P427 A hybrid approach of handling missing data in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) trials: results from VISIBLE 1 and VARSITY

J. Chen1, S. Hunter2, K. Kisfalvi3, R.A. Lirio4

1Takeda, Statistics and Quantitative Sciences, Cambridge, USA, 2Cytel, Biostatistics, Cambridge, USA, 3Takeda, Research and development- Global Clinical Sciences, Cambridge, USA, 4Takeda, Clinical Science, Cambridge, USA

Background

Missing data is common in IBD trials. Depending on the volume and nature of missing data, it can reduce statistical power for detecting treatment difference, introduce potential bias and invalidate conclusions. Non-responder imputation (NRI), where patients (patients) with missing data are considered treatment failures, is widely used to handle missing data for dichotomous efficacy endpoints in IBD trials. However, it does not consider the mechanisms leading to missing data and can potentially underestimate the treatment effect. We proposed a hybrid (HI) approach combining NRI and multiple imputation (MI) as an alternative to NRI in the analyses of two phase 3 trials of vedolizumab (VDZ) in patients with moderate-to-severe UC – VISIBLE 11 and VARSITY2.

Methods

VISIBLE 1 and VARSITY assessed efficacy using dichotomous endpoints based on complete Mayo score. Full methodologies reported previously.1,2 Our proposed HI approach is aimed at imputing missing Mayo scores, instead of imputing the missing dichotomous efficacy endpoint. To assess the impact of dropouts for different missing data mechanisms (categorised as ‘missing not at random [MNAR]’ and ‘missing at random [MAR]’, HI was implemented as a potential sensitivity analysis, where dropouts owing to safety or lack of efficacy were imputed using NRI (assuming MNAR) and other missing data were imputed using MI (assuming MAR). For MI, each component of the Mayo score was imputed via a multivariate stepwise approach using a fully conditional specification ordinal logistic method. Missing baseline scores were imputed using baseline characteristics data. Missing scores from each subsequent visit were imputed using all previous visits in a stepwise fashion. Fifty imputation datasets were computed for each component of Mayo score. The complete Mayo score and relevant efficacy endpoints were derived subsequently. The analysis was performed within each imputed dataset to determine treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value, which were then combined via Rubin’s rules3.

Results

Tables 1 and 2 show a comparison of efficacy in the two studies using the primary NRI analysis vs. the alternative HI approach for handling missing data.

Conclusion

HI and NRI approaches can provide consistent efficacy analyses in IBD trials. The HI approach can serve as a useful sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of dropouts under different missing data mechanisms and evaluate the robustness of efficacy conclusions.

Reference:

Sandborn WJ, et al. Gastroenterol 2019. 2. N Engl J Med 2019;381(13):1215–1226. 3. Rubin, D.B. 1987. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.