Abstract:The present investigation assessed how the heavily right-skewed data seen in recently reported results in Alzheimers Disease (AD) clinical trials influenced treatment contrasts when data were analyzed via the typical mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) versus robust regression (RR) and the non-parametric Hodges-Lehman estimator (HL). Results in simulated data patterned after AD trials showed that imbalance across treatment arms in the number of patients in the extreme right tail (those with rapid disease progression) frequently occurred by chance alone. Each analysis method controlled Type I error at or below the nominal level. The RR analysis yielded smaller standard errors, and more power than MMRM and HL. In datasets with appreciable imbalance in the number of rapid progressing patients, MMRM results favored the treatment arm with fewer rapid progressors. Results from HL showed the same trend, but to a lesser degree. Robust regression yielded similar results regardless of the ratio of rapid progressors. Although more research is needed over a wider range of scenarios, it should not be assumed that MMRM is the optimal approach for trials in early Alzheimers Disease.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

This paper discusses the statistical analysis challenges of handling severely right-skewed data in clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease (AD). The study found that in AD clinical trials, the presence of rapidly progressing patients (individuals with a rapid disease progression) can lead to data imbalance and significantly impact the comparison of treatment effects. The authors evaluated the performance of the mixed effects model repeated measures method (MMRM), robust regression (RR), and nonparametric Hodges-Lehmann estimator (HL) in handling these data through simulation. The research results showed that although all methods can control type I error rates, RR analysis provides smaller standard errors and higher statistical power. In datasets with a significant imbalance in the number of rapidly progressing patients, MMRM tends to favor treatment arms with fewer rapidly progressing patients. The results from the HL also showed a similar trend but to a lesser extent. Furthermore, the results from RR were insensitive to the proportion of rapidly progressing patients. The paper points out that the evaluation and sensitivity analysis of rapidly progressing patients and highly skewed data are often lacking in current practice. Therefore, the objective of the study is to provide insights on how to actively address these situations. The authors suggest that MMRM should not be assumed as the best analytical method for early Alzheimer's disease clinical trials, and further research is needed to explore different methods in various scenarios. In conclusion, the paper aims to address the issue of selecting appropriate statistical analysis methods to more accurately evaluate treatment effects in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials when faced with severely skewed data due to a significant number of rapidly progressing patients.

Analytic Challenges in Clinical Trials in Early Alzheimers Disease