown for ambiguous model specifications with a maximum T1E rate of 7.6% [7.1%; 8.1%]. The results show that the magnitude of the T1E rate inflation depends on the type and number of unspecified model items as well as the sample size and allocation ratio. The imprecise specification of nuisance parameters may not lead to a significant T1E rate inflation. However, the results of this simulation study rather underestimate the true T1E rate inflation. In conclusion, imprecise MMRM specifications may lead to a substantial inflation of the T1E rate and can damage the ability to generate confirmatory evidence in pivotal clinical trials., (© 2023 The Authors. Pharmaceutical Statistics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In confirmatory clinical trials, the prespecification of the primary analysis model is a universally accepted scientific principle to allow strict control of the type I error. Consequently, both the ICH E9 guideline and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) guideline on missing data in confirmatory clinical trials require that the primary analysis model is defined unambiguously. This requirement applies to mixed models for longitudinal data handling missing data implicitly. To evaluate the compliance with the EMA guideline, we evaluated the model specifications in those clinical study protocols from development phases II and III submitted between 2015 and 2018 to the Ethics Committee at Hannover Medical School under the German Medicinal Products Act, which planned to use a mixed model for longitudinal data in the confirmatory testing strategy. Overall, 39 trials from different types of sponsors and a wide range of therapeutic areas were evaluated. While nearly all protocols specify the fixed and random effects of the analysis model (95%), only 77% give the structure of the covariance matrix used for modeling the repeated measurements. Moreover, the testing method (36%), the estimation method (28%), the computation method (3%), and the fallback strategy (18%) are given by less than half the study protocols. Subgroup analyses indicate that these findings are universal and not specific to clinical trial phases or size of company. Altogether, our results show that guideline compliance is to various degrees poor and consequently, strict type I error rate control at the intended level is not guaranteed., (© 2019 The Authors Pharmaceutical Statistics Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)