Back to Search Start Over

Longitudinal Modeling Approaches to Assess the Association Between Changes in 2 Clinical Outcome Assessments.

Authors :
Odom D
McLeod L
Sherif B
Nelson L
McSorley D
Source :
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science [Ther Innov Regul Sci] 2018 May; Vol. 52 (3), pp. 306-312. Date of Electronic Publication: 2017 Sep 26.
Publication Year :
2018

Abstract

Background: Understanding how one clinical outcome assessment (COA) (eg, a patient-reported outcome [PRO]) relates to a second COA (eg, a clinician-reported outcome [ClinRO]) may provide insights into disease burden or treatment efficacy. We aimed to briefly review commonly used cross-sectional methods to evaluate the association between a PRO and a ClinRO and to demonstrate the advantages of longitudinal modeling approaches, particularly a joint mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), to evaluate this association.<br />Methods: We generated an example longitudinal data set that included a PRO measured on an 11-point numeric rating scale and a binary ClinRO. The association between change in PRO score and ClinRO response at each time point was examined using 2 cross-sectional analyses: point biserial correlation and logistic regression. We conducted longitudinal analyses of the association between the 2 COAs across time points using MMRM and joint MMRM approaches.<br />Results: Point-biserial correlation and logistic regression analyses correctly captured the "built in" associations between the 2 COAs that strengthened over time, but each association was applicable only for a single time point. The MMRM approach provided correlations over time but only for a single outcome variable. The joint MMRM approach modeled the relationship between both outcome variables simultaneously, allowing for evaluation of the correlations both within and between the variables over time.<br />Conclusion: Each analysis demonstrated the relationship between PRO score changes and ClinRO response. Longitudinal analysis methods, particularly the joint MMRM, allow for a more thorough examination of the correlations among the 2 outcomes than cross-sectional analysis methods.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
2168-4804
Volume :
52
Issue :
3
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
29714541
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017731584