Cited by 78Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes

Mixed‐effects models for slope‐based endpoints in clinical trials of chronic kidney disease

Open access
Vonesh, Edward, Tighiouart, Hocine, Ying, Jian, Heerspink, Hiddo L., Lewis, Julia, Staplin, Natalie, Inker, Lesley, Greene, Tom·2019·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

In March of 2018, the National Kidney Foundation, in collaboration with the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, sponsored a workshop in which surrogate endpoints other than currently established event‐time endpoints for clinical trials in chronic kidney disease (CKD) were presented and discussed. One such endpoint is a slope‐based parameter describing the rate of decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over time. There are a number of challenges that can complicate such slope‐based analyses in CKD trials. These include the possibility of an early but short‐term acute treatment effect on the slope, both within‐subject and between‐subject heteroscedasticity, and informative censoring resulting from patient dropout due to death or onset of end‐stage kidney disease. To address these issues, we first consider a class of mixed‐effects models for eGFR that are linear in the parameters describing the mean eGFR trajectory but which are intrinsically nonlinear when a power‐of‐mean variance structure is used to model within‐subject heteroscedasticity. We then combine the model for eGFR with a model for time to dropout to form a class of shared parameter models which, under the right specification of shared random effects, can minimize bias due to informative censoring. The models and methods of analysis are described and illustrated using data from two CKD studies one of which was one of 56 studies made available to the workshop analytical team. Lastly, methodology and accompanying software for prospectively determining sample size/power estimates are presented.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.8282

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Satorra A, Bentler PM. Some robustness properties of goodness of fit statistics in covariance structure analysis. In: Proceedings of the Business and Economic Statistics Section/American Statistical Association; 1986; Washington, DC.
  2. Beck GJ, Berg RL, Coggins CH, et al. Design and statistical issues of the modification of diet in renal disease trial. Control Clin Trials. 1991;12:566-586.
  3. Little RJA. Modeling the dropout mechanism in repeated-measures studies. J Am Stat Assoc. 1995;90:1112-1121.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vonesh, E., Tighiouart, H., Ying, J., Heerspink, H. L., Lewis, J., Staplin, N., Inker, L., & Greene, T.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Tufts Medical Center (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology University Medical Center Groningen Groningen The Netherlands
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Vonesh, Edward
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-07-23
Volume
38
Issue
22
Pages
4218-4239
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W2962892209
Cited by
78
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2
FWCI
3.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Kidney Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Chronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Keywords
chronic kidney disease, surrogate endpoints, estimated glomerular filtration rate decline, mixed models, shared parameter models, informative censoring, dropout, heteroscedasticity, end-stage renal disease
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Computer Simulation, Humans, Models, Statistical, Treatment Outcome, Endpoint Determination, Renal Insufficiency, Chronic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review