Efficacy endpoint selection and multiplicity adjustment methods in clinical trials with inherent multiple endpoint issues

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 22, Issue 20, 2003, Pages 3133-3150

  Sankoh, Abdul J ^a   D'Agostino Sr , Ralph B ^b   Huque, Mohammad F ^c  

^a SANOFI   (France)

^b Boston University   (United States)

^c CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Closed tests; Composite endpoints; Decision making scenario; Endpoint specific conclusions; Multiple endpoints

Indexed keywords

ANTITHROMBOCYTIC AGENT; DRUG; EPTIFIBATIDE; PLACEBO;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL STUDY; CLINICAL TRIAL; CORONARY BLOOD VESSEL; DATA ANALYSIS; DEATH; DECISION MAKING; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; DRUG EFFICACY; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN; PRIMARY BILIARY CIRRHOSIS; SIMULATION;

CLINICAL TRIALS; DECISION MAKING; DRUG THERAPY; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0141617402     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.1557     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) of Technical Requirements for Regulations of Pharmaceuticals for Human use. ICH Tripartite Guideline E-9 Document, Statistical Principles for Clinical trials, 5 February 1998.
2. D'Agostino Sr, RB. Controlling alpha in a clinical trial: the case for secondary endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 2000; 19:763-766.
3. Best WR, Becktel JM, Singleton JW, Kern F. Development of a Crohn's disease activity index: National Cooperative Crohn's disease study. Gastroenterology, 1976; 70:439-444.
4. Chi GHY. Multiple testings: multiple comparisons and multiple endpoints. Drug Information Journal 1998; 32:1347S-1362S.
5. Koch GG, Gansky SA. Statistical considerations for multiplicity in confirmatory protocols. Drug Information Journal 1996; 30:523-533.
6. Huque MF, Sankoh AJ. A reviewer's perspective on multiple endpoint issues in clinical trials. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 1997; 7:545-564.
7. Capizza T, Zhang J. Testing the hypothesis that matters for multiple primary endpoints. Drug Information Journal 1996; 30:949-956.
8. Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 1979; 6: 65-70.
9. Hochberg YA. Sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika 1988; 75:800-802.
10. Hommel G. A stagewise rejective multiple test procedure based on a modified Bonferroni test. Biometrika 1988; 75:383-386.
11. Rom DM. A sequentially rejective test procedure based on a modified Bonferroni inequality. Biometrika 1990; 77:663-665.
12. Tukey JW, Cimenera JL, Heyse JF. Testing the statistical certainty of a response to increasing doses of a drug. Biometrics 1985; 41:295-301.
13. Dubey SD. Adjustment of p-values for multiplicities of intercorrelating symptoms. In Statistics in the Pharmaceutical Industry. 2nd edn, Buncher RC, Tsay JY (eds). Marcel Dekkert Inc: New York, 1994; 513-527.
14. Armitage P, Parmar M. Some approaches to the problem of multiplicity in clinical trials. Proceedings of the XIIth IBC of the Biometric Society, Seattle, 1986.
15. Sankoh AJ, Huque MF, Dubey SD. Some comments on frequently used multiple endpoint adjustment methods in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 1997; 16:2529-2542.
16. Marcus R, Peritz E, Gabriel KR. On closed testing procedures with special reference to ordered analysis of variance. Biometrika 1976; 63:655-660.
17. O'Brien PC. Procedures for comparing samples with multiple endpoints. Biometrics 1984; 40:1079-1087.
18. Tang D-I, Gnecco C, Geller NL. An approximate likelihood ratio test for a normal mean vector with nonnegative components with application to clinical trials. Biometrika 1989; 76:751-754.
19. Pocock SJ, Geller NL, Tsiatis AA. The analysis of multiple endpoints in clinical trials. Biometrics 1987; 43: 487-498.
20. Sankoh AJ, Huque MF, Russell HK, D'Agostino RB. Global two-group multiple endpoint adjustment methods applied to clinical trials. Drug Information Journal 1999; 33:119-140.
21. Lehmacher W, Wassmer G, Reitmeir P. Procedures for two-sample comparisons with multiple endpoints controlling the experimentwise error rate. Biometrics 1991; 47:511-521.
22. Lehmacher W. Comment on: on the design and analysis randomized clinical trials with multiple endpoints. Biometrics 1994; 50:581-583.
23. Simes RJ. An improved Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika 1986; 73:751-754.
24. Tang D-I, Geller NL. Closed testing procedures for group sequential clinical trials with multiple endpoints. Biometrics 1999; 55:1185-1192.
25. Westfall PH, Tobias RD, Rom D, Wolfinger RD, Hochberg Y. Multiple Comparisons and Multiple Endpoints (Using the SAS System). SAS Institute Inc.: Gary, NC, U.S.A., 1999.
26. Grechannovsky E, Hochberg Y. Closed procedures are better and often admit a shortcut. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 1999; 76:79-91.
27. Hsu JC. Multiple Comparisons - Theory and Methods. Chapman & Hall: New York, 1996.
28. Westfall PH, Young S. Resampling-based Multiple Comparison Testings: Examples and Methods for p-value Adjustment. Wiley: New York, 1993.
29. Liu A, Tan M, Boyett JM, Xiong X. Testing secondary hypotheses following sequential clinical trials. Biometrics 2000; 56:640-644.
30. Davis C. Secondary endpoints can be validly analysed, even if the primary endpoints do not provide clear statistical significance. Controlled Clinical Trials 1997; 18:557-560.
31. Moye LA. Alpha calculus in clinical trials: considerations and commentary for the new millennium. Statistics in Medicine 2000; 19:767-779.
32. O'Neill R. Secondary endpoints cannot be validly analysed if the primary endpoints do not demonstrate clear statistical significance. Controlled Clinical Trials 1997; 18:550-556.
33. Prentice RL. On the role and analysis of secondary outcomes in a clinical trial. Controlled Clinical Trials 1997; 18:561-567.
34. Moye LA. P-value interpretation in clinical trials: the case for discipline. Controlled Clinical Trials 1999; 20: 40-49.
35. Fisher L. Carvedilol and the FDA approval process: the FDA paradigm and reflection upon hypothesis testing. Controlled Clinical Trials 1999; 20:16-39.