rbmi: Implementation of retrieved-dropout models using rbmi
Alessandro Noci, Marcel Wolbers
2024-07-30
Source:vignettes/retrieved_dropout.Rmd
retrieved_dropout.RmdThis vignette describes how retrieved dropout models which include time-varying intercurrent event (ICE) indicators can be
implemented in the rbmi package.
1 Retrieved dropout models in a nutshell
Retrieved dropout models have been proposed for the analysis of estimands using the treatment policy strategy for addressing an ICE. In these models, missing outcomes are multiply imputed conditional upon whether they occur pre- or post-ICE. Retrieved dropout models typically rely on an extended missing-at-random (MAR) assumption, i.e., they assume that missing outcome data is similar to observed data from subjects in the same treatment group with the same observed outcome history, and the same ICE status. For a more comprehensive description and evaluation of retrieved dropout models, we refer to Guizzaro et al. (2021), Polverejan and Dragalin (2020), Noci et al. (2023), Drury et al. (2024), and Bell et al. (2024). Broadly, these publications find that retrieved dropout models reduce bias compared to alternative analysis approaches based on imputation under a basic MAR assumption or a reference-based missing data assumption. However, several issues of retrieved dropout models have also been highlighted. Retrieved dropout models require that enough post-ICE data is collected to inform the imputation model. Even with relatively small amounts of missingness, complex retrieved dropout models may face identifiability issues. Another drawback to these models in general is the loss of power relative to reference-based imputation methods, which becomes meaningful for post-ICE observation percentages below 50% and increases at an accelerating rate as this percentage decreases (Bell et al. 2024).
2 Data simulation using function simulate_data()
For the purposes of this vignette we will first create a simulated dataset with the rbmi function simulate_data().
The simulate_data() function generates data from a randomized clinical trial with longitudinal continuous outcomes and up to two
different types of ICEs.
Specifically, we simulate a 1:1 randomized trial of an active drug (intervention) versus placebo (control) with 100 subjects per group and 4 post-baseline assessments (3-monthly visits until 12 months):
- The mean outcome trajectory in the placebo group increases linearly from 50 at baseline (visit 0) to 60 at visit 4, i.e. the slope is 10 points/year (or 2.5 points every 3 months).
- The mean outcome trajectory in the intervention group is identical to the placebo group up to month 6. From month 6 onward, the slope decreases by 50% to 5 points/year (i.e. 1.25 points every 3 months).
- The covariance structure of the baseline and follow-up values in both groups is implied by a random intercept and slope model
with a standard deviation of 5 for both the intercept and the slope, and a correlation of 0.25. In addition, an independent
residual error with standard deviation 2.5 is added to each assessment.
- The probability of the intercurrent event study drug discontinuation after each visit is calculated according to a logistic model which depends on the observed outcome at that visit. Specifically, a visit-wise discontinuation probability of 3% and 4% in the control and intervention group, respectively, is specified in case the observed outcome is equal to 50 (the mean value at baseline). The odds of a discontinuation is simulated to increase by +10% for each +1 point increase of the observed outcome.
- Study drug discontinuation is simulated to have no effect on the mean trajectory in the placebo group. In the intervention group, subjects who discontinue follow the slope of the mean trajectory from the placebo group from that time point onward. This is compatible with a copy increments in reference (CIR) assumption.
- Study dropout at the study drug discontinuation visit occurs with a probability of 50% leading to missing outcome data from that time point onward.
The function simulate_data() requires 3 arguments (see the function documentation help(simulate_data) for more details):
-
pars_c: The simulation parameters of the control group. -
pars_t: The simulation parameters of the intervention group. -
post_ice1_traj: Specifies how observed outcomes after ICE1 are simulated.
