Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • MMRM Versus Slope Models in Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trials
  • Published:
The journal of nutrition, health & aging


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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Molenberghs, G and Kenward, MG. Missing data in clinical studies. Wiley, Chichester, 2007.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  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. Mallinckrodt, Ch, Clark, WS, and David, SR. Accounting for dropout bias using mixed-effects models. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 11 (2001), 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Laird, N.M and Ware, J.H. Random-Effects Models for Longitudinal Data. Biometrics, 38 (1982), 963–974.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jones, RH. Longitudinal data with serial correlation: A state-space approach. Chapman & Hall, London; New York, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Pinheiro, JC and Bates, DM. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS.. Springer, New York, 2000.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Akaike, Hirotugu. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19,6 (1974), 716–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Donohue, M.C., Aisen, P.S. Mixed model of repeated measures versus slope models in Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials. J Nutr Health Aging 16, 360–364 (2012).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

Key words