Abstract
Confirmatory clinical trials for the demonstration of the effects of new treatments generally classify their hypotheses into the primary and secondary types and sometimes into other lower types. The primary hypotheses enjoy a special status; if the trial wins for one or more primary hypotheses , then one can characterize clinically relevant benefits of the study treatment. This framework of classifying hypotheses based on their importance into primary and secondary types allows using statistical test methods that maximize the power for the test of primary hypotheses . These methods also recycle the significance level of a successfully rejected hypothesis to other hypotheses (e.g., from a rejected primary or secondary hypothesis to other primary and secondary hypotheses ). Often when there is a set of primary or secondary hypotheses , then hypotheses within each set or family can be assigned with different weights by importance or power considerations. This structuring also allows using methods that allow recycling of the significance level of a successfully rejected hypothesis within a set or family to other hypotheses in the same set or family or to a hypothesis in the next family. A number of novel statistical test methods have been introduced over the last two decades that are based on such approaches for testing multiple hypotheses in clinical trials. The purpose of this chapter is to review some of these methods.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alosh, M., & Huque, M. F. A. (2009). Flexible strategy for testing subgroups and overall populations. Statistics in Medicine, 28, 3–23.
Alosh, M., & Huque, M. F. (2010). A consistency-adjusted alpha-adaptive strategy for sequential testing. Statistics in Medicine, 29, 1559–1571.
Alosh, M., Bretz, F., & Huque, M. F. (2014). Advanced multiplicity adjustment methods in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 33(4), 693–713.
Bauer, P. (1991). Multiple testing in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 10, 871–890.
Bauer, P., Rohmel, J., Maurer, W., & Hothorn, L. (1998). Testing strategies in multi-dose experiments including active control. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 2133–2146.
Bretz, F., Maurer, W., Brannath, W., & Posh, M. (2009). A graphical approach to sequentially rejective multiple test procedures. Statistics in Medicine, 28, 586–604.
Bretz, F., Maurer, W., & Hommel, G. (2011a). Test and power considerations for multiple endpoint analyses using sequentially rejective graphical procedures. Statistics in Medicine, 30, 1489–1501.
Bretz, F., Posch, M., Glimm, E., Klinglmueller, F., Maurer, W., & Rohmeyer, K. (2011b). Graphical approaches for multiple comparison procedures using weighted Bonferroni Simes or parametric tests. Biometrical Journal, 53(6), 894–913.
Bretz, F., Maurer, W., & Maca, J. (2014). Graphical approaches to multiple testing. In W. Young & D. G. Chen (Eds.), Chapter 14 in: Clinical trial biostatistics and biopharmaceutical applications (pp. 349–394). Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC press.
Burman, C. F., Sonesson, C., & Guilbaud, O. (2009). A recycling framework for the construction of Bonferroni-based multiple tests. Statistics in Medicine, 28, 739–761.
Dmitrienko, A., Offen, W. W., & Westfall, P. H. (2003). Gatekeeping strategies for clinical trials that do not require all primary effects to be significant. Statistics in Medicine, 22, 2387–2400.
Dmitrienko, A., Tamhane, A. C., Wang, X., & Chen, X. (2006). Stepwise gatekeeping procedures in clinical trial applications. Biometrical Journal, 48(6), 984–991.
Dmitrienko, A., & Tamhane, A. C. (2007). Gatekeeping procedures with clinical trial applications. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 6, 171–180.
Dmitrienko, A., Tamhane, A. C., & Wiens, W. (2008). General multi-stage gatekeeping procedures. Biometrical Journal, 50, 667–677.
Dmitrienko, A., D’Agostino, R., & Huque, M. F. (2013). Key multiplicity issues in clinical drug development. Statistics in Medicine, 2013(32), 1079–1111.
Dmitrienko, A., & Tamhane, A. C. (2009). Gatekeeping procedures in clinical trials. In A. Dmitrienko, A. C. Tamhane, & F. Bretz (Eds.), Multiple testing problems in pharmaceutical statistics (Chap. 1). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Biostatistics Series.
Fisher, L. D., & Moyé, L. A. (1999). Carvedilol and the Food and Drug Administration approval process: An introduction. Controlled Clinical Trials, 20, 1–15.
Gabriel, K. R. (1969). Simultaneous test procedures—some theory of multiple comparisons. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 40, 224–520.
Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.
Hochberg, Y. (1988). A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika, 75, 800–802.
Hochberg, E., & Tamhane, A. C. (1987). Multiple Comparison Procedures. New York: Wiley.
Hommel, G., Bretz, F., & Maurer, W. (2007). Powerful short-cuts for multiple testing procedures with special reference to gatekeeping strategies. Statistics in Medicine, 26, 4063–4073.