Below, we report how data according to the specifications above can be simulated with function simulate_data():
##
## Attaching package: 'dplyr'## The following objects are masked from 'package:stats':
##
## filter, lag## The following objects are masked from 'package:base':
##
## intersect, setdiff, setequal, union
set.seed(1392)
time <- c(0, 3, 6, 9, 12)
# Mean trajectory control
muC <- c(50.0, 52.5, 55.0, 57.5, 60.0)
# Mean trajectory intervention
muT <- c(50.0, 52.5, 55.0, 56.25, 57.50)
# Create Sigma
sd_error <- 2.5
covRE <- rbind(
c(25.0, 6.25),
c(6.25, 25.0)
)
Sigma <- cbind(1, time / 12) %*%
covRE %*% rbind(1, time / 12) +
diag(sd_error^2, nrow = length(time))
# Set simulation parameters of the control group
parsC <- set_simul_pars(
mu = muC,
sigma = Sigma,
n = 100, # sample size
prob_ice1 = 0.03, # prob of discontinuation for outcome equal to 50
or_outcome_ice1 = 1.10, # +1 point increase => +10% odds of discontinuation
prob_post_ice1_dropout = 0.5 # dropout rate following discontinuation
)
# Set simulation parameters of the intervention group
parsT <- parsC
parsT$mu <- muT
parsT$prob_ice1 <- 0.04
# Simulate data
data <- simulate_data(
pars_c = parsC,
pars_t = parsT,
post_ice1_traj = "CIR" # Assumption about post-ice trajectory
) %>%
select(-c(outcome_noICE, ind_ice2)) # remove unncessary columns
head(data)## id visit group outcome_bl ind_ice1 dropout_ice1 outcome
## 1 id_1 0 Control 53.35397 0 0 53.35397
## 2 id_1 1 Control 53.35397 0 0 55.15100
## 3 id_1 2 Control 53.35397 0 0 59.81038
## 4 id_1 3 Control 53.35397 0 0 61.59709
## 5 id_1 4 Control 53.35397 0 0 67.08044
## 6 id_2 0 Control 53.31025 0 0 53.31025The frequency of the ICE and proportion of data collected after the ICE impacts the variance of the treatment effect for retrieved dropout models. For example, a large proportion of ICE combined with a small proportion of data collected after the ICE might result in substantial variance inflation, especially for more complex retrieved dropout models.
The proportion of subjects with an ICE and the proportion of subjects who withdrew from the simulated study is summarized below:
# Compute endpoint of interest: change from baseline
data <- data %>%
filter(visit != "0") %>%
mutate(
change = outcome - outcome_bl,
visit = factor(visit, levels = unique(visit))
)
data %>%
group_by(visit) %>%
summarise(
freq_disc_ctrl = mean(ind_ice1[group == "Control"] == 1),
freq_dropout_ctrl = mean(dropout_ice1[group == "Control"] == 1),
freq_disc_interv = mean(ind_ice1[group == "Intervention"] == 1),
freq_dropout_interv = mean(dropout_ice1[group == "Intervention"] == 1)
)## # A tibble: 4 × 5
## visit freq_disc_ctrl freq_dropout_ctrl freq_disc_interv freq_dropout_interv
## <fct> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 1 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.03
## 2 2 0.1 0.03 0.1 0.04
## 3 3 0.19 0.09 0.17 0.06
## 4 4 0.23 0.12 0.24 0.1For this study 23% of the study participants discontinued from study treatment in the control arm and 24% in the intervention arm. Approximately half of the participants who discontinued from treatment dropped-out from the study at the discontinuation visit leading to missing outcomes at subsequent visits.
3 Estimators based on retrieved dropout models
We consider retrieved dropout methods which model pre- and post-ICE outcomes jointly by including time-varying ICE indicators in the imputation model, i.e. we allow the occurrence of the ICE to impact the mean structure but not the covariance matrix. Imputation of missing outcomes is then performed under a MAR assumption including all observed data. For the analysis of the completed data, we use a standard ANCOVA model of the outcome at each follow-up visit, respectively, with treatment assignment as the main covariate and adjustment for the baseline outcome.
