The journal of nutrition, health & aging

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 360–364 | Cite as

Mixed model of repeated measures versus slope models in Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials

  • M. C. Donohue
  • P. S. Aisen
MMRM Versus Slope Models in Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trials

Abstract

Randomized clinical trials of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) typically assess intervention efficacy with measures of cognitive or functional assessments repeated every six months for one to two years. The Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM), which assumes an “unstructured mean” by treating time as categorical, is attractive because it makes no assumptions about the shape of the mean trajectory of the outcome over time. However, categorical time models may be over-parameterized and inefficient in detecting treatment effects relative to continuous time models of, say, the linear trend of the outcome over time. Mixed effects models can also be extended to model quadratic time effects, although it is questionable whether the duration and interval of observations in AD and MCI studies is sufficient to support such models. Furthermore, it is unknown which of these models are most robust to missing data, which plagues AD and MCI studies. We review the literature and compare estimates of treatment effects from four potential models fit to data from five AD Cooperative Study (ADCS) trials in MCI and AD.

Key words

Clinical trials efficiency mixed effects models mixed model of repeated measures (MMRM) quantitative review missing data 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Molenberghs, G and Kenward, MG. Missing data in clinical studies. Wiley, Chichester, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mallinckrodt, CH, Sanger, TM, Dubé, S, DeBrota, DJ, Molenberghs, G, and Carroll, RJ. Assessing and interpreting treatment effects in longitudinal clinical trials with missing data. Biological Psychiatry, 53(8), 754–760, 53, 8 (2003), 754–60.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mallinckrodt, Ch, Clark, WS, and David, SR. Accounting for dropout bias using mixed-effects models. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 11 (2001), 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Laird, N.M and Ware, J.H. Random-Effects Models for Longitudinal Data. Biometrics, 38 (1982), 963–974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mallinckrodt, CH, Clark, WS, and David, SR. Type I error rates from mixed effects model repeated measures versus fixed effects ANOVA with missing values imputed via Last Observation Carried Forward. Drug Information J, 35 (2001), 1215–1225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Siddiqui, O., Hung, M.J., and O’Neill, R. MMRM vs. LOCF: A comprehensive comparison based on simulation study and 25 NDA datasets. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 19 (2009), 227–246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lin, H, Scharfstein, D.O., and Rosenheck, R.A. Analysis of longitudinal data with irregular, informative follow-up. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 66 (2004), 791–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kittelson, JM, Sharples, K, and Emerson, SS. Group sequential clinical trials for longitudinal data with analyses using summary statistics. Statistics in Medicine, 24,16 (2005), 2457–2475.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jones, RH. Longitudinal data with serial correlation: A state-space approach. Chapman & Hall, London; New York, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pinheiro, JC and Bates, DM. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS.. Springer, New York, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Akaike, Hirotugu. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19,6 (1974), 716–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aisen, PS, Stokes, KT, Thomas, RG, Thal, LJ, Jin, S, Schneider, LS, and al et. High-dose B vitamin supplementation and cognitive decline in alzheimer disease: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 300,15 (2008), 1774–1783.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Petersen, R.C., Thomas, R.G., Grundman, M. et al. Vitamin E and donepezil for the treatment of mild cognitive impairment. The New England Journal of Medicine, 352,23 (2005), 2379–2388.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aisen, PS, Davis, KL, Berg, JD et al. A randomized controlled trial of prednisone in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology, 54,3 (2000), 588–593.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sano, M, Bell, KL, Galasko, D, Galvin, JE, Thomas, RG, van Dyck, CH, and al, et. A randomized; double-blind; placebo-controlled trial of simvastatin to treat alzheimer disease. Neurology, 77,6 (2011), 556–563.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Quinn, JF, Shinto, L, Raman, R, Thomas, RG, Emond, J, Aisen, PS, and al, et. Docosahexaenoic acid supplementation and cognitive decline in alzheimer disease: A randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 304,17 (2010), 1903–1911.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Serdi and Springer Verlag France 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. C. Donohue
    • 1
    • 2
  • P. S. Aisen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Family & Preventive Medicine, Division of Biostatistics & BioinformaticsUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA
  2. 2.Department of NeurosciencesUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations