Fallback tests in dose-response clinical trials

Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics

Volumn 16, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 745-755

  Dmitrienko, Alex ^a   Wiens, Brian ^b   Westfall, Peter ^c  

^a ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

^b Myogen Inc   (United States)

^c TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical trials; Dose response; Multiple endpoints; Multiple tests

Indexed keywords

ANTIDIABETIC AGENT; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENT;

ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG MEGADOSE; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; METHODOLOGY; MULTISTAGE FALLBACK PROCEDURE; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ALGORITHMS; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENTS; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HUMANS; HYPERTENSION; HYPOGLYCEMIC AGENTS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PLACEBOS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 33751583506     PISSN: 10543406     EISSN: 15205711     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10543400600860600     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Bauer, P., Röhmel, J., Maurer, W., Hothorn, L. (1998). Testing strategies in multi-dose experiments including active control. Stat. Med. 17:2133-2146.
2. Chen, X., Luo, X., Capizzi, T. (2005). The application of enhanced parallel gatekeeping strategies. Stat. Med. 24:1385-1397.
3. Dmitrienko, A., Offen, W. W., Westfall, P. H. (2003). Gatekeeping strategies for clinical trials that do not require all primary effects to be significant. Stat. Med. 22:2387-2400.
4. Dmitrienko, A., Molenberghs, G., Chuang-Stein, C., Offen, W. (2005). Analysis of Clinical Trials Using SAS: A Practical Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Press.
5. Dmitrienko, A., Offen, W., Wang, O., Xiao, D. (2006). Gatekeeping procedures in dose-response clinical trials based on the Dunnett test. Pharm. Stat. 5:19-28.
6. Dunnett, C. W. (1955). A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 50:1096-1121.
7. Grechanovsky, E., Hochberg, Y. (1999). Closed procedures are better and often admit a shortcut. J. Stat. Plan. Infer. 76:79-91.
8. Hochberg, Y., Tamhane, A. C. (1987). Multiple Comparison Procedures. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
9. Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand. J. Stat. 6:65-70.
10. Marcus, R., Peritz, E., Gabriel, K. R. (1976). On closed testing procedures with special reference to ordered analysis of variance. Biometrika 63:655-660.
11. Maurer, W., Hothorn, L., Lehmacher, W. (1995). Multiple comparisons in drug clinical trials and preclinical assays: A-priori ordered hypotheses. In: Vollmar, J., ed. Biometrie in der Chemisch-pharmazeutischen Industrie. Vol. 6. Stuttgart: Fischer Verlag, pp. 3-18.
12. Ruberg, S. J. (1995a). Dose response studies. Some design considerations. J. Biopharm. Stat. 5:1-14.
13. Ruberg, S. J. (1995b). Dose response studies. Analysis and interpretation. J. Biopharm. Stat. 5:15-42.
14. Strassburger, K., Finner, H. (2002). The partitioning principle: a powerful tool in multiple decision theory. Ann. Stat. 30:1194-1213.
15. Tukey, J. W., Ciminera, J. L., Heyse, J. F. (1985). Testing the statistical certainty of a response to increasing doses of a drug. Biometrics 41:295-301.
16. Westfall, P. H., Krishen, A. (2001). Optimally weighted, fixed sequence and gatekeeper multiple testing procedures. J. Stat. Plan. Infer. 99:25-41.
17. Wiens, B. (2003). A fixed-sequence Bonferroni procedure for testing multiple end-points. Pharm. Stat. 2:211-215.
18. Wiens, B., Dmitrienko, A. (2005). The fallback procedure for evaluating a single family of hypotheses. J. Biopharm. Stat. 15:929-942.