Specifically, we consider the following imputation models:
-
Imputation under a basic MAR assumption (basic MAR): This model ignores whether an outcome is observed pre- or post-ICE,
i.e. it is not a retrieved dropout model. Rather, it is asymptotically equivalent to a standard MMRM model and analogous to the
“MI1” model in Bell et al. (2024). The only difference to the “MI1” model is that
rbmiis not based on sequential imputation but rather, all missing outcomes are imputed simultaneously based on a MMRM-type imputation model. We include baseline outcome by visit and treatment group by visit interaction terms in the imputation model which is of the form:change ~ outcome_bl*visit + group*visit. -
Retrieved dropout model 1 (RD1): This model uses the following imputation model:
change ~ outcome_bl*visit + group*visit + time_since_ice1*group, wheretime_since_ice1is set to 0 up to the treatment discontinuation and to the time from treatment discontinuation (in months) at subsequent visits. This implies a change in the slope of the outcome trajectories after the ICE, which is modeled separately for each treatment arm. This model is similar to the “TV2-MAR” estimator in Noci et al. (2023). Compared to the basic MAR model, this model requires estimation of 2 additional parameters. -
Retrieved dropout model 2 (RD2): This model uses the following imputation model:
change ~ outcome_bl*visit + group*visit + ind_ice1*group*visit. This assumes a constant shift in outcomes after the ICE, which is modeled separately for each treatment arm and each visit. This model is analogous to the “MI2” model in Bell et al. (2024). Compared to the basic MAR model, this model requires estimation of 2 times “number of visits” additional parameters. It makes different though rather weaker assumptions than the RD1 model but might also be harder to fit if post-ICE data collection is sparse at some visits.
4 Implementation of the defined retrieved dropout models in rbmi
rbmi supports the inclusion of time-varying covariates in the imputation model. The only requirement is that the time-varying
covariate is non-missing at all visits including those where the outcome might be missing.
Imputation is performed under a (extended) MAR assumption. Therefore, all imputation approaches implemented in rbmi are valid and
should yield comparable estimators and standard errors.
For this vignette, we used the conditional mean imputation approach combined with the jackknife.
4.1 Basic MAR model
# Define key variables for the imputation and analysis models
vars <- set_vars(
subjid = "id",
visit = "visit",
outcome = "change",
group = "group",
covariates = c("outcome_bl*visit", "group*visit")
)
vars_an <- vars
vars_an$covariates <- "outcome_bl"
# Define imputation method
method <- method_condmean(type = "jackknife")
draw_obj <- draws(
data = data,
data_ice = NULL,
vars = vars,
method = method,
quiet = TRUE
)
impute_obj <- impute(
draw_obj
)
ana_obj <- analyse(
impute_obj,
vars = vars_an
)
pool_obj_basicMAR <- pool(ana_obj)
pool_obj_basicMAR##
