How to deal with multiple treatment or dose groups in randomized clinical trials?

Fundamental and Clinical Pharmacology

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 137-154

  Hothorn, L A ^a  

^a LEIBNIZ UNIVERSITY HANNOVER   (Germany)

Author keywords

Multi armed clinical trials; Multiplicity; Simultaneous confidence intervals; Statistics

Indexed keywords

PLACEBO;

ANALYTICAL ERROR; BIOASSAY; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROL GROUP; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DOSE CALCULATION; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG DOSE REGIMEN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; CONTROL GROUPS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 33947632910     PISSN: 07673981     EISSN: 14728206     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-8206.2007.00469.x     Document Type: Review

References (78)

1. CPMP/EWP/908/99 Adjustment for multiplicity and related topics. Points to consider on multiplicity issues in clinical trials, European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, London, UK, 2002.
2. Anonymous. Points to consider on multiplicity issues in clinical trials. Biometr. J. (2001) 43 1039-1048.
3. Anonymous. Guidelines for reporting statistics in journals published by the American Physiological Society. Am. J. Physiol. Renal. Physiol. (2004) 287 F169-F171.
4. Bacchetti P. Peer review of statistics in medical research: the other problem. BMJ (2002) 325 (7362) 492-493.
5. Bretz F., Hothorn T., Westfall P. On multiple comparisons in R. R-news (2002) 3 314-317.
6. R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2004. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http:// www.r-project.org. The R-project, version 2.0.1. See http://www.r-project.org.
7. Bretz F., Genz A., Hothorn L.A. On the numerically availability of multiple comparison procedures. Biometr. J. (2001) 43 645-656.
8. Hoff K. R-handbook for biostatistics, Report, University of Hannover, 2004. Available at: http://www.bioinf.unihannover.de/teaching/Hoff/RHANDBUCH. PDF.
9. Bakker-Arkema R.G., Davidson M.H., Goldstein R.J. et al. Efficacy and safety of a new HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor atorvastatin, in patients with hypertriglyceridemia. J. Am. Med. Assoc. (1996) 275 128-133.
10. Lange S., Freitag G. Therapeutic equivalence - clinical issues and statistical methodology in noninferiority trials choice of delta: requirements and reality - results of a systematic review. Biometr. J (2005) 47 12-27.
11. Snapinn S.M. Evaluating the efficiency of a combination therapy. Stat. Med. (1987) 6 657-665.
12. Berger V.W. On the generation and ownership of alpha in medical studies. Control. Clin. Trials (2004) 25 613-619.
13. ICH guideline E9: Guidance for Industry. Statistical principles for clinical trials, 1998. See http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/ICH_E9-fnl.PDF.
14. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. N. Engl. J. Med. (1997) 336 309-315.
15. Ludbrook J. Multiple inferences using confidence intervals. Clin. Exp. Pharmacol. Physiol. (2000) 27 212-215.
16. Speroff L., Symons J., Kempfert N. et al. The effect of varying low-dose combinations of norethindrone acetate and ethinyl estradiol on the frequency and intensity of vasomotor symptoms. Menopause J. North Am. Menopause Soc. (2000) 7 383-390.
17. Dunnett C.W. A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. (1955) 50 1096-1121.
18. Dilba G., Bretz F., Guiard V., Hothorn L.A. Simultaneous confidence intervals for ratios with application to the comparison of several treatments with a control. Methods Inf. Med. (2004) 43 465-469.
19. Knapp H.H., Schrott H., Ma P. et al. Efficacy and safety of combination simvastatin and colesevelam in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. Am. J. Med. (2001) 110 352-360.
20. Bretz F., Pinheiro I.C., Branson M. Combining multiple comparisons and modeling techniques in dose-response studies. Biometrics (2005) 61 738-748.
21. Bartholomew D.J. Ordered tests in the analysis of variance. Biometrika (1961) 48 325-332.
22. Bretz F., Seidel D. SAS/IML programs for exact calculations of orthant probabilities for arbitrary dimensions. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. (2000) 33 220-221.
23. Bretz F. Powerful modifications of Williams test on trend. PhD thesis, University of Hannover, 1999. Available at: http://www.bioinf.uni-hannover.de/ ~bretz/paper/thesis.pdf.
