Mixed effect Models with Repeated Measures (MMRM) are often used as the primary analysis of continuous longitudinal endpoints in clinical trials. In this setting, an MMRM is a specific linear mixed effects model that includes as fixed effects the variables: treatment arm, categorical visit, treatment by visit interaction, and other covariates for adjustment (e.g. age, gender). The covariance structure of the residuals can take on different forms. Often, an unstructured (i.e. saturated parametrization) covariance matrix is assumed which can be represented by random effects in the mixed model.
All of this has been implemented in proprietary software such as
SAS
, whose PROC MIXED
routine is generally
considered the gold standard for mixed models. However, this does not
allow the use of interactive web applications to explore the clinical
study data in a flexible way. Therefore, we wanted to implement MMRM in
R in a way which could easily be embedded into a shiny
application. See the teal.modules.clinical
package for more details about using this code inside a
shiny
application.
Descriptive statistics for a relevant analysis population (e.g. those patients with at least one post baseline visit) can be obtained by the functions described in Section @ref(baseline-tables).
Under the linear mixed model (LMM
) framework, an outcome
vector ${\bf Y}$ is modeled as $$\bf Y = X \boldsymbol \beta + Z b + {\boldsymbol
\varepsilon}$$ where $\bf X$ is
the matrix for fixed effects, $\bf Z$
is the matrix for random effects, b ∼ N(0, D(θ)),
and ε ∼ N(0, R(θ)).
Letting V = ZDZT + R,
the marginal and conditional models are then given by $\mathbf Y \sim N(\bf X \boldsymbol \beta,
V)$ and $\mathbf Y | \mathbf b \sim
N(\bf X \boldsymbol \beta + Z b, R)$, respectively.
An MMRM is a special case of a LMM
such that $\bf Y$ is a collection of measurements made
on a set of individuals over time, i.e. $\mathbf Y = ({\bf Y}_1^T, {\bf Y}_2^T,
...)^T$ where Yi = Xiβ + Zibi + εi.
In our context of clinical trials, individuals are patients identified
by their unique subject id
, measurements are of treatment
response
, and fixed effects include treatment
arm
, categorical visit
, treatment by visit
interaction, and potentially other covariates
(e.g. age,
gender).
The parameters β, $\bf b$, and θ can be estimated by maximizing the penalized and restricted maximum likelihoods. The average treatment response at each visit is often of particular interest. However, simply comparing predicted marginal responses E(Yij) averaged across treatment x visit groups will not account for potential imbalance in covariates. (Imbalance may occur even in randomized trials due to patients dying or dropping out over time.) For a more fair comparison, least-squares (LS) mean:
The following simple example illustrates the concept of LS means. Suppose we have a longitudinal clinical trial where three factors are considered: treatment (A and B), visit (1, 2, …), and gender (M and F). The marginal predicted response (sample size) for each reference cell is as follows.
A1 | B1 | … | |
---|---|---|---|
M | 100 (20) | 90 (35) | |
F | 50 (30) | 40 (15) |
The average predicted responses for arms A and B at Visit 1 are (100 × 20 + 50 × 30)/50 = 70 and (90 × 35 + 40 × 15)/50 = 75, respectively. The overall mean is higher in arm B than in arm A even though the mean is lower within each gender category. This seeming contradiction is caused by the imbalance in the data. LS mean calculates the weighted average across cells of the same treatment and visit. In this example, this is equivalent to taking the weighted average over each column. One may assign equal weights to each cell, i.e. 0.5 × 100 + 0.5 × 50 = 75 and 0.5 × 90 + 0.5 × 40 = 65. Alternatively, one may assign weights proportional to the observed frequencies of the factor combinations, i.e. 0.55 × 100 + 0.45 × 50 = 77.5 and 0.55 × 90 + 0.45 × 40 = 67.5. In both cases, the LS mean of response is lower in arm B than in arm A.
LS means are calculated in tern.mmrm
via the R package
emmeans
. Users have the option to weigh marginal predicted
responses with either equal
weights or
proportional
weights. Note that for proportional weights,
the weights are calculated at each visit by taking into account the
observed frequencies of factor combinations at that time. Therefore,
even though covariate imbalance may vary over time, LS mean provides an
adjusted analysis of treatment response at all visits.
Performing inference on estimated parameters (e.g. calculating
p-values) is less straightforward for MMRM. This is because the exact
null distributions for parameter effects are unknown. SAS
addresses this issue by utilizing Satterthwaite’s method to approximate
the adjusted degrees of freedom for F and t tests. lme4
and
lmerTest
have also implemented Satterthwaite’s method.
Unfortunately we found that these are not robust in their convergence
behavior. Compared to lme4
, the R package nlme
can consider more flexible covariance structures. However, we have
chosen not to use this package because it does not provide exact
Satterthwaite adjusted degrees of freedom and the available approximate
degrees of freedom can differ substantially. Therefore we built the new
package mmrm
. With mmrm
,
tern.mmrm
is able to replicate outputs from
SAS
.
Users of tern.mmrm
have currently the following options
for the covariance structure Vi:
In this section, we illustrate how to fit a MMRM with
tern.mmrm
and how to fit a MMRM manually in R. We then
compare with SAS
to show that the results match.
Our example dataset consists of several variables: subject ID
(USUBJID
), visit number (AVISIT
), treatment
(ARMCD
= TRT
or PBO
), 3-category
race, sex, FEV1
at baseline (%), and FEV1
at
study visits (%). FEV1
(forced expired volume in one
second) is a measure of how quickly the lungs can be emptied. Low levels
of FEV1
may indicate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
(COPD
). The scientific question at hand is whether
treatment leads to an increase in FEV1
over time after
adjusting for baseline covariates.
library(tern.mmrm)
#> Loading required package: tern
#> Loading required package: rtables
#> Loading required package: formatters
#>
#> Attaching package: 'formatters'
#> The following object is masked from 'package:base':
#>
#> %||%
#> Loading required package: magrittr
#>
#> Attaching package: 'rtables'
#> The following object is masked from 'package:utils':
#>
#> str
#> Registered S3 method overwritten by 'tern':
#> method from
#> tidy.glm broom
data(mmrm_test_data)
head(mmrm_test_data)
#> # A tibble: 6 × 7
#> USUBJID AVISIT ARMCD RACE SEX FEV1_BL FEV1
#> <fct> <fct> <fct> <fct> <fct> <dbl> <dbl>
#> 1 PT1 VIS1 TRT Black or African American Female 25.3 NA
#> 2 PT1 VIS2 TRT Black or African American Female 25.3 40.0
#> 3 PT1 VIS3 TRT Black or African American Female 25.3 NA
#> 4 PT1 VIS4 TRT Black or African American Female 25.3 20.5
#> 5 PT2 VIS1 PBO Asian Male 45.0 NA
#> 6 PT2 VIS2 PBO Asian Male 45.0 31.5
tern.mmrm
Fitting MMRM is easy in tern.mmrm
. By default, the model
fitting function fit_mmrm
assumes unstructured correlation
and proportional weights when calculating LS means.
mmrm_results <- fit_mmrm(
vars = list(
response = "FEV1",
covariates = c("RACE", "SEX", "FEV1_BL"),
id = "USUBJID",
arm = "ARMCD",
visit = "AVISIT"
),
data = mmrm_test_data,
cor_struct = "unstructured",
weights_emmeans = "proportional"
)
The resulting object consists among other things the estimated random
and fixed effects (fit
), the estimated LS means for a
particular treatment at a particular visit (lsmeans
), and
the difference in LS means at a particular visit
(lsmeans$contrasts
). Based on the output, there is evidence
that supports treatment leading to an increase in FEV1
over
placebo at all study visits.
mmrm_results$lsmeans$contrasts
#> ARMCD AVISIT estimate se df lower_cl upper_cl t_stat
#> 1 TRT VIS1 3.983290 1.0454036 142.3210 1.916765 6.049815 3.810289
#> 2 TRT VIS2 3.930758 0.8135131 142.2576 2.322622 5.538895 4.831831
#> 3 TRT VIS3 2.983718 0.6656674 129.6093 1.666737 4.300699 4.482295
#> 4 TRT VIS4 4.404001 1.6604869 132.8789 1.119595 7.688407 2.652235
#> p_value relative_reduc
#> 1 2.058960e-04 -0.12101832
#> 2 3.460313e-06 -0.10424997
#> 3 1.606280e-05 -0.06893864
#> 4 8.969722e-03 -0.09154581
Other correlation structures and weighting schemes can be considered.
One can reproduce these results manually in R. For example, to fit the unstructured model:
library(mmrm)
#>
#> Attaching package: 'mmrm'
#> The following object is masked from 'package:tern.mmrm':
#>
#> fit_mmrm
library(emmeans)
#> Welcome to emmeans.