## Pool Object
## -----------
## Number of Results Combined: 1 + 200
## Method: jackknife
## Confidence Level: 0.95
## Alternative: two.sided
##
## Results:
##
## ==================================================
## parameter est se lci uci pval
## --------------------------------------------------
## trt_1 -0.991 0.557 -2.083 0.101 0.075
## lsm_ref_1 3.117 0.401 2.331 3.902 <0.001
## lsm_alt_1 2.126 0.391 1.36 2.892 <0.001
## trt_2 -0.937 0.611 -2.134 0.26 0.125
## lsm_ref_2 5.814 0.447 4.938 6.69 <0.001
## lsm_alt_2 4.877 0.414 4.066 5.688 <0.001
## trt_3 -1.491 0.743 -2.948 -0.034 0.045
## lsm_ref_3 7.725 0.526 6.694 8.757 <0.001
## lsm_alt_3 6.234 0.522 5.211 7.258 <0.001
## trt_4 -2.872 0.945 -4.723 -1.02 0.002
## lsm_ref_4 10.787 0.661 9.491 12.083 <0.001
## lsm_alt_4 7.915 0.67 6.603 9.228 <0.001
## --------------------------------------------------4.2 Retrieved dropout model 1 (RD1)
# derive variable "time_since_ice1" (time since ICE in months)
data <- data %>%
group_by(id) %>%
mutate(time_since_ice1 = cumsum(ind_ice1)*3)
vars$covariates <- c("outcome_bl*visit", "group*visit", "time_since_ice1*group")
draw_obj <- draws(
data = data,
data_ice = NULL,
vars = vars,
method = method,
quiet = TRUE
)
impute_obj <- impute(
draw_obj
)
ana_obj <- analyse(
impute_obj,
vars = vars_an
)
pool_obj_RD1 <- pool(ana_obj)
pool_obj_RD1##
## Pool Object
## -----------
## Number of Results Combined: 1 + 200
## Method: jackknife
## Confidence Level: 0.95
## Alternative: two.sided
##
## Results:
##
## ==================================================
## parameter est se lci uci pval
## --------------------------------------------------
## trt_1 -0.931 0.558 -2.025 0.163 0.095
## lsm_ref_1 3.119 0.4 2.334 3.903 <0.001
## lsm_alt_1 2.188 0.393 1.419 2.957 <0.001
## trt_2 -0.805 0.616 -2.013 0.403 0.192
## lsm_ref_2 5.822 0.445 4.949 6.695 <0.001
## lsm_alt_2 5.017 0.424 4.186 5.849 <0.001
## trt_3 -1.263 0.758 -2.748 0.222 0.096
## lsm_ref_3 7.749 0.52 6.729 8.768 <0.001
## lsm_alt_3 6.486 0.549 5.41 7.562 <0.001
## trt_4 -2.506 0.969 -4.406 -0.606 0.01
## lsm_ref_4 10.837 0.653 9.558 12.116 <0.001
## lsm_alt_4 8.331 0.718 6.924 9.737 <0.001
## --------------------------------------------------4.3 Retrieved dropout model 2 (RD2)
vars$covariates <- c("outcome_bl*visit", "group*visit", "ind_ice1*group*visit")
draw_obj <- draws(
data = data,
data_ice = NULL,
vars = vars,
method = method,
quiet = TRUE
)
impute_obj <- impute(
draw_obj
)
ana_obj <- analyse(
impute_obj,
vars = vars_an
)
pool_obj_RD2 <- pool(ana_obj)
pool_obj_RD2##
## Pool Object
## -----------
## Number of Results Combined: 1 + 200
## Method: jackknife
## Confidence Level: 0.95
## Alternative: two.sided
##
## Results:
##
## ==================================================
## parameter est se lci uci pval
## --------------------------------------------------
## trt_1 -0.927 0.558 -2.021 0.167 0.097
## lsm_ref_1 3.125 0.4 2.341 3.908 <0.001
## lsm_alt_1 2.198 0.395 1.424 2.972 <0.001
## trt_2 -0.889 0.612 -2.089 0.311 0.146
## lsm_ref_2 5.837 0.443 4.97 6.705 <0.001
## lsm_alt_2 4.948 0.421 4.124 5.772 <0.001
## trt_3 -1.305 0.757 -2.788 0.178 0.085
## lsm_ref_3 7.648 0.54 6.59 8.707 <0.001
## lsm_alt_3 6.343 0.528 5.308 7.378 <0.001
## trt_4 -2.617 0.975 -4.528 -0.706 0.007
## lsm_ref_4 10.883 0.665 9.58 12.186 <0.001
## lsm_alt_4 8.267 0.715 6.866 9.667 <0.001
## --------------------------------------------------4.4 Brief summary of results
The point estimators of the treatment effect at the last visit were -2.872, -2.506, and -2.617 for the basic MAR, RD1, and RD2 estimators, respectively, i.e. slightly smaller for the retrieved dropout models compared to the basic MAR model. The corresponding standard errors of the 3 estimators were 0.945, 0.969, and 0.975, i.e. slightly larger for the retrieved dropout models compared to the basic MAR model.