Three‐sided hypothesis testing: Simultaneous testing of superiority, equivalence and inferiority

We propose three‐sided testing, a testing framework for simultaneous testing of inferiority, equivalence and superiority in clinical trials, controlling for multiple testing using the partitioning principle. Like the usual two‐sided testing approach, this approach is completely symmetric in the two treatments compared. Still, because the hypotheses of inferiority and superiority are tested with one‐sided tests, the proposed approach has more power than the two‐sided approach to infer non‐inferiority or non‐superiority. Applied to the classical point null hypothesis of equivalence, the three‐sided testing approach shows that it is sometimes possible to make an inference on the sign of the parameter of interest, even when the null hypothesis itself could not be rejected. Relationships with confidence intervals are explored, and the effectiveness of the three‐sided testing approach is demonstrated in a number of recent clinical trials. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  H. Kaiser,et al.  Directional statistical decisions. , 1960, Psychological review.

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

[3]  J. Shaffer Modified Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedures , 1986 .

[4]  T. Morikawa,et al.  A useful testing strategy in phase III trials: combined test of superiority and test of equivalence. , 1995, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[5]  A confirmatory strategy for therapeutic equivalence trials. , 1995, International journal of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[6]  M Gent,et al.  An alternative to the use of two-sided tests in clinical trials. , 1996, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  Meinhard Kieser,et al.  A unifying approach for confidence intervals and testing of equivalence and difference , 1996 .

[8]  Brian L. Wiens Something for Nothing in Noninferiority/Superiority Testing: A Caution , 2001 .

[9]  J. Shaffer Multiplicity, directional (type III) errors, and the null hypothesis. , 2002, Psychological methods.

[10]  K. Strassburger,et al.  The partitioning principle: a powerful tool in multiple decision theory , 2002 .

[11]  Donald J. Schuirmann A comparison of the Two One-Sided Tests Procedure and the Power Approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability , 1987, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics.

[12]  Tatsuki Koyama,et al.  Decision-Theoretic Views on Simultaneous Testing of Superiority and Noninferiority , 2005, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[13]  D. Leys,et al.  Endarterectomy versus stenting in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  T. Ng Simultaneous Testing of Noninferiority and Superiority Increases the False Discovery Rate , 2007, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[15]  A unifying approach to non‐inferiority, equivalence and superiority tests via multiple decision processes , 2007, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[16]  Bartolome Celli,et al.  Salmeterol and fluticasone propionate and survival in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  L. Freedman An analysis of the controversy over classical one-sided tests , 2008, Clinical trials.

[18]  A. Tamhane,et al.  Superiority Inferences on Individual Endpoints Following Noninferiority Testing in Clinical Trials , 2008, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[19]  D. Owens,et al.  Once-daily basal insulin glargine versus thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro in people with type 2 diabetes on oral hypoglycaemic agents (APOLLO): an open randomised controlled trial , 2008, The Lancet.

[20]  Eckart Sonnemann,et al.  General Solutions to Multiple Testing Problems , 2008, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[21]  Mario Morino,et al.  Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. , 2009, The Lancet. Oncology.