An efficient method for accommodating potentially underpowered primary endpoints

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 27, Issue 26, 2008, Pages 5377-5391

  Li, Jianjun David ^a   Mehrotra, Devan V ^a  

^a MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptive alpha allocation; Clinical trials; Multiple primary endpoints

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOASSAY; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 54549086549     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.3369     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Fisher LD, Moyé LA. Carvedilol and the food and drug administration approval process: an introduction. Controlled Clinical Trials 1999; 20:1-15.
2. Fisher L. Carvedilol and FDA approval process: the FDA paradigm and reflection upon hypothesis testing. Controlled Clinical Trials 1999; 20:16-39.
3. Moyé LA. End-point interpretation in clinical trials: the case for discipline. Controlled Clinical Trials 2000; 20:40-49.
4. O'Neill RT. Secondary endpoints cannot be validly analyzed if the primary endpoint does not demonstrate clear statistical significance. Controlled Clinical Trials 1997; 18:550-556.
5. Davis CE. Secondary endpoints can be validly analyzed, even if the primary endpoint does not provide clear statistical significance. Controlled Clinical Trials 1997; 18:557-560.
6. Prentice RL. On the role and analysis of secondary outcomes in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1997; 18:561-567.
7. D'Agostino Sr RB. Controlling alpha in a clinical trial: the case for secondary endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 2000; 19:763-766.
8. Moye LA. Alpha calculus in clinical trials: considerations and commentary for the new millennium. Statistics in Medicine 2000; 19:767-779.
9. Koch GG. Discussion for 'Alpha calculation in clinical trials: consideration and commentary for the new millennium'. Statistics in Medicine 2000; 19:781-784.
10. O'Neill RT. Commentary on 'Alpha calculation in clinical trials: consideration and commentary for the new millennium'. Statistics in Medicine 2000; 19:785-793.
11. Moye LA. Response to commentaries on 'Alpha calculus in clinical trials: considerations'. Statistics in Medicine 2000; 19:795-799.
12. Hochberg Y. A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika 1988; 75:800-803.
13. Hommel G. A stagewise rejective multiple test procedure based on a modified Bonferroni test. Biometrika 1988; 75:383-386.
14. Wiens B. A fixed sequence Bonferroni procedure for testing multiple endpoints. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2003; 2:211-215.
15. Wiens B, Dmitrienko A. The fallback procedure for evaluating a single family of hypotheses. Journal of Pharmaceutical Statistics 2005; 15:1-14.
16. Mehrotra D, Li X, Gilbert P. A comparison of eight methods for the dual-endpoint evaluation of efficacy in a proof-of-concept HIV vaccine trial. Biometrics 2006; 62:893-900.
17. Hung HM, O'Neill R, Bauer P, Kohne K. The behavior of the p-value when the alternative hypothesis is true. Biometrics 1997; 53:11-22.
18. Sankoh AJ, D'Agostino RB, Huque MF. Efficacy endpoint selection and multiplicity adjustment methods in clinical trials with inherent multiple endpoint issues. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22:3133-3150.
19. Packer M, Poole-Wilson PA, Armstrong PW, Cleland JG, Horowitz JD, Massie BM, Ryden L, Thygesen K, Uretsky BF. Comparative effects of low and high doses of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, lisinopril, on morbidity and mortality in chronic heart failure. Circulation 1999; 100:2312-2318.
20. Dormandy JA, Charbonnel B, Eckland DJ, Erdmann E, Massi-Benedetti M, Moules IK, Skene AM, Tan MH, Lefebvre PJ, Murray GD, Standl E, Wilcox RG, Wilhelmsen L, Betteridge J, Birkeland K, Golay A, Heine R, Korânyi L, Laakso M, Mokan M, Norkus A, Pirags V, Podar T, Scheen A, Scherbaum W, Schernthaner G, Schmitz O, Skrha J, Smith U, Taton J, on behalf of the PROactive investigators. Secondary prevention of macrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the PROactive Study (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 366:1279-1289.
21. Pitt B, Segal R, Martinez FA, Meurers G, Cowley AJ, Thomas I, Deedwania PC, Ney DE, Snavely DB, Chang PI. Randomised trial of losartan versus captopril in patients over 65 with heart failure (Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly Study, ELITE). Lancet 1997; 349:747-752.
22. Pitt B, Poole-Wilson PA, Segal R, Martinez FA, Dickstein K, Camm AJ, Konstam MA, Riegger G, Klinger GH, Neaton J, Sharma D, Thiyagarajan B. Effect of losartan compared with captopril on mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure: randomised trial-the Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study, ELITE II. Lancet 2000; 355:1582-1587.
23. Pocock SJ, Geller NL, Tsiatis AA. The analysis of multiple endpoints in clinical trials. Biometrics 1987; 43:487-498.