24. Hirotsu C. Isotonic inference with particular interest in application to clinical trials. in: Kitsos C.P., Edler L. (Eds), Industrial Statistics, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, 1997, pp. 233-241.
25. Williams D.A. The comparison of several dose levels with a zero dose control. Biometrics (1972) 28 519-531.
26. Bretz F., Hothorn L.A. Testing dose-response relationships with a priori unknown possibly nonmonotone shapes. J. Biopharm. Stat. (2001) 11 193-207.
27. Neuhäuser M., Hothorn L.A. Trend tests for dichotomous endpoints with application in carcinogenicity studies. Drug Inf. J. (1997) 30 463-469.
28. Stewart W.H., Ruberg S.J. Detecting dose response with contrasts. Stat. Med. (2000) 19 913-921.
29. Scheffe H. The analysis of variance, Wiley, New York, 1959.
30. Tukey W.J. The philosophy of multiple comparisons. Stat. Sci. (1991) 6 110-116.
31. Westfall P.H., Tobias R.D., Rom D., Wolfinger R.D., Hochberg Y. Multiple comparisons and multiple endpoints, SAS Institute Inc., Gary, NC, 1999, 164 pp.
32. Tamhane A.C., Hochberg Y., Dunnett C.W. Multiple test procedures for dose finding. Biometrics (1996) 52 21-37.
33. Hsu J.C., Berger R.L. Stepwise confidence intervals without multiplicity adjustment for dose-response and toxicity studies. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. (1999) 94 468-482.
34. Bretz F., Hothorn L.A., Hsu J.C. Identifying effective and/or safe doses by stepwise confidence intervals for ratios. Stat. Med. (2003) 22 847-858.
35. Hothorn L.A., Hauschke D. Identifying the maximum safe dose: a multiple testing approach. J. Biopharm. Stat. (2000) 10 15-30.
36. Miller P.D., McClung M.R., Macovei L.V. et al. Monthly oral ibandronate therapy in postmenopausal osteoporosis: 1-year results from the MOBILE study. J. Bone Mineral Res. (2005) 20 1315-1322.
37. Westfall P.H., Tobias R.D., Rom D., Wolfinger R.D., Hochberg Y. Multiple comparisons and multiple endpoints, SAS Institute Inc., Gary, NC, 1999, 153 pp.
38. Nordling J. Efficacy and safety of two doses (10 and 15 mg) of alfuzosin or tamsulosin (0.4 mg) once daily for treating symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int. (2005) 95 1006-1012.
39. Maurer W., Hothorn L.A., W. Lehmacher Multiple comparisons in drug clinical trials and preclinical assays: a-priori ordered hypotheses. in: Vollmar, J. (Ed), Biometrie in der chemischpharmazeutischen Industrie, vol. 6. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, 1995, pp. 3-18.
40. Pigeot I., Schafer J., Roehmel J. et al. Assessing non-inferiority of a new treatment in a three-arm clinical trial including a placebo. Stat. Med. (2003) 22 883-899.
41. D'Agostino R.B., Heeren T.C. Multiple comparisons in over the counter drug clinical trials with both positive and placebo controls. Stat. Med. (1991) 10 1-6.
42. Strassburger K., Bretz F., Hochberg Y. Compatible confidence intervals for intersection union tests involving two hypotheses, in: Benjamini Y., Bretz F. & Sarkar S. (Eds.), New developments in multiple comparison procedures, IMS Lecture Notes-Monograph Series, Vol. 47, Beachwood, 2004, pp. 129-142.
43. Finner H., Strassburger K. The partitioning principle: a powerful tool in multiple decision theory. Ann. Stat. (2002) 30 1194-1213.
44. Onorati F., De Feo M., Mastroroberto P. et al. Unstable angina and non-ST segment elevation: surgical revascularization with different strategies. Eur. J. Cardio-Thoracic Surg. (2005) 27 1043-1050.
45. Long B.J., Jelovac D., Handratta V. et al. Therapeutic strategies using the aromatase inhibitor letrozole and tamoxifen in a breast cancer model. J. Natl Cancer Inst. (2004) 96 456-465.
46. Notivol R., Bertin D., Amin D. et al. Comparison of topical tobramycin-dexamethasone with dexamethasone-neomycinpolymyxin and neomycin-polymyxin-gramicidin for control of inflammation after cataract surgery: results of a multicenter, prospective, three-arm, randomized, double-masked, controlled, parallel-group study. Clin. Ther. (2004) 26 1274-1285.
47. Fixed-combination prescription drugs for humans. Fed. Reg. (2000) Title 21 Vol. 5, Parts 300-499.
48. Hothorn L.A., Neuhäuser M., Koch H.-F. Analysis of randomized dose-finding studies: closure test modifications based on multiple contrast tests. Biometr. J. (1997) 39 467-479.
49. Westfall P.H., Krishen A. Optimally weighted, fixed sequence and gatekeeper multiple testing procedures. J. Stat. Plann. Infer. (2001) 99 25-40.