Hsu, J., & Berger, R. L. (1999). Stepwise confidence intervals without multiplicity adjustment for dose response and toxicity studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94, 468–482.
Hung, H. M. J., & Wang, S. J. (2009). Some controversial multiple testing problems in regulatory applications. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 19, 1–11.
Hung, H. M. J., & Wang, S. J. (2010). Challenges to multiple testing in clinical trials. Biometrical Journal, 52, 747–756.
Huque, M. F., & Alosh, M. (2008). A flexible fixed-sequence testing method for hierarchically ordered correlated multiple endpoints in clinical trials. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 138, 321–335.
Huque, M. F., & Alosh, M. (2012). A consistency-adjusted strategy for accommodating an underpowered primary endpoint. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 22(1), 160–179.
Huque, M. F., Dmitrienko, A., & D’Agostino, R. (2013). Multiplicity issues in clinical trials with multiple objectives. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 5(4), 321–337.
ICH (International Conference on Harmonization). (1998). Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials (E-9). http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/.
Koch, G. G., & Gansky, S. A. (1996). Statistical considerations for multiplicity in confirmatory protocols. Drug Information Journal, 30, 523–534.
Li, J., & Mehrotra, D. V. (2008). An efficient method for accommodating potentially under powered primary endpoints. Statistics in Medicine, 27, 5377–5391.
Li, J. (2013). Testing each hypothesis marginally at alpha while still controlling FWER: How and when. Statistics in Medicine, 32, 1730–1738.
Marcus, R., Peritz, E., & Gabriel, K. R. (1976). On closed testing procedure with special reference to ordered analysis of variance. Biometrika, 63, 655–660.
Maurer, W., Hothorn, L. A., & Lehmacher, W. (1995). Multiple comparisons in drug clinical trials and preclinical assays: a-priori ordered hypotheses. In J. Vollman (Ed.), Biometrie in der chemische-pharmazeutichen Industrie (Vol. 6). Stuttgart: Fischer Verlag.
Maurer, W., Glimm, E., & Bretz, F. (2011). Multiple and repeated testing of primary, co-primary and secondary hypotheses. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 3(3), 336–352.
Maurer, W., & Bretz, F. (2013). Mutiple testing in group Sequential trials using graphical approaches. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 5(4), 311–320.
O’Neill, R. T. (1997). Secondary endpoints cannot be validly analyzed if primary endpoint does not demonstrate clear statistical significance. Controlled Clinical Trials, 18, 550–556.
Rauch, G., Wirths, M., & Keiser, M. (2014). Consistency-adjusted alpha allocation methods for a time-to-event analysis of composite endpoints. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 75, 151–161.
Sankoh, A. J., D’Agostino, R., & Huque, M. F. (2003). Efficacy endpoint selection and multiplicity adjustment methods in clinical trials with inherent multiple endpoint issues. Statistics in Medicine, 22, 3133–3150.
Sankoh, A. J., & Huque, M. F. (1997). Some comments on frequently used multiple endpoint adjustment methods I clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 16, 2529–2542.
Sankoh, A. J., Huque, M. F., Russel, H. K., & D’Agostino, R. (1999). Global two-groupmultiple endpoint adjustment methods in clinical trials. Drug Information Journal, 33, 119–140.
Song, Y., & Chi, G. Y. (2007). A method for testing a prespecified subgroup in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 26, 3535–3549.
Westfall, P. H., & Krishen, A. (2001). Optimally weighted, fixed sequence, and gatekeeping multiple testing procedures. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 99, 25–40.
Wiens, B. L. (2003). A fixed sequence Bonferroni procedure for testing multiple endpoints. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 2, 211–215.
Wiens, B. L., & Dmitrienko, A. (2005). The fallback procedure for evaluating a single family of hypotheses. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 15, 929–942.
Williams, D. A. (1971). A test for differences between treatment means when several dose levels are compared with a zero dose control. Biometrics, 27, 103–117. Correction: 31: 1019.
Xi, D., & Tamhane, A. C. (2015). Allocating significance levels in group sequential procedures for multiple endpoints. Biometrical Journal, 57(1), 90–107.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Dr. Lisa LaVange for supporting this chapter. We are also thankful to Drs. Frank Bretz and Dong Xi for providing detailed comments which helped in improving the readability of the materials presented.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Ethics declarations
This paper reflects the views of the authors and must not be construed to represent FDA ’s views or policies.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Huque, M., Mushti, S., Alosh, M. (2018). Recycling of Significance Levels in Testing Multiple Hypotheses of Confirmatory Clinical Trials. In: Peace, K., Chen, DG., Menon, S. (eds) Biopharmaceutical Applied Statistics Symposium . ICSA Book Series in Statistics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7820-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7820-0_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-7819-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-7820-0
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)