#> Caution: You lose important information if you filter this package's results.
#> See '? untidy'
fit <- mmrm(
formula = FEV1 ~ RACE + SEX + FEV1_BL + ARMCD * AVISIT + us(AVISIT | USUBJID),
data = mmrm_test_data
)
emmeans::emmeans(fit, pairwise ~ ARMCD | AVISIT, weights = "proportional")
#> $emmeans
#> AVISIT = VIS1:
#> ARMCD emmean SE df lower.CL upper.CL
#> PBO 32.9 0.732 141 31.5 34.4
#> TRT 36.9 0.743 141 35.4 38.4
#>
#> AVISIT = VIS2:
#> ARMCD emmean SE df lower.CL upper.CL
#> PBO 37.7 0.576 142 36.6 38.8
#> TRT 41.6 0.570 140 40.5 42.8
#>
#> AVISIT = VIS3:
#> ARMCD emmean SE df lower.CL upper.CL
#> PBO 43.3 0.441 127 42.4 44.2
#> TRT 46.3 0.494 130 45.3 47.2
#>
#> AVISIT = VIS4:
#> ARMCD emmean SE df lower.CL upper.CL
#> PBO 48.1 1.170 133 45.8 50.4
#> TRT 52.5 1.170 133 50.2 54.8
#>
#> Results are averaged over the levels of: RACE, SEX
#> Confidence level used: 0.95
#>
#> $contrasts
#> AVISIT = VIS1:
#> contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
#> PBO - TRT -3.98 1.050 142 -3.810 0.0002
#>
#> AVISIT = VIS2:
#> contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
#> PBO - TRT -3.93 0.814 142 -4.832 <.0001
#>
#> AVISIT = VIS3:
#> contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
#> PBO - TRT -2.98 0.666 130 -4.482 <.0001
#>
#> AVISIT = VIS4:
#> contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
#> PBO - TRT -4.40 1.660 133 -2.652 0.0090
#>
#> Results are averaged over the levels of: RACE, SEX
Compared to manual implementation, tern.mmrm
users can
avoid specifying the formula
manually. Note also that
tern.mmrm
has a default optimizer which is in fact the same
as the one shown here. If the default fails to converge, it
automatically attempts to use multiple other optimizers, delivering
results should there be a consensus.
SAS
SAS
code is
given by
proc import datafile="location_of_data.csv"
out=dat
dbms=csv
replace;
getnames=yes;
run;
proc mixed data= dat;
class ARMCD(ref="PBO") AVISIT(ref="VIS1") USUBJID SEX(ref="Male") RACE(ref="Asian");
Model FEV1 = ARMCD RACE SEX FEV1_BL AVISIT ARMCD*AVISIT / solution ddfm=satterthwaite;
repeated AVISIT / type=UN subject=USUBJID;
lsmeans ARMCD*AVISIT/pdiff obsmargins cl;
run;
A key part in the analysis of data is model selection, where often
the desire is to select a parsimonious model that adequately fits the
data. We provide four of the same information criteria as found in
SAS
PROC MIXED
.
mmrm_results$diagnostics
#> $`REML criterion`
#> [1] 3361.379
#>
#> $AIC
#> [1] 3381.379
#>
#> $AICc
#> [1] 3381.807
#>
#> $BIC
#> [1] 3414.211
Each criterion is specifically calculated as follows:
REML
criterion: −2l where l is the REML
log-likelihood. This criterion has no penalty for complexity, so
generally decreases as model becomes more complex.AIC
: −2l + 2d where d is the number of covariance
parameters.AICc
: −2l + 2dn*/(n* − d − 1)
where n* is the
number of observations minus the number of fixed effects, or d + 2 if it is smaller than that.
AICc
is a finite-sample corrected version of
AIC
.BIC
: −2l + dlog n where
n is the number of subjects as
opposed to the number of observations.An objective approach to model selection is to minimize the
AIC
, AICc
, or BIC
. For more
details on these information criteria (including references), see SAS
Documentation.
Another key part in the analysis of data is verifying model
assumptions. g_mmrm_diagnostic(fit, type = ...)
provides
several handy residual plots, each of which is diagnostic for a
different aspect of MMRMs.
type = "fit-residual"
type = q-q-residual
We are actively looking to expand the capabilities of
tern.mmrm
. In particular we are working on the foundational
package mmrm
to include more features, such as treatment
group specific covariance matrices and additional covariance
structures.