Hierarchical testing of multiple endpoints in group-sequential trials.

Novartis Pharma AG, Statistical Methodology, Novartis Campus, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland.
Statistics in Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.04). 10/2009; 29(2):219-28. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3748
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We consider the situation of testing hierarchically a (key) secondary endpoint in a group-sequential clinical trial that is mainly driven by a primary endpoint. By 'mainly driven', we mean that the interim analyses are planned at points in time where a certain number of patients or events have accrued on the primary endpoint, and the trial will run either until statistical significance of the primary endpoint is achieved at one of the interim analyses or to the final analysis. We consider both the situation where the trial is stopped as soon as the primary endpoint is significant as well as the situation where it is continued after primary endpoint significance to further investigate the secondary endpoint. In addition, we investigate how to achieve strong control of the familywise error rate (FWER) at a pre-specified significance level alpha for both the primary and the secondary hypotheses. We systematically explore various multiplicity adjustment methods. Starting point is a naive strategy of testing the secondary endpoint at level alpha whenever the primary endpoint is significant. Hung et al. (J. Biopharm. Stat. 2007; 17:1201-1210) have already shown that this naive strategy does not maintain the FWER at level alpha. We derive a sharp upper bound for the rejection probability of the secondary endpoint in the naive strategy. This suggests a number of multiple test strategies and also provides a benchmark for deciding whether a method is conservative or might be improved while maintaining the FWER at alpha. We use a numerical example based on a real case study to illustrate the results of different hierarchical test strategies.

1 Bookmark
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We discuss sample size determination in group-sequential designs with two endpoints as co-primary. We derive the power and sample size within two decision-making frameworks. One is to claim the test intervention's benefit relative to control when superiority is achieved for the two endpoints at the same interim timepoint of the trial. The other is when superiority is achieved for the two endpoints at any interim timepoint, not necessarily simultaneously. We evaluate the behaviors of sample size and power with varying design elements and provide a real example to illustrate the proposed sample size methods. In addition, we discuss sample size recalculation based on observed data and evaluate the impact on the power and Type I error rate. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    Statistics in Medicine 03/2014; 33(17). DOI:10.1002/sim.6154 · 2.04 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 1997, Robert T. O’Neill introduced the framework of structuring the experimental questions to best reflect the clinical study’s objectives. This task comprises the identification of the study’s primary, secondary, and exploratory objectives and the requirements as to when the corresponding statistical tests are considered meaningful. A topic that has been considered much less in the literature until very recently is the application of group sequential trial designs to multiple endpoints. In 2007, Hung, Wang, and O’Neill showed that borrowing testing strategies naively from trial designs without interim analyses may not maintain the familywise Type I error rate at level α. The authors gave examples in the context of testing two hierarchically ordered endpoints in two-armed group sequential trials with one interim analysis. We consider the general situation of testing multiple hypotheses repeatedly in time using recently developed graphical approaches. We focus on closed testing procedures using weighted group sequential Bonferroni tests for the intersection hypotheses. Under mild monotonicity conditions on the error spending functions, this allows the use of sequentially rejective graphical procedures in group sequential trials. The methodology is illustrated with a numerical example for a three-armed trial comparing two doses against control for two hierarchically ordered endpoints.
    Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research 11/2013; 5(4):311-320. DOI:10.1080/19466315.2013.807748 · 0.70 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the last decade or so, pharmaceutical drug development activities in the area of new antibacterial drugs for treating serious bacterial diseases have declined, and at the same time, there are worries that the increased prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections, especially the increase in drug-resistant Gram-negative infections, limits available treatment options . A recent CDC report, 'Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States', indicates that antimicrobial resistance is one of our most serious health threats. However, recently, new ideas have been proposed to change this situation. An idea proposed in this regard is to conduct randomized clinical trials in which some patients, on the basis of a diagnostic test, may show presence of bacterial pathogens that are resistant to the control treatment, whereas remaining patients would show pathogens that are susceptible to the control. The control treatment in such trials can be the standard of care or the best available therapy approved for the disease. Patients in the control arm with resistant pathogens can have the option for rescue therapies if their clinical signs and symptoms worsen. A statistical proposal for such patient populations is to use a hierarchical noninferiority-superiority nested trial design that is informative and allows for treatment-to-control comparisons for the two subpopulations without any statistical penalty. This design can achieve in the same trial dual objectives: (i) to show that the new drug is effective for patients with susceptible pathogens on the basis of a noninferiority test and (ii) to show that it is superior to the control in patients with resistant pathogens. This paper addresses statistical considerations and methods for achieving these two objectives for this design. Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
    Statistics in Medicine 06/2014; DOI:10.1002/sim.6233 · 2.04 Impact Factor