Multiplicity Adjustment for Clinical Trials With Two Doses of an Active Treatment and Multiple Primary and Secondary Endpoints

Frequently, two doses of an active treatment, multiple primary and secondary endpoints are simultaneously considered in Phase III confirmatory clinical trials. For these trials, many traditional multiplicity adjustment procedures do not take into account the possible dose effect on each endpoint and the priority order of the primary and secondary endpoints, and therefore may have lower power. To gain power, we consider the problem as a three-dimensional multiplicity problem: one dimension concerns the multiple doses, one dimension concerns the priority order of the primary and secondary endpoints, and another dimension concerns the multiple endpoints in each priority category. We propose procedures that consider the dose order and the priorities of the endpoints to form closed procedures and therefore control the family-wise error rate. Furthermore, we consider procedures that provide control of type I error rates in clinically relevant subfamilies of comparisons, providing a pragmatic approach to maintain study power as compared to the traditional approaches for the ultimate overall strong control. Simulation results and a real data example show that the procedures proposed in this article in general are easy to use and have improved power.

[1]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  THE CONTROL OF THE FALSE DISCOVERY RATE IN MULTIPLE TESTING UNDER DEPENDENCY , 2001 .

[2]  Y. Hochberg A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance , 1988 .

[3]  H. Quan,et al.  Multiplicity adjustment for multiple endpoints in clinical trials with multiple doses of an active treatment , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  K. Gabriel,et al.  On closed testing procedures with special reference to ordered analysis of variance , 1976 .

[5]  H. Watanabe,et al.  Points to Consider on Multiplicity Issues in Clinical Trials , 2006 .

[6]  John J. Treanor,et al.  Efficacy and Safety of the Oral Neuraminidase Inhibitor Oseltamivir in Treating Acute Influenza , 2000 .

[7]  G. Hommel A stagewise rejective multiple test procedure based on a modified Bonferroni test , 1988 .

[8]  J. Rosenstock,et al.  Effect of metformin and rosiglitazone combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. , 2000, JAMA.

[9]  Xin Wang,et al.  Tree‐structured gatekeeping tests in clinical trials with hierarchically ordered multiple objectives , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  S. Sarkar Some probability inequalities for ordered $\rm MTP\sb 2$ random variables: a proof of the Simes conjecture , 1998 .

[11]  L. Moye Alpha calculus in clinical trials: considerations and commentary for the new millennium. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  R. Simes,et al.  An improved Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance , 1986 .

[13]  P. Westfall,et al.  Optimally weighted, fixed sequence and gatekeeper multiple testing procedures , 2001 .

[14]  R T O'Neill,et al.  Secondary endpoints cannot be validly analyzed if the primary endpoint does not demonstrate clear statistical significance. , 1997, Controlled clinical trials.

[15]  P. Westfall,et al.  Gatekeeping strategies for clinical trials that do not require all primary effects to be significant , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  J. Reginster,et al.  Effect of parathyroid hormone (1-34) on fractures and bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  Hui Quan,et al.  Decision rule based multiplicity adjustment strategy , 2005, Clinical trials.

[18]  H. Hartung,et al.  Mitoxantrone in progressive multiple sclerosis: a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised, multicentre trial , 2002, The Lancet.

[19]  R. D'Agostino,et al.  Controlling alpha in a clinical trial: the case for secondary endpoints. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Multiple Hypotheses Testing with Weights , 1997 .