Back

Group Response Analysis: Clinically Interpretable Longitudinal Responder Analysis Methods Developed Using FDA Data

DeLorey, I.; Bilker, W.; Chudnovskaya, D.; Conroy, A.; McWilliams, T.; Miller, C.; Argoff, C. E.; Barnett, I.; Bell, R.; Haythornthwaite, J.; Gewandter, J.; Gilron, I.; Katz, N. P.; Theken, K. N.; Farrar, J. T.

2025-08-15 pain medicine
10.1101/2025.08.13.25333581 medRxiv
Show abstract

1Responder analyses for the evaluation of randomized clinical trial (RCT) data have become more common in the recent past, since they can provide the medical community with results that are more directly applicable to clinical care. For pain studies, the predominant responder analysis compares the change in the individual participants pain level at baseline to their value at the end of the study period and uses a predetermined clinically important change cut-off value to define a response. While useful, this method substantially reduces the efficiency of the RCT by dichotomizing the results and is limited to comparing the baseline to the end of the study only. In this paper, we introduce a novel approach to the patient response over time with a focus on single dose post-operative studies. This technique provides graphical presentations and statistical approaches to understand the onset of any specified level of response, the maximum proportion of patients with a response at any point in time, and the duration of that response over time. In addition, each outcome can be summarized to examine the result across all possible cut-off points for clinically important differences (CID). We accomplish this by introducing three interrelated, longitudinal efficacy statistics: ROOT, GRO, and GROOT. The response outcome over time (ROOT) estimates the total proportion of a study period an individual patient spends as a responder. The group response outcome (GRO) estimates the instantaneous proportion of responders at all time points across the study period. The group response outcome over time (GROOT) summarizes total efficacy in a cohort, and can be calculated as the area under the GRO curve, or as the mean ROOT; they are identical. This novel method provides a clinically interpretable responder analysis over the full period of the study and, by using every data point across time, mitigates the loss of statistical power typically associated with dichotomized responder outcomes. Group response analysis is based upon repeated assessments of categorical or continuous measures categorizing each participants status as a treatment responder or non-responder at every timepoint based on the prespecified clinically important difference. Both the visual and statistical comparison of any two or more curves provide a comparison of the overall efficacy, which can be statistically tested using a standard asymptotic hypothesis test (such as Wald (Johnson & Romer, 2016)). The method allows for an integrated evaluation of three main components of drug efficacy: the proportion of participants achieving a CID over time (effect), the time to achieve that response (onset), and the length of the response (duration). In this paper, we present the group response analysis methodology and then illustrate it using data from a placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial (RCT) for postoperative pain after third molar extraction treated with meloxicam and ibuprofen as an active comparator (Christensen et al., 2018). Our approach yields similar effect sizes as the sum of pain intensity differences (SPID) commonly used for pain study analyses while providing superior clinical interpretability and a more complete evaluation of drug therapies beyond just efficacy. We propose that this method can be used as a primary or secondary analysis of pain RCTs to answer the question of the patient response to treatment and provide suitable data to compare efficacies across treatment groups.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
106 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.6%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 17%
10.6%
3
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.6%
4
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.1%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 12%
7.1%
50% of probability mass above
6
BMC Neurology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.8%
7
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.8%
8
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 29%
3.2%
9
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.2%
10
The Journal of Pain
26 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.2%
11
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
12
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
13
Statistics in Medicine
34 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
14
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.8%
15
Pain
70 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
16
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
17
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.2%
18
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
19
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.0%
20
Research Synthesis Methods
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
21
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
22
Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease
39 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
23
The Annals of Applied Statistics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
24
Epidemiology
26 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%