Missing Data in Randomized Clinical Trials for Weight Loss: Scope of the Problem, State of the Field, and Performance of Statistical Methods

BACKGROUND: Dropouts and missing data are nearly-ubiquitous in obesity randomized controlled trails, threatening validity and generalizability of conclusions. Herein, we meta-analytically evaluate the extent of missing data, the frequency with which various analytic methods are employed to accommodate dropouts, and the performance of multiple statistical methods. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We searched PubMed and Cochrane databases (2000-2006) for articles published in English and manually searched bibliographic references. Articles of pharmaceutical randomized controlled trials with weight loss or weight gain prevention as major endpoints were included. Two authors independently reviewed each publication for inclusion. 121 articles met the inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted treatment, sample size, drop-out rates, study duration, and statistical method used to handle missing data from all articles and resolved disagreements by consensus. In the meta-analysis, drop-out rates were substantial with the survival (non-dropout) rates being approximated by an exponential decay curve (e(-lambdat)) where lambda was estimated to be .0088 (95% bootstrap confidence interval: .0076 to .0100) and t represents time in weeks. The estimated drop-out rate at 1 year was 37%. Most studies used last observation carried forward as the primary analytic method to handle missing data. We also obtained 12 raw obesity randomized controlled trial datasets for empirical analyses. Analyses of raw randomized controlled trial data suggested that both mixed models and multiple imputation performed well, but that multiple imputation may be more robust when missing data are extensive. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Our analysis offers an equation for predictions of dropout rates useful for future study planning. Our raw data analyses suggests that multiple imputation is better than other methods for handling missing data in obesity randomized controlled trials, followed closely by mixed models. We suggest these methods supplant last observation carried forward as the primary method of analysis

Safety and tolerability of sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a pooled analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Sitagliptin, a highly selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, is the first in a new class of oral antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs) for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is a life-long disease requiring chronic treatment and management. Therefore, robust assessment of the long-term safety and tolerability of newer therapeutic agents is of importance. The purpose of this analysis was to assess the safety and tolerability of sitagliptin by pooling 12 large, double-blind, Phase IIb and III studies up to 2 years in duration. Methods: This analysis included 6139 patients with type 2 diabetes receiving either sitagliptin 100 mg/day (N = 3415) or a comparator agent (placebo or an active comparator) (N = 2724; non-exposed group). The 12 studies from which this pooled population was drawn represent the double-blind, randomized, Phase IIB and III studies that included patients treated with the clinical dose of sitagliptin (100 mg/day) for at least 18 weeks up to 2 years and that were available in a single safety database as of November 2007. These 12 studies assessed sitagliptin as monotherapy, initial combination therapy with metformin, or add-on combination therapy with other oral AHAs (metformin, pioglitazone, sulfonylurea, sulfonylurea + metformin, or metformin + rosiglitazone). Patients in the non-exposed group were taking placebo, pioglitazone, metformin, sulfonylurea, sulfonylurea + metformin, or metformin + rosiglitazone. This safety analysis used patient-level data from each study to evaluate clinical and laboratory adverse experiences.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>For clinical adverse experiences, the incidence rates of adverse experiences overall, serious adverse experiences, and discontinuations due to adverse experiences were similar in the sitagliptin and non-exposed groups. The incidence rates of specific adverse experiences were also generally similar in the two groups, with the exception of an increased incidence rate of hypoglycemia observed in the non-exposed group. The incidence rates of drug-related adverse experiences overall and discontinuations due to drug-related adverse experiences were higher in the non-exposed group, primarily due to the increased incidence rate of hypoglycemia in this group. For cardiac- and ischemia-related adverse experiences (including serious events), there were no meaningful between-group differences. No meaningful differences between groups in laboratory adverse experiences, either summary measures or specific adverse experiences, were observed.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In patients with type 2 diabetes, sitagliptin 100 mg/day was well tolerated in clinical trials up to 2 years in duration.</p