50. Dmitrienko A., Offen W.W., Westfall P.H. Gatekeeping strategies for clinical trials that do not require all primary effects to be significant. Stat. Med. (2003) 22 2387-2400.
51. Wiens B.L., Dmitrienko A. The fallback procedure for evaluating a single family of hypotheses. J. Biopharm. Stat. (2005) 15 929-942.
52. Rejnmark L., Vestergaard P., Heickendorff L. et al. Effects of thiazide- and loop-diuretics, alone or in combination, on calcitropic hormones and biochemical bone markers: a randomized controlled study. J. Intern. Med. (2001) 250 144-153.
53. Hellmich M., Lehmacher W. Closure procedures for monotone bi-factorial dose-response designs. Biometrics (2005) 61 269-276.
54. Westfall P.H., Tobias R.D., Rom D., Wolfinger R.D., Hochberg Y. Multiple comparisons and multiple endpoints, SAS Institute Inc., Gary, NC, 1999, 99 pp.
55. Hand D., Crowder M.J. Practical longitudinal data analysis, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1996.
56. Pinheiro J., Bates D., DebRoy S., Sarkar D. nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models, R package, 2004, version 3.1-53.
57. Webster J., Piscitelli G., Polli A. et al. Dose-dependent suppression of serum prolactin by cabergoline in hyperprolactinaemia: a placebo controlled, double blind, multicentre study. Endocrinology (1992) 37 534-541.
58. Hothorn L.A. Statistical analysis of in vivo anticancer experiments: tumor growth inhibition. Drug Inf. J. (2006) 40 229-238.
59. Hothorn T., Hornik K. coin: Conditional infe rence procedures in a randomisation framework, R package, 2005, version 0.2-4.
60. Assmann S.F., Pocock S.J., Enos L.E. et al. Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. The Lancet (2000) 355 1064-1069.
61. Koch G.G. Discussion of "p-value adjustments for subgroup analyses". Drug Inf. J. (1997) 7 323-331.
62. Biesheuvel E., Hothorn L.A. Protocol designed subgroup analyses in multiarmed clinical trials: multiplicity aspects. J. Biopharm. Stat. (2003) 13 663-673.
63. Luger T., Leent van E.J.M., Graeber M. et al. SDZ ASM 981: an emerging safe and effective treatment for atopic dermatitis. Br. J. Dermatol. (2001) 144 788-794.
64. O'Neill R.T. Secondary endpoints cannot be validly analyzed if the primary endpoint does not demonstrate clear statistical significance. Control Clin. Trials (1997) 18 550-556.
65. Neuhäuser M., Steinijans V.W., Bretz F. The evaluation of multiple clinical endpoints, with application to asthma. Drug Inf. J. (1999) 33 471-477.
66. Chen X., Luo X., Capizzi T. The application of enhanced parallel gatekeeping strategies. Stat. Med. (2005) 24 1385-1397.
67. Tamhane A.C., Logan B.R. Multiple test procedures for identifying the minimum effective and maximum safe doses of a drug. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. (2002) 97 293-301.
68. Hothorn L.A., Wassmer G. Analyzing randomized dose finding studies with a primary and a secondary endpoint. J. Biopharm. Stat. (2003) 13 301-305.
69. Hommel G. Adaptive modifications of hypotheses after an interim analysis. Biometr. J. (2001) 43 581-589.
70. Kieser M., Fried T. Blinded sample size re-estimation in multi-armed clinical trials. Drug Inf. J. (2000) 34 455-460.
71. Bauer P., Roehmel J. An adaptive method for establishing a dose response relationship. Stat. Med. (1995) 14 1595-1607.
72. Horn M., Vollandt R. Sample sizes for comparisons of k treatments with a control based on different definitions of power. Biometr. J. (1998) 40 589-612.
73. Dilba D., Bretz F., Hothorn L.A., Guiard V. Power and sample size computations in simultaneous tests for non-inferiority based on relative margins. Stat. Med. (2006) 25 1131-1147.
74. Hasselblad V., Allen A.S. Power calculations for large multi-arm placebo-controlled studies of dichotomous outcomes. Stat. Med. (2003) 22 1943-1954.
75. Bauer P., Chi G., Geller N. et al. Industry, government, and academic panel discussion on multiple comparisons in a "real" phase three clinical trial. J. Biopharm. Stat. (2003) 13 691-701.
76. Westfall P., Bretz F. Multiplicity in clinical trials, in: Chow S.-C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of biopharmaceutical statistics, 2nd edn, Marcel Decker Inc., New York, 2003, pp. 666-673.
77. Altman D.G., Schulz K.F., Moher D. et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann. Intern. Med. (2001) 134 663-694.
78. Schulz K.F., Grimes D.A. Epidemiology 4 - multiplicity in randomised trials I: endpoints and treatments. Lancet (2005) 365 1591-1595.