A neutral comparison of statistical methods for analyzing longitudinally measured ordinal outcomes in rare diseases

Istore: a project on innovative statistical methodologies to improve rare diseases clinical trials in limited populations

BACKGROUND

The conduct of rare disease clinical trials is still hampered by methodological problems. The number of patients suffering from a rare condition is variable, but may be very small and unfortunately statistical problems for small and finite populations have received less consideration. This paper describes the outline of the iSTORE project, its ambitions, and its methodological approaches.

METHODS

In very small populations, methodological challenges exacerbate. iSTORE's ambition is to develop a comprehensive perspective on natural history course modelling through multiple endpoint methodologies, subgroup similarity identification, and improving level of evidence.

RESULTS

The methodological approaches cover methods for sound scientific modeling of natural history course data, showing similarity between subgroups, defining, and analyzing multiple endpoints and quantifying the level of evidence in multiple endpoint trials that are often hampered by bias.

CONCLUSION

Through its expected results, iSTORE will contribute to the rare diseases research field by providing an approach to better inform about and thus being able to plan a clinical trial. The methodological derivations can be synchronized and transferability will be outlined.

Statistical recommendations for count, binary, and ordinal data in rare disease cross-over trials

BACKGROUND

Recommendations for statistical methods in rare disease trials are scarce, especially for cross-over designs. As a result various state-of-the-art methodologies were compared as neutrally as possible using an illustrative data set from epidermolysis bullosa research to build recommendations for count, binary, and ordinal outcome variables. For this purpose, parametric (model averaging), semiparametric (generalized estimating equations type [GEE-like]) and nonparametric (generalized pairwise comparisons [GPC] and a marginal model implemented in the R package nparLD) methods were chosen by an international consortium of statisticians.

RESULTS

It was found that there is no uniformly best method for the aforementioned types of outcome variables, but in particular situations, there are methods that perform better than others. Especially if maximizing power is the primary goal, the prioritized unmatched GPC method was able to achieve particularly good results, besides being appropriate for prioritizing clinically relevant time points. Model averaging led to favorable results in some scenarios especially within the binary outcome setting and, like the GEE-like semiparametric method, also allows for considering period and carry-over effects properly. Inference based on the nonparametric marginal model was able to achieve high power, especially in the ordinal outcome scenario, despite small sample sizes due to separate testing of treatment periods, and is suitable when longitudinal and interaction effects have to be considered.

CONCLUSION

Overall, a balance has to be found between achieving high power, accounting for cross-over, period, or carry-over effects, and prioritizing clinically relevant time points.

How to analyze continuous and discrete repeated measures in small-sample cross-over trials?

To optimize the use of data from a small number of subjects in rare disease trials, an at first sight advantageous design is the repeated measures cross-over design. However, it is unclear how these within-treatment period and within-subject clustered data are best analyzed in small-sample trials. In a real-data simulation study based upon a recent epidermolysis bullosa simplex trial using this design, we compare non-parametric marginal models, generalized pairwise comparison models, GEE-type models and parametric model averaging for both repeated binary and count data. The recommendation of which methodology to use in rare disease trials with a repeated measures cross-over design depends on the type of outcome and the number of time points the treatment has an effect on. The non-parametric marginal model testing the treatment-time-interaction effect is suitable for detecting between group differences in the shapes of the longitudinal profiles. For binary outcomes with the treatment effect on a single time point, the parametric model averaging method is recommended, while in the other cases the unmatched generalized pairwise comparison methodology is recommended. Both provide an easily interpretable effect size measure, and do not require exclusion of periods or subjects due to incompleteness.