Safety and tolerability of sitagliptin in clinical studies: a pooled analysis of data from 10,246 patients with type 2 diabetes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In a previous pooled analysis of 12 double-blind clinical studies that included data on 6,139 patients with type 2 diabetes, treatment with sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, was shown to be generally well tolerated compared with treatment with control agents. As clinical development of sitagliptin continues, additional studies have been completed, and more patients have been exposed to sitagliptin. The purpose of the present analysis is to update the safety and tolerability assessment of sitagliptin by pooling data from 19 double-blind clinical studies.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The present analysis included data from 10,246 patients with type 2 diabetes who received either sitagliptin 100 mg/day (N = 5,429; sitagliptin group) or a comparator agent (placebo or an active comparator) (N = 4,817; non-exposed group). The 19 studies from which this pooled population was drawn represent the double-blind, randomized studies that included patients treated with the usual clinical dose of sitagliptin (100 mg/day) for between 12 weeks and 2 years and for which results were available as of July 2009. These 19 studies assessed sitagliptin taken as monotherapy, initial combination therapy with metformin or pioglitazone, or as add-on combination therapy with other antihyperglycemic agents (metformin, pioglitazone, a sulfonylurea ± metformin, insulin ± metformin, or rosiglitazone + metformin). Patients in the non-exposed group were taking placebo, metformin, pioglitazone, a sulfonylurea ± metformin, insulin ± metformin, or rosiglitazone + metformin. The analysis used patient-level data from each study to evaluate between-group differences in the exposure-adjusted incidence rates of adverse events.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Summary measures of overall adverse events were similar in the sitagliptin and non-exposed groups, except for an increased incidence of drug-related adverse events in the non-exposed group. Incidence rates of specific adverse events were also generally similar between the two groups, except for increased incidence rates of hypoglycemia, related to the greater use of a sulfonylurea, and diarrhea, related to the greater use of metformin, in the non-exposed group and constipation in the sitagliptin group. Treatment with sitagliptin was not associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In this updated pooled safety analysis of data from 10,246 patients with type 2 diabetes, sitagliptin 100 mg/day was generally well tolerated in clinical trials of up to 2 years in duration.</p

Effect of Subcutaneous Casirivimab and Imdevimab Antibody Combination vs Placebo on Development of Symptomatic COVID-19 in Early Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: Easy-to-administer anti-SARS-CoV-2 treatments may be used to prevent progression from asymptomatic infection to symptomatic disease and to reduce viral carriage. Objective: To evaluate the effect of combination subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab on progression from early asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection to symptomatic COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of close household contacts of a SARS-CoV-2-infected index case at 112 sites in the US, Romania, and Moldova enrolled July 13, 2020-January 28, 2021; follow-up ended March 11, 2021. Asymptomatic individuals (aged ≥12 years) were eligible if identified within 96 hours of index case positive test collection. Results from 314 individuals positive on SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) testing are reported. Interventions: Individuals were randomized 1:1 to receive 1 dose of subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab, 1200 mg (600 mg of each; n = 158), or placebo (n = 156). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of seronegative participants who developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the 28-day efficacy assessment period. The key secondary efficacy end points were the number of weeks of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and the number of weeks of high viral load (&gt;4 log10copies/mL). Results: Among 314 randomized participants (mean age, 41.0 years; 51.6% women), 310 (99.7%) completed the efficacy assessment period; 204 were asymptomatic and seronegative at baseline and included in the primary efficacy analysis. Subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab, 1200 mg, significantly prevented progression to symptomatic disease (29/100 [29.0%] vs 44/104 [42.3%] with placebo; odds ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.30-0.97]; P =.04; absolute risk difference, -13.3% [95% CI, -26.3% to -0.3%]). Casirivimab and imdevimab reduced the number of symptomatic weeks per 1000 participants (895.7 weeks vs 1637.4 weeks with placebo; P =.03), an approximately 5.6-day reduction in symptom duration per symptomatic participant. Treatment with casirivimab and imdevimab also reduced the number of high viral load weeks per 1000 participants (489.8 weeks vs 811.9 weeks with placebo; P =.001). The proportion of participants receiving casirivimab and imdevimab who had 1 or more treatment-emergent adverse event was 33.5% vs 48.1% for placebo, including events related (25.8% vs 39.7%) or not related (11.0% vs 16.0%) to COVID-19. Conclusions and Relevance: Among asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR-positive individuals living with an infected household contact, treatment with subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab antibody combination vs placebo significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 over 28 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04452318

Casirivimab + imdevimab accelerates symptom resolution linked to improved COVID-19 outcomes across susceptible antibody and risk profiles

Abstract Severe, protracted symptoms are associated with poor outcomes in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. In a placebo-controlled study of casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS + IMD) in persons at high risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19; n = 3816), evolution of individual symptoms was assessed for resolution patterns across risk factors, and baseline SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses against S1 and N domains. CAS + IMD versus placebo provided statistically significant resolution for 17/23 symptoms, with greater response linked to absence of endogenous anti–SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (Ig)G, IgA, or specific neutralizing antibodies at baseline, or high baseline viral load. Resolution of five key symptoms (onset days 3–5)—dyspnea, cough, feeling feverish, fatigue, and loss of appetite—independently correlated with reduced hospitalization and death (hazard ratio range: 0.31–0.56; P < 0.001–0.043), and was more rapid in CAS + IMD-treated patients lacking robust early antibody responses. Those who seroconverted late still benefited from treatment. Thus, highly neutralizing COVID-19-specific antibodies provided by CAS + IMD treatment accelerated key symptom resolution associated with hospitalization and death in those at high risk for severe disease as well as in those lacking early, endogenous neutralizing antibody responses