Adaptive graph-based multiple testing procedures

Pharmaceutical Statistics

Volumn 13, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 345-356

  Klinglmueller, Florian ^a   Posch, Martin ^a   Koenig, Franz ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

Adaptive design; Graphical approach; Multiple comparisons; Multiple endpoints; Partial conditional error rate; Treatment selection

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CASE STUDY; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; EFFECT SIZE; HUMAN; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; NULL HYPOTHESIS; PROBABILITY; SAMPLE SIZE; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; STATISTICS; STUDY DESIGN; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84911976013     PISSN: 15391604     EISSN: 15391612     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pst.1640     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Lawrence J. Testing non-inferiority and superiority for two endpoints for several treatments with a control. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2011; 10(4):318-324.
2. Hasler M. Multiple comparisons to both a negative and a positive control. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2012; 11(1):74-81.
3. Su T.L, Glimm E,Whitehead J, Branson M. An evaluation of methods for testing hypotheses relating to two endpoints in a single clinical trial. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2012; 11(2):107-117.
4. EMA. Points to consider on multiplicity issues in clinical trials. European Medicines Agency: London, UK, 2002. (Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/pages/includes/document/open-document.jsp?webContentId=WC500003640) [Accessed on 10 September 2014].
5. ICH E9: statistical principles for clinical trials. ICH Steering Committee: Geneva, Switzerland, 1998. (Available from: http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public-Web-Site/ICH-Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E9/Step4/E9-Guideline.pdf) [Accessed on 10 September 2014].
6. Phillips A, Fletcher C, Atkinson G, Channon E, Douiri A, Jaki T, Maca J, Morgan D, Roger JH, Terrill P. Multiplicity: discussion points from the statisticians in the pharmaceutical industry multiplicity expert group. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2013; 12(5):255-259.
7. O'Neill RT. Secondary endpoints cannot be validly analyzed if the primary endpoint does not demonstrate clear statistical significance. Controlled Clinical Trials 1997; 18(6):550-556.
8. Bretz F, Maurer W, Brannath W, Posch M. A graphical approach to sequentially rejectivemultiple test procedures. Statistics in Medicine 2009; 28(4):586-604.
9. Burman CF, Sonesson C, Guilbaud O. A recycling framework for the construction of Bonferroni-based multiple tests. Statistics in Medicine 2009; 28(5):739-761.
10. Bretz F, Maurer W, Hommel G. Test and power considerations for multiple endpoint analyses using sequentially rejective graphical procedures. Statistics in Medicine 2011; 30(13):1489-1501.
11. Bauer P, Roehmel J, Maurer W, Hothorn L. Testing strategies in multi-dose experiments including active control. Statistics in Medicine 1998; 17:2133-2146.
12. Dmitrienko A, Offen WW, Westfall PH. Gatekeeping strategies for clinical trials that do not require all primary effects to be significant. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22:2387-2400.
13. Maurer W, Hothorn LA, LehmacherW.Multiple comparisons in drug clinical trials and pre-clinical assays: a priori ordered hypotheses. In Biometrie in der Chemisch-Pharmazeutischen Industrie, Joachim Vollmar (ed.) Gustav Fischer Verlag: New York; 1995; pp. 3-18.
14. Westfall PH, Krishen A. Optimally weighted, fixed sequence, and gatekeeping multiple testing procedures. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 2001; 99:25-40.
15. König F, Bauer P, Brannath W. An adaptive hierarchical test procedure for selecting safe and efficient treatments. Biometrical Journal 2006; 48(4):663-678.
16. Wiens BL. A fixed sequence Bonferroni procedure for testing multiple endpoints. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2003; 2(3):211-215.
17. Wiens BL, Dmitrienko A. The fallback procedure for evaluating a single family of hypotheses. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 2005; 15(6):929-942.
18. Hommel G, Bretz F, Maurer W. Powerful short-cuts for multiple testing procedureswith special reference to gatekeeping strategies. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26(22):4063-4073.
19. Marcus R, Peritz E, Gabriel KR. On closed testing procedures with special reference to ordered analysis of variance. Biometrika 1976; 63(3):655-660.
20. EMA. Reflection paper on methodological issues in confirmatory clinical trials planned with an adaptive design. European Medicines Agency: London, UK, 2007. (Available from: http://www.ema. europa.eu/ema/pages/includes/document/open-document.jsp? webContentId=WC500003616) [Accessed 10 September 2014].
21. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Draft guidance for industry: adaptive design clinical trials for drugs and biologics, 2010.
22. Posch M, Bauer P, Brannath W. Issues in designing flexible trials. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22(6):953-969.
23. Bauer P, Koenig F. The reassessment of trial perspectives from interimdata-A critical view. Statistics in medicine 2006; 25(1):23-36.
24. Bauer P, Einfalt J. Application of adaptive designs-A review. Biometrical journal 2006; 48(4):493-506.
