Testing a Primary and a Secondary Endpoint in a Group Sequential Design

We consider a clinical trial with a primary and a secondary endpoint where the secondary endpoint is tested only if the primary endpoint is significant. The trial uses a group sequential procedure with two stages. The familywise error rate (FWER) of falsely concluding significance on either endpoint is to be controlled at a nominal level α. The type I error rate for the primary endpoint is controlled by choosing any α-level stopping boundary, e.g., the standard O'Brien-Fleming or the Pocock boundary. Given any particular α-level boundary for the primary endpoint, we study the problem of determining the boundary for the secondary endpoint to control the FWER. We study this FWER analytically and numerically and find that it is maximized when the correlation coefficient ρ between the two endpoints equals 1. For the four combinations consisting of O'Brien-Fleming and Pocock boundaries for the primary and secondary endpoints, the critical constants required to control the FWER are computed for different values of ρ. An ad hoc boundary is proposed for the secondary endpoint to address a practical concern that may be at issue in some applications. Numerical studies indicate that the O'Brien-Fleming boundary for the primary endpoint and the Pocock boundary for the secondary endpoint generally gives the best primary as well as secondary power performance. The Pocock boundary may be replaced by the ad hoc boundary for the secondary endpoint with a very little loss of secondary power if the practical concern is at issue. A clinical trial example is given to illustrate the methods.

[1]  KyungMann Kim Group Sequential Methods with Applications to Clinical Trials , 2001 .

[2]  Stgrp Capture,et al.  Randomised placebo-controlled trial of abciximab before and during coronary intervention in refractory unstable angina: the CAPTURE study , 1997, The Lancet.

[3]  H M James Hung,et al.  Statistical Considerations for Testing Multiple Endpoints in Group Sequential or Adaptive Clinical Trials , 2007, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[4]  Frank Bretz,et al.  Hierarchical testing of multiple endpoints in group‐sequential trials , 2010, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  S. Pocock Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials , 1977 .

[6]  Alex Dmitrienko,et al.  Gatekeeping Procedures in Clinical Trials , 2009 .

[7]  D I Tang,et al.  Closed Testing Procedures for Group Sequential Clinical Trials with Multiple Endpoints , 1999, Biometrics.

[8]  R. Berger,et al.  P Values Maximized Over a Confidence Set for the Nuisance Parameter , 1994 .

[9]  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.

[10]  R. Pearl Biometrics , 1914, The American Naturalist.

[11]  A. Tsiatis,et al.  Approximately optimal one-parameter boundaries for group sequential trials. , 1987, Biometrics.

[12]  K. K. Lan,et al.  Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials , 1983 .

[13]  P. O'Brien,et al.  A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. , 1979, Biometrics.

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

[15]  Alex Dmitrienko,et al.  Gatekeeping procedures with clinical trial applications , 2007, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[16]  B W Turnbull,et al.  Group sequential tests for bivariate response: interim analyses of clinical trials with both efficacy and safety endpoints. , 1993, Biometrics.