25. Englert S, Kieser M. Adaptive designs for single-arm phase II trials in oncology. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2012; 11(3):241-249.
26. Todd S, Valdés-Márquez E,West J. A practical comparison of blinded methods for sample size reviews in survival data clinical trials. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2012; 11(2):141-148.
27. Bowden J, Mander A. A review and re-interpretation of a group-sequential approach to sample size re-estimation in two-stage trials. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2014; 13(3):163-172.
28. Bauer P, Kieser M. Combining different phases in the development of medical treatments within a single trial. Statistics in Medicine 1999; 18(14):1833-1848.
29. Kieser M, Bauer P, Lehmacher W. Inference on multiple endpoints in clinical trials with adaptive interim analyses. Biometrical Journal 1999; 41(3):261-277.
30. Hommel G. Adaptive modifications of hypotheses after an interim analysis. Biometrical Journal 2001; 43(5):581-589.
31. Posch M, Koenig F, Branson M, Brannath W, Dunger-Baldauf C, Bauer P. Testing and estimation in flexible group sequential designs with adaptive treatment selection. Statistics in Medicine 2005; 24(24):3697-3714.
32. Brannath W, Zuber E, Branson M, Bretz F, Gallo P, Posch M, Racine-Poon A. Confirmatory adaptive designs with Bayesian decision tools for a targeted therapy in oncology. Statistics in Medicine 2009; 28(10):1445-1463.
33. Jenkins M, Stone A, Jennison C. An adaptive seamless phase II/III design for oncology trials with subpopulation selection using correlated survival endpoints. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2011; 10(4):347-356.
34. Stallard N, Todd S. Seamless phase II/III designs. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2011; 20(6):623-634.
35. Friede T, Parsons N, Stallard N. A conditional error function approach for subgroup selection in adaptive clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 2012; 31(30):4309-4320.
36. Kunz CU, Friede T, Parsons N, Todd S, Stallard N. Data-driven treatment selection for seamless phase ii/iii trials incorporating early-outcome data. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2014; 13(4):238-246.
37. Boessen R, Baan F, Groenwold R, Egberts A, Klungel O, Grobbee D, Knol M, Roes K. Optimizing trial design in pharmacogenetics research: comparing a fixed parallel group, group sequential, and adaptive selection design on sample size requirements. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2013; 12(6):366-374.
38. Cuffe RL, Lawrence D, Stone A, Vandemeulebroecke M. When is a seamless study desirable? Case studies fromdifferent pharmaceutical sponsors. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2014; 13(4):229-237.
39. Bretz F, Koenig F, Brannath W, Glimm E, Posch M. Adaptive designs for confirmatory clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 2009; 28(8):1181-1217.
40. Sugitani T, Hamasaki T, Hamada C. Partition testing in confirmatory adaptive designs with structured objectives. Biometrical Journal 2013; 55(3):341-359.
41. Posch M, Futschik A. A uniform improvement of Bonferroni-type tests by sequential tests. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2008; 103(481):299-308.
42. Posch M, Maurer W, Bretz F. Type I error rate control in adaptive designs for confirmatory clinical trials with treatment selection at interim. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2011; 10(2):96-104.
43. Bretz F, Posch M, Glimm E, Klinglmueller F, Maurer W, Rohmeyer K. Graphical approaches for multiple comparison procedures using weighted Bonferroni, simes, or parametric tests. Biometrical Journal 2011; 53(6):894-913.
44. Scherag A, Hebebrand J, Schäfer H, Müller HH. Flexible designs for genomewide association studies. Biometrics 2009; 65(3): 815-821.
45. Proschan MA, Hunsberger SA. Designed extension of studies based on conditional power. Biometrics 1995; 51:1315-1324.
46. Müller HH, Schäfer H. A general statistical principle for changing a design any time during the course of a trial. Statistics in Medicine 2004; 23(16):2497-2508.
47. Koenig F, Brannath W, Bretz F, Posch M. Adaptive Dunnett tests for treatment selection. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27(10): 1612-1625.
48. Brannath W, Gutjahr G, Bauer P. Probabilistic foundation of confirmatory adaptive designs. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2012; 107(498):824-832.
49. Brannath W, Posch M, Bauer P. Recursive combination tests. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2002; 97 (457): 236-244.
50. Rohmeyer K, Klinglmueller F, Bornkamp B. Graph based multiple test procedures. gMCP, 2013. (Available from: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gMCP). R package version 0.8-7 [Accessed on 10 September 2014].
51. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2013. (Available from: http://www.R-project.org/). ISBN 3-900051-07-0 [Accessed on 10 September 2014].
52. Posch M, Timmesfeld N, König F, Müller HH. Conditional rejection probabilities of student's t-test and design adaptations. Biometrical Journal 2004; 46(4):389-403.
53. Lehmacher W, Wassmer G. Adaptive sample size calculations in group sequential trials. Biometrics 1999; 55(4):1286-1290.
54. Posch M, Bauer P. Adaptive two stage designs and the conditional error function. Biometrical Journal 1999; 41:689-696.
55. Maurer W, Bretz F. Multiple testing in group sequential trials using graphical approaches. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research 2013; 5(4):311-320.